Amendments Offered To NDAA To Try To Stop NSA Surveillance Abuse

from the forcing-hands dept

Wed, May 21st 2014 5:44am — Mike Masnick

If you're wondering why the USA Freedom Act finally started moving forward again, a good place to look is tomorrow's vote on re-upping the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), with a variety of folks in the House proposing amendments that would lead to defunding certain NSA activities. As you may recall, last year, Rep. Justin Amash proposed defunding the NSA's Section 215 bulk data collection program, which came very close to passing. Fearing a similar effort, the House leadership decided to finally get moving on USA Freedom. Of course, with USA Freedom watered down, attention is turning back to the NDAA Amendments, with the vote on all of this happening tomorrow.

There are a ton of amendments, many of which won't get anywhere at all, but Amash is back with a few amendments, along with Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Rush Holt, Alan Grayson and some others. Amash, Lofgren and Holt have teamed up for a couple of amendments trying to block bulk collection under Section 215. Meanwhile Lofgren and Holt have an amendment to deny funding for the NSA's weakening of encryption and inserting back doors in technology. Lofgren and Amash, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, have an amendment defunding Section 702 "warrantless wiretapping" efforts. Grayson goes for the gold with an amendment that would block funds for any surveillance done on American citizens inside the US without probable cause. While there's no way this amendment will get approved, it's basically just saying "hey, you know what, we should obey the 4th Amendment."

AMASH 033519140950135013 (PDF)AMASH 033519140950135013 (Text)

AMASH 032519140949414941 (PDF)AMASH 032519140949414941 (Text)

Lofgren02519140813181318 (PDF)Lofgren02519140813181318 (Text)

Lofgren01519140923262326 (PDF)Lofgren01519140923262326 (Text)

GRAYSO 268519140752535253 (PDF)GRAYSO 268519140752535253 (Text)

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: alan grayson, amendments, justin amash, ndaa, rush holt, zoe lofgren

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 21 May 2014 @ 5:48am

it's basically just saying "hey, you know what, we should obey the 4th Amendment."

Actually, I think it is really saying "hey, you know what, since we know you don't care about the 4th amendment, we are at least going to stop paying you to violate it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 21 May 2014 @ 5:54am
  
  So what?
  "hey, you know what, since we know you don't care about the 4th amendment, we are at least going to stop paying you to violate it"
  
  They'll do it for free then and earn their money by extortion. They probably already do so for part of their financing, so it would just be a small change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mcinsand, 21 May 2014 @ 6:04am
    
    Re: So what?
    Agreed. Nothing will happen to stop undermining the Constitution until there are significant consequences. Activities that undermine the US Constitution need to become criminal offenses. Employees should be held **PERSONALLY** liable, so that they cannot get off by merely claiming to have been following orders.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lars, 21 May 2014 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: So what?
      Activities that undermine the US Constitution need to become criminal offenses.
      
      Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. In short: treason.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever, 21 May 2014 @ 6:18am

defunding = bypassing the law?
I have to say that defunding seems to be the talking point of the defeated these days. Republicans tried it with Obamacare, and we all know how that turned out. Defunding is essentially an attempt to circumvent the laws as written, to selectively deny money when they cannot muster enough votes to actually change the law.

It's cheap, and it shows that their desires do not reflect the will of the people. Support defunding here, and you will have to support every other time the minority party tries to usurp the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 6:46am
  
  Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
  "Defunding is essentially an attempt to circumvent the laws as written"
  
  That is applicable to the attempt at stopping ACA.
  
  Defunding the violation of existing law (the bill of rights) via secret interpretations of recent congressional authorizations is not circumventing the laws as written.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 May 2014 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
  It's cheap, and it shows that their desires do not reflect the will of the people.
  
  It shows no such thing. That claim rests on the assumption that the laws as written reflect the will of the people, which is unproven at best and strikes me as downright preposterous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 21 May 2014 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
  "Support defunding here, and you will have to support every other time the minority party tries to usurp the system."
  
  I don't follow. Why is this necessarily so?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Whatever, 21 May 2014 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
    If you support them using it this time, then every other time someone comes to the table without enough votes to amend the law, you have to stand up for their right to hold a program or department hostage by choking off it's funds.
    
    It is generally an idea that won't work, unless there is some serious horse trading to encourage the majority to support the minority. If they had a clear majority, they would just pass a law to stop or limit the NSA. They don't have that majority, neither in the house nor in the public at large.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 21 May 2014 @ 8:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
      " you have to stand up for their right to hold a program or department hostage by choking off it's funds."
      
      And I do, actually. This is something that Congress is Constitutionally empowered to do, so I don't fault them for doing it in general. But there's a big difference between standing up for their right to do it and supporting them in a particular instance of doing it. When this has been done in the past to achieve ends I disagree with, I would never argue that they don't have the right, but I would argue that it's not the right thing to do.
      
      "It is generally an idea that won't work"
      
      This is a time-honored tactic, that has been around (and used frequently)for literally as long as the government has. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 5:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
      Ah, the argument of "if enough people clearly disagreed with this it wouldn't exist, but since it does, people agree with it".
      
      Nice turd polishing, troll boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: defunding = bypassing the law?
  Except the "will of the people" is not for allowing the NSA to continue to violate the Constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 6:35am

I like how Congress, supposedly the "representatives of the people" don't like laws that agree with and reinforce the Constitution....that's what it has come to in the "land of the free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  Clearly, Congress represents whomever gives them the most money. They couldn't give a hoot about the people who are most affected by their ill advised shenanigans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Someantimalwareguy, 21 May 2014 @ 7:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    And the SCOTUS made damned sure that rather than a government of the many, by the many, for the many; we will have a government of the money, by the money, for the money.
    
    JMNSHO
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 21 May 2014 @ 7:39am

Sad
While there's no way this amendment will get approved, it's basically just saying "hey, you know what, we should obey the 4th Amendment."

That such an amendment has no chance of passing is really sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 21 May 2014 @ 8:42am

How about an amendment to remove the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 9:13am

We should call these the "Hey, NSA. Go have a bake sale." Amendments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  Actually that would be a rather funny demonstration for an activist group to stage. I can see a group, (think: the Yes Men) showing up outside Congress with a booth and various assorted confectioneries and big signs explaining how they are trying to raise money to support the poor NSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]