LibriumArcana.Games

eff.org wrote:There’s a fight brewing in Washington around NSA surveillance, and pro-privacy Representatives from both parties are taking the battle to the budget. The House is gearing up for a vote on the Defense Appropriations Bill (basically, the budget for the Department of Defense) and a bipartisan coalition of Representatives will be introducing a novel amendment that attempts to strike at funding for one type of particularly egregious surveillance power of the NSA.

EFF thinks this amendment is an important step in curbing the NSA's domestic surveillance and urges concerned citizens to call immediately to voice your support. You can call your Representative (look up your Representative by zip code here, or find the phone number here) or you can use the easy call-in tool at Defund the NSA, which lets you look up your Representative by zip code and gives you a sample script for the call.

Reps. Justin Amash, John Conyers, Jr., Thomas Massie, Mick Mulvaney, and Jared Polis are proposing an amendment that would curtail funding for the implementation of orders under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act unless the order is expliticly limited in scope.

The new limitation reads (emphasis added):

This Order limits the collection of any tangible things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).

The current legal standard under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is that records obtained through this authority must be “relevant” to an “authorized investigation,” and for years the government has used a secret legal interpretation of this law to collect records in bulk on millions of Americans that are not subject to a particular investigation at all. This is the legal authority cited in the recently-revealed Verizon court order, in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court directed Verizon to provide “on an ongoing daily basis” all call records for any call “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and any call made “between the United States and abroad.”

Tomorrow’s vote brings together a broad coalition of Representatives who believe that this type of bulk collection of Americans’ communications records is contrary to the Fourth Amendment and must be stopped. Passage of the Amash amendment would send a clear message to the NSA and other intelligence agencies that the heyday of unchecked dragnet surveillance is coming to at an end.

Even as the Amash/Conyers Amendment is gaining momentum, some are rallying around a decoy amendment that would do nothing to rein in domestic surveillance. That amendment, championed by Rep. Nugent (R-FL), would not alter in any way the government's use of Section 215 to obtain bulk communications records on millions of Americans. EFF is urging Representatives to oppose the Nugent Amendment.

Activists are already mobilizing support for the Amash amendment. Overnight, they’ve created a website—http://defundthensa.com—that calls on Representatives to support the Amash amendment. Because there are less than 24 hours before the vote, there is no time to send emails. If you want your Representative to support this amendment, you must call (or tweet) rather than email. Defund the NSA provides phone numbers as well a simple suggested script. See their privacy policy.

While this amendment, alone, doesn't rein in the NSA's domestic spying program, it's an important step. EFF thinks this is a pivotal moment in the fight against unconstitutional surveillance, and we’re asking our friends and members to call their members of Congress today.

arstechnica.com wrote:WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency (NSA) needs no new court rulings or eavesdropping tools to see how angry Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is about its conduct and oversight.

In a 45-minute speech at the Center for American Progress, the senator denounced the combination of an "always expanding, omnipresent surveillance state" and a covert corpus of law that hardly restraints it.

"That's not the way we do it in America!" he said, his voice rising. "We don't keep laws secret!"

"You simply cannot have an informed debate," he continued. "And when the American people are in the dark, they cannot make fully informed decisions about who should represent them."

Most tellingly, Wyden repeatedly invoked the possibility of the NSA doing location-tracking. In its first report on the leaks, The Guardian said that the location data is part of what the NSA gets in its dragnet collection of telephone data; but the secret Verizon court order it published didn't specifically mention location data.

"Most of us here have a computer in our pocket that can potentially be used to track and monitor us 24/7," Wyden remarked early on, before vaguely warning of the prospect of "a surveillance state that cannot be reversed." Later he added: "Without additional protections in the law, every single one of us... may be and can be tracked and monitored anywhere we are at any time." And again: "Today, government officials openly tell the press that they have the authority to effectively turn America's cell phones and smartphones into location-enabled homing beacons."

The Oregonian senator blamed this on Congress's lenient post-9/11 lawmaking (in which he has lately been a vocal dissenting minority) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's subsequent sweeping expansion of the NSA's reach.

"I know of no other court in America that strays so far from the adversarial process," Wyden said. Of 1,789 electronic-surveillance requests submitted in 2012, the court denied none and modified 40, while the government withdrew one.

And no other court in America keeps its own opinions so secret. Wyden said the Obama administration had assured him in writing in 2009 "that a process would begin to be created to start redacting and declassifying FISA Court opinions."

But nothing changed: "In the last four years, exactly zero opinions have been released."

What's the NSA doing with its inflated authority? Wyden probably knows, courtesy of his seat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but he cannot say.

He can, however, repeatedly evoke a disturbing possibility of the Patriot Act's Section 215 authority to collect business records gathered by third parties with which citizens interact: building a database of people's locations as recorded by their phones.

Wyden has been one of a few members of Congress with a long-lasting concern about overbroad surveillance. When he asked the administration about location tracking almost two years ago, he didn't get a satisfying answer. "I want to deliver a warning this afternoon," Wyden said during a 2011 debate. "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry."

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden's leaks, however, left Wyden at liberty to discuss and dismiss the utility of the NSA's phone-metadata collection while allowing that its PRISM surveillance of probably-foreign-linked Internet traffic delivered real value. "I haven't seen any indication that the bulk phone records yielded any unique intelligence that wasn't also available to the government through less intrusive means."

The senior senator from Oregon expressed cautious optimism for reform, citing a recent swing in public opinion and hitherto-hidden reversals such as his 2011 push with Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) to end an NSA e-mail-metadata harvesting program.

Wyden said he's working to get FISA court opinions "declassified in a responsible manner" and bring "an adversarial process" to that body. He didn't mention another questionable aspect of it—the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's unchecked power to pick its judges.

Wyden closed by invoking the warning of James Madison from Federalist No. 47 ("The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands […] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny"). He asked, "By allowing the executive to secretly follow a secret interpretation of the law under the supervision of a secret, non-adversarial court and occasional secret Congressional hearings, how close are we to James Madison's definition of tyranny?"