While Congress Looks Set To Push Back On NSA Surveillance, Sen. Feinstein Wants To Codify Current Practices
from the of-course-she-does dept
At this point, it's no secret that Senator Dianne Feinstein is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the NSA -- she exhibits the signs of a co-dependent with the NSA. Now, with a powerful coalition in Congress getting set to introduce meaningful reform to limit the NSA's efforts, Feinstein is going in the other direction, preparing a counter-attack bill that serves to codify current practices:"I do not want to leave the United States in a position where we are open to another major attack because we can't ferret out who terrorists might be calling in this country to put it together," Feinstein said in an interview.Of course, since the very beginning of this, Feinstein has been insisting at every opportunity that everything done was perfectly legal. If that's truly the case, why would she need to "codify" current practices? The political reality is that she needs to do this to have "something" to push people to support instead of the USA Freedom Act being supported by Senator Patrick Leahy. Basically, these two bills are likely to be a referendum on who believes in the 4th Amendment, and who thinks the US should cower in fear and spy on everyone.
Her committee is drafting legislation to codify the phone records program, the existence of which was leaked in June by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The legislation would grant the agency explicit authority to gather records listing the numbers, duration and time of all U.S. telephone calls, but not their content.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dianne feinstein, nsa, nsa surveillance, pat leahy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm...
Cuz, if it needs either, I doubt it'll pass in the House or the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accepting its illegal is a step forward
I think she might be finally divorcing the cheating husband of hers. At least in her mind she's accepting the illegal nature of the NSA's surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accepting its illegal is a step forward
In cases such as this the 'thought' process is likely something along these lines:
A) Action X is illegal, and therefor wrong.
B) Retroactively legalizing X, at some point in the future, will likewise retroactively make X not wrong, meaning that just because it's illegal now, doesn't mean you have to consider it as such.
So just because she may appear to be admitting that the NSA's actions are currently illegal, does in no way mean that she thinks that they are wrong, as evidenced by her attempt to make them legal after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the latest news, Dianne Feinstein loses her election by the largest voting turnout in California's history.
But cry not for the former Senator. She's now earning seven figures as her new role of the yet-to-be-determined title at the National Security Agency.
Calling it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the latest news, Dianne Feinstein loses her election by the largest voting turnout in California's history.
She's not up for election for many years, and most doubt she'll run again. But if she did... she'd probably win. Electorate inertia is powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The woman is a dinosaur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me that she tends to vote for whatever will make her husband the most money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Blum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silver lining
I say they should keep this fakakta shit up. They are beating themselves up, and that is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this might actually make sense...
2) She probably even wanted to tout the programs publicly...
3) In it's 'wisdom' the NSA put a stop to that (both to prevent opposition and keep Feinstein elected).
4) Now that it's out she wants her name of the cover of this
Man... she really is delusional (as if SOPA/PIPA didn't tell us that). When do we have a mandatory retirement age for congress "people"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this might actually make sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this might actually make sense...
Disband the oligarchy and distribute ownership of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does it not also show that a what she keeps spouting as being legal atm is bullshit and also that what she wants to do is forgo what the people want? as it is us who are on the receiving end of what people like her want to do, except when it is her that is on the wrong end of it, we should have a bigger say than anyone. if we dont want spying, there shouldn't be any. if we want to keep privacy and freedom, we should keep it. if we want to risk terrorist attacks, we should risk them. she forgets that in 99% of situations, her and her like wouldn't be on the receiving end of any bullets or bombs anyway! i'm sure she would soon push someone out of the way if there was just one safe place left!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She shore lives in a world different than I do. Funny how the Boston bombing took place with all this ferreting going on. How much clue does it take to look extra special hard when the Russians clue you in ahead of time?
The elite are upset that their precious is being threatened. In the case of Sen. Feinstein, diminishing the role of the NSA would diminish her power as a sitting chair at the Intelligence Committee.
The real reason for all this, is that the NSA exceeded and went beyond their allowable permissions. It is now in jeopardy of having that scope removed from their allowable conditions. They see their power running through their fingers like sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way I understand it, she's been insisting that it's legal under a (by her standards) reasonable interpretation of existing law - but what she's trying to do by codifying it is make it explicitly legal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.
It's the same thing as Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing. He says it's illegal under existing law (which he wrote in the first place), but people have interpreted existing law to say it's legal - so he's trying to make it explicitly illegal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]