Senator Leahy: If President Obama Is Serious About Ending Bulk Collection, He Can Just End It This Friday
from the easy-peasy dept
As expected, President Obama outlined basic plans for ending bulk collection of phone records. While the actual details of the plan still haven't been revealed, apparently, the administration has some "enabling legislation" ready to go, which it hopes Congress will pass "quickly." In response to this, Senator Patrick Leahy pointed out that while he's very supportive of the move to end bulk collection of phone records, there's a much easier way to accomplish that. The authority to do so technically runs out on Friday of this week, so if the President wants to end the program, he can just not seek to renew the authority:I look forward to having meaningful consultation with the administration on these matters and reviewing its proposal to evaluate whether it sufficiently protects Americans’ privacy. In the meantime, the President could end bulk collection once and for all on Friday by not seeking reauthorization of this program. Rather than postponing action any longer, I hope he chooses this path.Anyone setting odds on the likelihood of this actually happening?
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: authority, barack obama, bulk collection, nsa, patrick leahy, phone records, section 215, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoping for change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an 80's movie ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At any rate, it doesn't matter what Obama does. While the November elections are not set in stone as to who will win, Democrats are not going to prevail in November because of everything that has happened since Snowden revealed the hypocracy of the Obama Administration.
The NSA spying has caused irreparable harm to Democrats. But, if this had happened under under the Republican's watch, then it would be the Republicans paying the price.
It's just ironic that Democrats, who have long fought for constitutional rights and lessening government intrusion into our lives IS the very same party who has been raping our constitutional rights when it comes to privacy.
I suppose the motto of the Obama Administration is "do as we say and NOT as we do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here we have pretty clear reasons to try to impeach the guy and what do republicans do? Stick their thumbs firmly up their asses.
Republicans, democrats, blacks, whites, it doesn't matter one iota. The government is a corrupt self serving shit show. Probably has been since day 1, we can just diagnose the disease easier now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is extra silly, considering that Obamacare is emphatically not nationalized health care. That exact fact is one of the main reasons I oppose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: mr. sim on Mar 25th, 2014 @ 12:07pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the infrastructure to collect the data is dismantled, they will continue to collect, damn the laws.
you can't just ban them from doing so, you have to attack their ability to do so, otherwise nothing is won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumably congress could refuse to renew the authority, but I suspect the will is not there in the president or congress. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would even claim the spy agencies have enough blackmail material to protect the program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For example, from an earlier article:
�I salute Sen. Feinstein,� Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. �I�ll tell you, you take on the intelligence community, you�re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.�
Pelosi added that she has always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: �You don�t fight it without a price because they come after you and they don�t always tell the truth."
Source:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140317/07441526589/nancy-pelosi-admits-that-congress-is-sc ared-cia.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not renew the authority?
If JFK had not foolishly made it harder for the CIA to protect everybody, he might still be alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the Reagan era our nations government has turned into a corporation treating it's citizens like the lowest paid workers, so think to yourself ,what would walmart do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The chance of either house doing anything other than hiding it better is 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Walmart has a rollback campaign, so that can't right.
Maybe you meant Target, because that's what we are AND they recently also had security breaches (their precious data went walkies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But walmart employees are not happy campers.but we can say walmart/target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair
Federal, and state jobs are parasitic on private companies, as the create no wealth and only consume tax. Some are valuable to a society, and some are a pure drain on society...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair
FIFY. Remember, much of the surveillance work was lobbied for by private companies via people like Feinstein and is run on their equipment.
*Military-industrial-surveillance complex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be fair
Sadly America's economy right now hinges completely on consumption and parasitism as opposed to actual useful labor. The goal of the US government in helping the economy right now is to make as many people as capable of consuming as many resources as possible.
Sadly by US gov logic BS parasitic jobs are not just necessary, but ideal. Consumption without production, without services provided, and with years of training tied up in it? job source gold!
And that is why the US government, and other governments with similar ideologies, are starting surveillance states. Orwell was wrong. We don't spy on our people to control them. We wound up doing it just so we had idle makework that was more advanced than digging ditches and refilling them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Obama claimed to have wanted to run the most transparent administration in history. His deeds in that are precisely 180� from those claims with a recent news article claiming this administration was the most secretive he'd ever encountered. Now what would cause that?
President Obama has used the 1917 Espionage Law to prosecute more whistle blowers than all the rest of the presidents of history totaled together. Now what would cause that?
President Obama will not end the spying on his own. His reaction to the NSA investigation committee tells you he won't. His changes he proposed were next to nothing in actual preventive and stopping such data gathering practices. The fact that he wants legislation from congress tells me one thing. He wants a bill proposed that some other congress critter and slip in changes that make it all legal or change the intention of some of that bill. Otherwise he could as do as Senator Leahy suggests and just not seek renewal.
You can bet the renewal will happen. There are too many co-incidences that leave you with the suspicion that Obama has something to hide he's worried about becoming public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
odds
Unless the gesture is somehow meaningless by some other secret standard or double speak loophole.
They probably need time to write the "don't rape the constitution act", which will remove it's pants and lube it up, while also coining a new class of 'enhanced legal probing techniques' and redefining rape as anything that disturbs the powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Anyone setting odds on the likelihood of this actually happening?"
Can't have 1984 mass surveillance without 1984 doublethink, now can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not get serious here
Zero to zilch.
Standard phrase:
"But the terrorists! They'll win unless we don't continue it!"
Yeah, like the entire US is made up of one particular section of society.
We're the enemy, don't you know?
We're protecting ourselves from ourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, Senator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No kidding? Fake independent Leahy can beat him and defund criminal NSA activity on Thursday. And hold Clapper in contempt of Congress (federal crime) on Wednesday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There Is No Law Authorizing Breaking The Fourth Amendment
Stop breaking the Fourth Amendment President Obama and Congress.
But no, we have to be LIED to, over and over from various perspectives as if all of the mass surveillance of US citizens on US soil was ever legal. No it wasn't. Not ever. There is no law authorizing it, not a single one. Deceit rules and apparently we're too stupid to recognize that everything coming out of the politician's mouths is either ignorant and deliberately wrong.
The simple cure: Read the US Constitution and follow it. The politicians have all sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution. So do your job and cut the corruption. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution could not be more simple and obvious:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There are no excuses for breaking the Fourth Amendment, ever. How about we impeach all the treasonous liars? That's the American thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There Is No Law Authorizing Breaking The Fourth Amendment
It would mean Snowden has won, and we can't have that. And where are you going to find replacements for all those high-ranking officials? The White House could get vandalized if abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd set odds but I would be called cynical for not believing in hope and change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]