SOPA 2

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

[Orogun01]

Yes the internet has been roaring about it since yesterday. I just say that we skip the preamble and just topple our government, them ****ers have been getting on my nerves lately.

[Namutree]

Obama can still veto it. We need to make it clear the Dems will face hell in 2016 if he doesn't.

[BruceVC]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

Are you worried people will suddenly just get arrested for no reason? What are you worried about ?

Edited December 13, 2014 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

It's an issue of privacy. The government shouldn't be able to monitor communications of citizens without court order(ie probable cause) in a free society.

[Orogun01]

Obama can still veto it. We need to make it clear the Dems will face hell in 2016 if he doesn't.

We should throw a vague threat like "or that thing we know goes public".

 

Seriously though, I'm not hoping for Obama to do the right thing and I'm not going to break my winning streak.

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

It's an issue of privacy. The government shouldn't be able to monitor communications of citizens without court order(ie probable cause) in a free society.

 

 

Okay, I see your concern. You are concerned with your privacy being infringed on. Makes sense, its not the fact you have something to hide or not hide...its more the principle

Edited December 13, 2014 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

On another note....

 

So this bill is really more of an NSA thing, right? The government just trying to make their illegal actions legal?

It has nothing to do with privatizing internet?

 

Just trying to find SOME comfort in this. If it's about an invasion of privacy, honestly not to be cynical but I'm pretty sure they were doing that already and just wanted to legalize it. Attempts to privatize the net though are what scare me.

[LadyCrimson]

"Communications" is rather vague. Are there any limits, or is it just a blanket "everything that can be used to communicate that leaves a trace."

 

...not to say I like the loss of privacy-principle as tech grows and grows, but I'm pretty resigned to it. I do what I can (no smartphone, FF addons, minimize/be careful what I do/reveal blahblah) but, yeah. And the cameras, everywhere the cameras. Tempted to lift my shirt and raise a finger when I approach ATM's. Give them a show in case they ever view the footage, why not.

[Longknife]

"Communications" is rather vague. Are there any limits, or is it just a blanket "everything that can be used to communicate that leaves a trace."

 

...not to say I like the loss of privacy-principle as tech grows and grows, but I'm pretty resigned to it. I do what I can (no smartphone, FF addons, minimize/be careful what I do/reveal blahblah) but, yeah. And the cameras, everywhere the cameras. Tempted to lift my shirt and raise a finger when I approach ATM's. Give them a show in case they ever view the footage, why not.

 

I start all my calls to my American contacts by saying "Obama," "bomb," and "assassination." Then I say "Hi NSA."

[Meshugger]

If Obama doesn't veto this, it means a green light for the rest of the world skip any pretense of caring about that pesky 'privacy' thing as well. These kinds of things are always open to abuse, and we all know how easy it is to combat abuse when government agencies are doing it legally.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

It's an issue of privacy. The government shouldn't be able to monitor communications of citizens without court order(ie probable cause) in a free society.

 

 

It's a bit bigger than that. Under the supreme law of the land they are not able to. It's a blatant and egregious violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

It's not like this is the first one though, sadly far from it. At this point the U.S. Constitution is pretty much ignored by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches on a regular basis. And the mainstream media not only lets just about all of it slide, it even often attempts to marginalize those who would speak out against these violations.

 

Over the course of the 20th century the violations of the U.S. Constitution got worse and worse, but the violations since 2001 and what we're seeing more and more of all these years after are taking it to that level where some really really ugly sh*t is bound to happen, and a lot sooner than many think. We're really on the fast track to hell.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

It's an issue of privacy. The government shouldn't be able to monitor communications of citizens without court order(ie probable cause) in a free society.

 

 

It's a bit bigger than that. Under the supreme law of the land they are not able to. It's a blatant and egregious violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

It's not like this is the first one though, sadly far from it. At this point the U.S. Constitution is pretty much ignored by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches on a regular basis. And the mainstream media not only lets just about all of it slide, it even often attempts to marginalize those who would speak out against these violations.

 

Over the course of the 20th century the violations of the U.S. Constitution got worse and worse, but the violations since 2001 and what we're seeing more and more of all these years after are taking it to that level where some really really ugly sh*t is bound to happen, and a lot sooner than many think. We're really on the fast track to hell.

 

 

Okay when you say the US is on a  road to hell that's very dramatic, especially for an agnostic like me

 

What is the future you are expecting in the next  few years that will befall the USA? I want  real outcomes of what could happen, and obviously we know these will be informed guesses....no one can foretell the future so you won't be held to what you say

Edited December 13, 2014 by BruceVC

[Bartimaeus]

Okay, I see your concern. You are concerned with your privacy being infringed on. Makes sense, its not the fact you have something to hide or not hide...its more the principle

It's more about than just the principle. Do I have anything illegal to hide when I change clothes within my own home, away from the eyes of the government and everyone else? No, but that doesn't mean I don't highly value my right to privacy in doing so for other reasons.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

Okay, I see your concern. You are concerned with your privacy being infringed on. Makes sense, its not the fact you have something to hide or not hide...its more the principle

It's more about than just the principle. Do I have anything illegal to hide when I change clothes within my own home? No, but that doesn't mean I don't highly value my right to privacy in doing so for other reasons.

 

 

This is a very good point but I could possibly counter it by asking you if you really consider  someone observing your nudity in the space of your own home, which is an egregious invasion of a persons privacy IMO, to someone being able to read your emails? Are they really the same thing....for me the obvious difference is that one is a physical invasion of privacy and the other is more electronic invasion of your thoughts and communication ?

[Blarghagh]

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

[Hurlshort]

The biggest problem I see here is that we had a huge amount of negative attention on the NSA awhile back, and the result was this backdoor spying ban which passed in June.  So it's a terrible precedent to set that you just wait until the attention dies down and then reverse things.  Sadly it shows what a bunch of douches we have in congress.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The biggest problem I see here is that we had a huge amount of negative attention on the NSA awhile back, and the result was this backdoor spying ban which passed in June. So it's a terrible precedent to set that you just wait until the attention dies down and then reverse things. Sadly it shows what a bunch of douches we have in congress.

Passed 325-100, so it certainly isn't a partisan issue. Horseshoe theory looks to be true.

Edited December 13, 2014 by KaineParker

[Guard Dog]

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

Are you worried people will suddenly just get arrested for no reason? What are you worried about ?

 

Well, let's see Bruce. In the last 6 years this administration has asked local police to take particular notice of people with pro-life or other religious freedom message bumper stickers. They have marked out veterans, the people who I'd argue love the country the most as likely terrorists, all while refusing benefits to victims of actual terrorism. They have "weaponized" the IRS into their own private thought police by using them to persecute people who participate in unapproved political activity. They asserted it would be ok for the President to order the summary execution of American citizens using drones. They set up a website where citizens could report people who were speaking ill of the affordable care act. They have admitted they are already monitoring every e-mail and phone conversation. Now they want a peek in our private internet use.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong with that huh? Fat chance Obama will veto this. The words freedom and liberty do not exist in that despicable little man's vocabulary. I don't know what kind of country these people want to turn us into but it will look nothing like the one I served and lived my whole life in. The best we can hope for is this trend continues will be benevolent despotism. But I think Americans will wake up one day in the years ahead and realize they are living in Orwell's Oceania.

 

But I won't be here to see it. They will have to kill me .

[Enoch]

I'm going to call this one a tiny bit blown out of proportion.  The provision does certainly appear to be problematic, but the effect is not immediate and my guess is that it's the result of incompetence rather scheming. 

 

The provision they're talking about-- as far as I can tell, it's section 309-- requires the heads of elements of the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.) to adopt "procedures" within 2 years that have been approved by the Attorney General for dealing with "incidentally acquired information."  These procedures "shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or certification issued by a court established under sub-section (a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B)." 

 

(Subparagraph B states that retention can't go beyond 5 years unless any one of a long list of exceptions are satisfied.) 

 

That there is a very convoluted sentence. Having been involved in statutory drafting before, I'd be surprised if this was deliberate.  Multiple editors make for sloppy work, particularly when there isn't much time for serious review.  (This doesn't appear to have been part of the bill that was discussed in Committee-- rather, a result of a later amendment.)  I think that the "that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person" part is in the wrong place, as it doesn't make sense as a qualification on "legal process".  It makes much more sense read as a separate qualification on "intelligence collection activity."  That is, the collection activity must be both not related to a court order and reasonably anticipated to yield information about a US person. 

 

So, under this reading, if an agency is spying on foreigners (which is almost always OK) and it turns up some "covered communications", it has to have a policy to deal with them.  I suspect that this was the limit of what most legislators thought they were doing when adding this provision and voting for it.

 

The problem is "shall permit."  That's mandatory language, which would effectively prevent the folks writing these procedures from putting any restraints on what the intelligence agencies want to do with the information.  Not sure how that got in there.  It's kinda siily if you ask me-- why spend 2 years coming up with procedures at all if they're just going to permit everything?  Something like "shall govern" would make a lot more sense. 

 

Even it its limited context here (i.e., within otherwise authorized collection activities, not authorizing new ones), it's a problem.  To get to where Ansah is, though, you'd read that "shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications" in isolation.  Now, a court would almost never read a statute that way, but that's not an especially reliable check with regard to a law like this, as folks who could have standing to bring the ambiguity to court probably would never know they have a case.  In the hands of an especially villainous Attorney General, it could do some damage.

 

The damage can be controlled, and I don't really know enough about the bill to say whether this merits stopping it at this point (as opposed to subsequent amendment).

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

Are you worried people will suddenly just get arrested for no reason? What are you worried about ?

 

Well, let's see Bruce. In the last 6 years this administration has asked local police to take particular notice of people with pro-life or other religious freedom message bumper stickers. They have marked out veterans, the people who I'd argue love the country the most as likely terrorists, all while refusing benefits to victims of actual terrorism. They have "weaponized" the IRS into their own private thought police by using them to persecute people who participate in unapproved political activity. They asserted it would be ok for the President to order the summary execution of American citizens using drones. They set up a website where citizens could report people who were speaking ill of the affordable care act. They have admitted they are already monitoring every e-mail and phone conversation. Now they want a peek in our private internet use.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong with that huh? Fat chance Obama will veto this. The words freedom and liberty do not exist in that despicable little man's vocabulary. I don't know what kind of country these people want to turn us into but it will look nothing like the one I served and lived my whole life in. The best we can hope for is this trend continues will be benevolent despotism. But I think Americans will wake up one day in the years ahead and realize they are living in Orwell's Oceania.

 

But I won't be here to see it. They will have to kill me .

 

 

But GB wasn't the support for this bill bipartisan? So you have even been betrayed  by your own side....also if Republicans supported it  as well can it really be so bad ?

Edited December 14, 2014 by BruceVC

[Bartimaeus]

This is a very good point but I could possibly counter it by asking you if you really consider  someone observing your nudity in the space of your own home, which is an egregious invasion of a persons privacy IMO, to someone being able to read your emails? Are they really the same thing....for me the obvious difference is that one is a physical invasion of privacy and the other is more electronic invasion of your thoughts and communication ?

Yes. Different, but at very least potentially equal, and possibly worse.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

 

 

 

This is a very good point but I could possibly counter it by asking you if you really consider  someone observing your nudity in the space of your own home, which is an egregious invasion of a persons privacy IMO, to someone being able to read your emails? Are they really the same thing....for me the obvious difference is that one is a physical invasion of privacy and the other is more electronic invasion of your thoughts and communication ?

Yes. Different, but at very least potentially equal, and possibly worse.

 

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

[Volourn]

"But GB wasn't the support for this bill bipartisan? So you have even been betrayed  by your own side....also if Republicans supported it  as well can it really be so bad ?"
 

Yeha, because the Republicans ar eno different than the Democrats. It's about power and control. Not morals.

 

 

 

"So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?"

\

Yes, what I do in my private time and my private spaces is NONE of their damn business. There are exceptions to this which is why things like court orders exist when  invetsigating suspected criminal activity.

 

 But, this bill isn't about safety or protecting the public. It's about , again, power and control. It's about nazism. EVIL.

[Valsuelm]

 

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

 

 

 

This is a very good point but I could possibly counter it by asking you if you really consider  someone observing your nudity in the space of your own home, which is an egregious invasion of a persons privacy IMO, to someone being able to read your emails? Are they really the same thing....for me the obvious difference is that one is a physical invasion of privacy and the other is more electronic invasion of your thoughts and communication ?

Yes. Different, but at very least potentially equal, and possibly worse.

 

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

 

 

Even if you're ignorant of the laws here, the fact that you even thought to ask such a thing should tell you there's something seriously wrong in a nation that is supposed to be free.