Skip to main content

View Diary: White House blasts amendment curtailing the NSA's power (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do you know this about foreign applications? (3+ / 0-)
    t. It does not restrict the agency's ability to collect foreign intelligence, but requires a court order for any collection of records of Americans, and requires that the collection be directly related to an existing investigation.
    I was looking through the news releases last night and I found nothing to back up this interpretation. Nothing to disprove it either and that's the problem. I worry that is what people are reading into it.

    These same articles mentioned a competing amendment (the Nugent version) which was specifically described as preventing the mass data collection with respect to American citizens. Since that was the only overt difference mentioned, that leaves me wondering if the Amash version would actually shut down foreign operations as well as the domestic use.

    Wll, off to look at some links.

    •  Actually, the Nugent version is a red herring (30+ / 0-)

      and it is specifically designed to NOT change any of the current practices. The Amash/Conyers Amendement leaves the foreign data collection practices unchanged, but strips funding from Section 215 to use for the collection of US persons data. You can read the Amendement yourself, right here.

      If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

      by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 08:52:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm going to try embedding the document below (6+ / 0-)

        If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

        by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 08:59:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Damn, guess you have to be authorized (5+ / 0-)

          To embed documents in the page. Only DKos staff are allowed to do so, evidently. Something about to many possibly exploits if it were enabled for all users..

          No matter though, the link in my first comment will take you right to it. Here it is again, just for convenience.

          If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

          by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Link is OK (6+ / 0-)

          No need to embed. But thanks for the link to the full bill. The one in the diary goes to a summary page.

          I'll skim the full bill but I think I spotted what I was after. Detailed here.

          •  Cool. It's a quick read. n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund, elwior, Cliss

            If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

            by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:25:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is the EFF's synopsis of the amendment (14+ / 0-)

            And also of the decoy amendment (with a link to that too) if you're interested. I personally agree with the EFF's opinion that this effort still doesn't do anywhere near enough to curtail mass-collection of domestic communications and data, but it's a place to start the discussion...

            If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

            by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:30:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks but that doesn't explain the reasoning (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              That article says the Nugent bill does not alter current practices but it doesn't do anything to explain why that is so. i'm still a this point wrt Nugent.

              •  I posted this link down the thread (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund, aliasalias

                But you might find this analysis helpful for illuminating the subtle, yet critical, differences between the Amash/Conyers amendment and the Nugent amendment.

                If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

                by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, that doesn't do it (2+ / 0-)

                  I'd actually already read that but that does not lessen my appreciation for your help.

                  That article focuses on paragraph one of Nugent. It talks about section 702. But Nugent does niot stop there. It does include language modifying section 215. As I said somewhere in tihs comments section, it seems to me Nugent prevents the NSA from storing the actual phone calls themselves, however, it might allow the NSA to store the to/from/when data.

                  Which every telco has done for decades, so in practical terms banning the gov't from compiling a redundant DB does not prevent the gov't from later going to a telco DB for the same to/from/when information.

                  I may well be missing some thing (almost certain in fact) but so far so too do the explanations I have been offered.

                  •  Well, I appreciate your feedback (5+ / 0-)

                    and I realize you're feeling out what makes the most sense to you. That's all we can do, right?

                    Anyway, I'm obviously in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment, and I've come to share the same conclusion about the Nugent amendment as the Techdirt poster. The curious conflation of sections 215 and 702 in the Nugent amendment is actually pretty reflective of the ways both Gen. Alexander and DNI Clapper have been referring to these programs (often in the singular, as a program) and that alone spells trouble, in my opinion.

                    I wish you much luck in sussing out your own conclusion as well. Maybe even with enough time to call your Representative and suggest they vot one way or the other.

                    Gotta run now...the debate has begun.

                    If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

                    by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:49:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks to you too for a productive convo (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PhilJD, Medium Head Boy

                      The section on 702 might be redundant or it might actually stiffen 702's intent. But there is no escaping the fact Nugent does also talk about 512. I get suispicious when asked to believe words I can read for myself do not exist. (Not you, the link.)

                      Anyway, right now I think I could support either amendment.

                      I can ask (yes that) Paul Ryan to vote for either, but I am not sure he is listeing. ;)

                      •  Thanks folks, for the illuminating back and (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund, maryabein

                        Forth.  I'd like to submit that another very real purpose of this bill is to force all Reps to vote yea or nay publiclly on whether the house should continue to appropriate funds for the NSA to continue blowing the 4th amendment to smithereens.  Since the amendment clearly has no chance of making it through conference committee (because if it did it would be vetoed by the president), it seems like an election year ploy to get material for a lot of tv commercials- "Did you know that YOUR Congressional Representative, Mr. Lilylivered, tried to dismantle our Nationa Security AntiTerrorism program???!!1!".  Or conversely, "Did you know that your congressman, Mr. McSnoopypants, wants the government to know if you're wearing clean underwear today??!1!!!"
                        Practically writes itself.

                        •  Sure, that's good politics (0+ / 0-)

                          The GOP record is starting to catch up to them. So why not keep that up?

                          I don't know that a veto would happen tough. I doubt it very much. The idea of attaching this to the DoD spending bill is that bill is very hard for a POTUS to veto. Speaking of politics, can you picture "Obama vetoed the US Military!"

      •  Well I found a 3rd party essay on Nugent (5+ / 0-)

        It includes (I think) the complete bill.

        None of funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Security Agency to—

        (1) conduct an acquisition pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the purpose of targeting a United States person; or

        (2) acquire, monitor, or store the contents (as such term is defined in section 2510(8) of title 18, United States Code) of any electronic communication of a United States person from a provider of electronic communication services to the public pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

        But I do not see how this conclusion is reached:
        it is specifically designed to NOT change any of the current practices.
        It explicitly forbids the collection and storage of telephone call / email contents which is an ongoing practice or so I have been led to understand.

        Now it might be true the Nugent bill does not stop the collection of "from whom / to whom" metadata about phone calls. That omission even my layman eye picked up. But it seems wrong to conclude the Nugent version does not change anything at all.

        Well, now I know a bit more and my eyes are even more blurred. Thanks for the leads.

    •  Back a bit blurry-eyed (3+ / 0-)

      The Amash Amendment (a summary per Rep Amash)

      Patriot Act sec 215 (target of the Amash amendment)

      I cannot pretend to have understood it all but I am fairly certain I've figured out one aspect. The Amash version intends prohibit the metadata collection for all domestic calls and all foreign calls in which one of the two users is American/in the USA. What would be unaffected are purely foreign calls, one where neither user is in the USA.

      Specific individuals named by the FISA court cound still be monitored, but no more mass collection for any call with one or both users in the USA.

      I say "intends" because the Amash fact sheet does not include the amendment's exact wording, and because I am nowhere near qualified enough to sort through all that legalese.

      But that's besides the point. We can accept intent for purposes of our discussion. And now I know the Amash amandment would not completely shut down the program as I wondered it might. But OTOH it does affect some foreign aspects of the program.

      Now to figure out the Hugent version.

      •  Not that us foreingers are thoroughly relieved ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... about being mass-spied on still, with the prospect of our respective secret services exchanging (almost) everything they learned about their buddy countries citizens, so that every service profits and still has every data on everyone.

        "This isn't America" - Zenkai Girl

        by mythatsme on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:29:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site