[fourply]

It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch-dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.

[Someone1234]

And let's assume for a second that they did introduce actual reform. All that would happen is that they would go back to pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Let me explain how that worked...

So pre-9/11 the NSA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans (in most cases), so instead they paid the UK's GCHQ to spy on Americans for them and then relayed the intelligence to the NSA for analysis. This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole. There are no limits on cooperation with other intelligence agencies. When 9/11 happened the NSA got effectively a blank cheque and asked to increase intelligence gathering significantly, so instead of continuing the GCHQ misdirection they simply expanded spying within the US and then legalised it (via executive order at the time, law later).

So the NSA was spying on Americans in the 1990s, they just had to do more legal maneuvering to do it. It just got significantly worse in the 2000s and they dropped even pretending that they weren't. Even if a stronger law outlawed spying on Americans, you'd just see them go back to the GCHQ way.

PS - A lot of Americans seem to want the NSA spying on "foreigners" without realising that that effectively opens the door to the NSA spying on Americans. That way a call between a US citizen and anyone from abroad can be listened in on.

PPS - Don't even get me started on the NSA's spying on behalf of US corporations, that's a whole other can of worms.

[fixermark]

Cooperation between GCHQ and the NSA certainly didn't end post-9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04...

[munin]

> This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone else to do something that they cannot do

[themeek]

But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal.

It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for it to reach the American public.

[munin]

what? "if they change the law so that it would be legal then it would be legal" is I think how laws work?

oh you mean if material spontaneously appeared? yeah... good luck explaining that one

[themeek]

I'm confused by your response. I do not understand the point you are trying to communicate.

[munin]

the law doesn't work the way you think it works

[higherpurpose]

That's why such reforms need to be accompanied by appropriate reductions in NSA's budget. If the NSA required $5 billion a year to sustain the bulk collection of phone metadata of most Americans, then its budget should be cut by $5 billion, if it's now supposedly "ended".

If the budget remains the same or even increases the following year, then clearly something is not right there and the NSA will just use that money to "keep" the program in some other place and through some other methods.

Unfortunately, since the "Defund the NSA" bill that almost passed the House after the first Snowden revelations, I haven't seen any discussion about doing that. The civil liberties organizations should've pushed for a similar law within 3 months afterwards and ensure it passes then.

[joesmo]

So just because we can't have zero spying, we should accept incredible levels of intrusion rather thank working to put more roadblocks in NSA's way?

That's not a rational argument.

[herbig]

The quote you're referring to is "The new legislation, while it is commendable as far as it goes, contains some obvious shortcomings."

[rosser]

But the full quote would mitigate the raging hate-on the grandparent is sporting.

Yes, the USA Freedom Act is limited. Yes, it doesn't change all the things we'd all like to see changed. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." It's at least movement in the right direction. Let's try celebrating that, instead of (or at least along with) bitching that it's not movement far enough.

[shit_parade2]

And bad is brother of worse.

Slogans are easy, what's hard is recognizing the difference between political theater and meaningful change.

America is tumbling into the abyss of tyranny and people celebrate.

[rosser]

I'm not saying "Yay tyranny!" and to characterize my position thusly is, frankly, shitty discourse.

I'm saying, "Ooh, look: teeny, tiny step back from the level of tyranny we had yesterday. Nice!" I would hope anyone who hates tyranny would see merit in that.

Now, yes, if that's all we get, then being pissed and — more importantly, doing something about it — is warranted. But I choose to look at this as a first step, while you and others appear to regard it as appeasement and a pat on the head.

Not much I can do for you there.

[shit_parade2]

When you celebrate political theater that reaffirms the status quo with some window dressing you are essentially saying "yay, tyranny".

Dismissing criticism with a flippant "perfect is the enemy of the good" is lazy and thoughtless.

The government has shown no interest in curtailing the vast surveillance apparatus it has built, nor does it show interest in investigating its own abuses of such power.

When people praise such drivel as the freedom act it only sets us all back on the road to tyranny. So yeah, your perspective is detrimental to improving the dire circumstances we find ourselves.

[rosser]

If all I'd said was the quip you quoted, your position might have merit. Instead, you're selectively quoting my rather measured comment and calling me "lazy and thoughtless".

Thanks.

EDIT: You know what I think has people the most pissed off in all of this? That their illusions about America having been a particularly "free" country in the first place are being shattered.

I'm reminded of nothing quite so much as the virulence I've seen in former, incredibly ardent Obama supporters, when they realized how much of a tool he actually was.

Those of us who knew he was a tool from the beginning? Not so pissed when his true colors came out.

(And, no, I'm not a Republican, nor a Libertarian. I just realized a long time ago how corrupt the American political process is, and engage with it with that principle in mind.)

[fourply]

It's unconstitutional. Of course I have a raging hate-on - I believe in the rule of law.

[rayiner]

Phone metadata collection is Constitutional under Smith v. Maryland.

[ipsin]

The USA Today headline was "NSA Data Collection Ended". I don't even know what to do with something so far from the truth.

[yodsanklai]

I've just heard similar reports on French radio. For some reasons, they forgot to mention that nothing has changed concerning the surveillance of non-US citizens.

This leads to a question: in the movie Citizenfour, Snowden explains that the NSA uses british surveillance system when they need information that they can't legally obtain in the US. I'm wondering, under this new "freedom act", can the NSA legally query the british system to access information about US citizen?

[themartorana]

In the end, they probably couldn't have asked for a better outcome. Collection continues, warrants are still unnecessary if you go about it the right way.