Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance
nytimes.com...who is rallying an increasingly unified Democratic caucus to his side, as well as 61 House Democrats who voted no on Wednesday but are now publicly signaling their discontent.
That's HUGE. Does anyone have any more details on this?
The tone of the whole article seems to indicate that change is inevitable. We need to stay vigilant and make sure the changes aren't just window-dressing.
I'm surprised people find this hard to believe. It's less than 2 years after the defeat of SOPA, a bill that enjoyed incredible, nearly unprecedented bipartisan support and in the end, after the blackout, faced massive, unprecedented bipartisan opposition and retreat.
Politicians may be slow, but they'll respond to momentum.
Respectfully, I don't believe the momentum angle; I believe in the tipping point premise whereas Snowden became the human face for this continuing failure of the republic.
It's my belief that skilled politicians equate the Edward Snowden revelations and the fears he has of losing his life to that of the "rape of Lucretia" in Ancient Rome. (The rape and suicide of Lucretia toppled the monarchy in Rome and brought in the Republic.)
60-minutes, Wired Magazine, the New York Times have been talking about Patriot Act abuses and even the signing of the NDAA which gave Obama the right to imprison anyone without a lawyer or the right to trial. It also gave him the right to drone-kill anyone if so desired.
All of this has gone over the public's head because a real life example wasn't involved - BUT - when Edward Snowden, a real person said, "I may be killed for telling you all of this" and then abandoned a sweet paycheck because he couldn't live with myself if he didn't that got people's attention much like the aforementioned rape and suicide of Lucretia in ancient Rome.
Just a thought.
I've been watching the NSA story closely for years and I disagree. Snowden provided documentation. Until now all the whistle-blowers who were telling the same stories were easily dismissed because they couldn't provide solid evidence. And the administration was able to confuse and mislead Congress by assuring them that they were not doing anything more than a Grand Jury could do during an investigation. The members of Congress who knew better were either complicit or they were silenced by the rules covering classified briefings (a weak excuse in my opinion.)
Granted, Snowden is an important part of the story, and he will be remembered very favorably by history. But for people who are predisposed to buying the administration's fear mongering, he has been easily dismissed and used as a distraction in the short term.
I think Snowden's utility (in terms of historical significance) is in being relatively hydrophobic to the mud that's been slung at him. The only thing that's stuck (from what little I've seen of broadcast/print news reflected off the people I know who consume it) is his failure in formalized education.
He's a good looking heteronormative guy with no criminal record nor obvious sexual improprieties. He had nothing to gain from making the disclosure and apparently quite a bit to lose.
The House Judiciary Committee was also lied to and they don't seem happy about that either. Most politicians also understand the potential for abuse inherent in these programs. That helps too.
It is hard to say if we'll see meaningful reform come from this, but it is encouraging see the reaction so far. The hearings in the House this week are going to make for very interesting TV too.
The executive branch/defense establishment blatantly lying to Congress without repercussion would amount to a coup of sorts in the precedent it sets.
I think most representatives could give two shits about the American people and their privacy, but threaten their turf and their power and it's game on.
And while this "momentum" builds, Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) engages in further character assassination of Snowden: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07...
Many a Bay Area native is offended that Feinstein is one of our senators. The sanctimonious blow hard is only out for one cause -- herself. Just google conceal carry and feinstein. Not to mention, many hated her as mayor of SF.
I look forward to the day she is no longer "serving" the people of California.
Put your money where your mouth is. Support a primary challenge against her. If the challenge gets any real momentum at all, she will be forced to recant and change her tone. Consider that the Tea Party actually beat several decades-long Republicans in primary challenges and that our privacy is a nearly universal concern among voters.
I've been voting against her every chance I have because of her 2a views.
> Asked whether Snowden has shared the information, Feinstein said: “We don’t know.”
Set aside whether you are with or against what Snowden did, this what Feinstein said is exactly the reason why those systems should not exist in the first place. Imagine someone hacking into NSA (if you say its impossible then I have 640 kilobytes memory for you that will least you a lifetime) and downloading all the phonecalls and emails and those in the office right now. Disaster.
The existence of this data IS the biggest terrorist threat to this country, or many other countries in that matter. Unfortunately such a disgusting heretic blob as Feinstein herself will never understand it.
Any leadership on the Intelligence Committee will back these programs to the bitter end---they set it up, it's their judgement under scrutiny, and they have the most to lose politically and historically.
Feinstein was one of the supporters of the "Clipper" chip in the 1990s, a play to have all crypto keys in government hands.
It's not surprising. I'm amazed that anyone in Silicon Valley is willing to vote for her.
There's really no danger for the NSA. If a law is passed prohibiting mass surveillance, they'll just secretly reinterpret the law to say that it allows mass surveillance.
This is very true and the reason that outrage and reform efforts need to focus as intensely on the idea of secret courts and secret law (especially secret law) as on the surveillance itself.
Say what you want about the "balance of security and civil liberties". Secret law and democracy are plainly 100% incompatible and a third grader can understand why. Secret law all but guarantees an eventual transition to outright totalitarian fascism.
"The sudden reconsideration of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policy has taken much of Washington by surprise"
It shouldn't have. But this is how these things happen. People don't act immediately on them, even if they think differently. They just build and build up frustration inside of them, while the politicians keep stepping on them more and more, growing ever more brave in doing that because they see no one protests against their actions - until one the people day blow up and the move seems "sudden".
Politicians should consider themselves lucky this is not a violent revolution meant to overthrow the government, and they should fix the problem as soon as they can.
If there is one thing I would most like to see changed it is this secrecy required of companies compliant in this surveillance.
I'd also like to see an end to secret interpretations of laws by the executive branch, secretly approved by the FISA court. If a law is passed by Congress, its meaning should be clear, and known to the public.
And I'd also like to see the PATRIOT Act seriously scrutinized from the point of view of civil liberties.
I found it interesting that even the author of the Patriot Act (probably not a huge friend of civil liberties) thinks the NSA is overstepping and said [how they interpret the provision for collecting phone metadata] "got to be changed … otherwise in a year or year and a half you're not going to have it any more" http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-i...
It's the case, historically, that civil liberties restrict during time of war and expand again in peacetime. Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, Espionage Act of 1917, Japanese American internment camps during WWII, Smith Act, Subversive Activities Control Act, McCarthyism, etc.
Recent re-expansion has included the New York Times' successful defense of the publication of The Pentagon Papers. I think we're seeing another example of this here. 9/11-like attacks have not reoccured, and the public pendulum is shifting back.
If no more significant terrorist attacks occur, eventually I predict that significant portions of the Patriot Act will not be renewed. This is somewhat like firing your gardner as unnecessary because you don't see any weeds in your garden, but, even so, I suspect the Patriot Act is overkill.
The difference is that now our war is not against a regime or distinct nation of people, so how can we ever say that we have "won"? There will _always_ be people that hate our country, and will be labeled as terrorists. Our government can maintain on this pretext that we are in a state of emergency, conceivably indefinitely.
I feel so cynical, and dearly hope that I will be proven wrong.
The thing about wars on abstract nouns is that it's impossible to negotiate peace with an abstract noun.
If no more significant terrorist attacks occur, rainbow colored ponies will fly through the air to bring happiness to all the little children.
You can conclude whatever you want from a false hypothesis. The truth is that eventually some terrorist will find a way through all the security systems we set up.
Here is what I want and perhaps someone can code it, since I don't have enough time on my hands right now.
I want a website where I can read about all politicians against PRISM/ deep surveillance systems, and all those scumbags who voted this thing in, and continue to go with it.
Then when it comes around next election, I want to go to this website, connect my mailbox with it just like Facebook or LinkedIn ask me to, and send email to EVERY CONTACT from my mailbox as of WHY they should not vote on those people with link to a nice page with description on each and every one of those scumbags.
Go!
Indian has its own set of cyber security is it somewhat the problem similar to NSA and should Indians protest against it http://www.techcrump.com/indian-national-cyber-security-poli...
We absolutely must be relentless with our complaints to our elected representatives, as is our right, lest we lose them all.
The real issue isn't just the NSA but having a secret court than makes secret laws we can't even be told about: this is what is fundamentally inconsistent with a democracy (or republic).
Okay, does anyone have a Chrome plugin to bypass the NYT paywall? It's annoying to have to open a Incognito window every damn time.
I use 'ghost incognito' https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghost-incognito/ge...