Three PATRIOT Act Provisions Likely To Sunset, Briefly, But USA Freedom Will Pass Shortly

from the what-happens-next-is-what-matters dept

Sun, May 31st 2015 4:54pm — Mike Masnick

On Friday, we posted a story looking at the divergent views of two of my favorite privacy experts: Jennifer Granick favoring just letting the three PATRIOT Act clauses to sunset... and Julian Sanchez arguing that just letting those provisions sunset would unfortunately leave aside many of the important reforms in the USA Freedom Act. But, as we noted, both of them seemed to agree that either such result, without further reforms, wouldn't be enough.

Well, now it appears that both things will happen. After some debate, a late vote this evening, the Senate voted 77 to 17 to move forward on the USA Freedom Act -- but a vote will not occur until Monday at the earliest. That means, in a few hours, those three provisions of the PATRIOT Act will expire (and, no, this does not mean -- as some have falsely stated that the PATRIOT Act itself is dead). And then, a few days later, the USA Freedom Act will be passed (even Rand Paul admitted this is what's going to happen, even as he sought to block USA Freedom). Paul and some others are going to try to add some important amendments to the bill, but they're unlikely to pass.

In other words, both of the arguments that Granick and Sanchez made seem to have happened. Section 215 will "sunset" briefly -- hence a symbolic win. And USA Freedom Act, which has some useful reforms, will pass. And... then we'll still have a long way to go to get even more important surveillance reform. The events of this evening are an important step forward. Until just recently, the very idea that we might limit the Section 215 program for real seemed unlikely. And yet, now that's happening -- with both a brief sunset and the reforms in the USA Freedom Act.

But it's not enough. There is still plenty of excessive surveillance happening -- under other provisions, including Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and Executive Order 12333. Those need to be dealt with if we're to have real surveillance reform. The end result is that this is a an important victory for surveillance reform -- which never would have happened without Ed Snowden's actions -- but it's just a step. And a lot more is needed. And it's needed now.

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: bulk collection, business records, executive order 12333, mass surveillance, nsa, patriot act, rand paul, section 215, section 702, sunset, surveillance

45 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

That One Guy, 31 May 2015 @ 5:24pm

The Snowden myth again.
First, Greenwald is HOARDING at best:
http://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm
It's not Greenwald's or any journalist's duty to vet documents that the US public owns, and again, how does he know which are safe to let out?

Second, doubts about Snowden remain. Here's a good recent outline:
http://cryptome.org/2015/05/rethinking-snowden.htm

Just show me where the daily surveillance of citizens is actually reduced. Or promise that on Monday Patriot Act 2, "This time it's personal", won't be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAquaker (profile), 31 May 2015 @ 5:51pm

sloppy seconds or nothing
...bulk collection, business records, executive order 12333, mass surveillance, NSA, patriot act, section 215, section 702, sunset, surveillance....

We were promised a 'Space telescope' since Sputnik went up.
NSA and the AirForce stole the first two space telescopes and commandeered the third for half the observing time, looking down your blouse.
LATimes reported that the Hubble coincidently shipped in Lockheed's BigBird crate, thus no photographs were allowed.
Perk&Elmer 'accidentally' re-figured the primary mirror for terrestrial observation; the janitor with a penlight and a razorblade would have caught any such 'mistake'.
The AirForce refused to launch Hubble or Galileo with 'their' Titan rockets, thus Galileo was over 8 years old when it was useful, and the DOD's 'Space Shuttle' got a civilian cover story.
Old Man George Bush locked up the photo library and shut off LandStat after Newsweek published photos of the burning Amazon.
When walking through JPL i was told that NO interplanetary robot was ALLOWED to use a multi-element detector array until the late 1980's!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 12:29am
  
  Re: sloppy seconds or nothing
  Having worked at JPL, I can refute some of what you said
  
  Galileo was a case of not having a heavy enough lift rocket to put it in the proper orbit. The shuttle was (and remains) the heaviest lift system that we had until its retirement.
  
  Scientific probes did not have a 'multi-element detector' because of technical reasons. Somethign taht is launched on a probe must work the first time, every time for years in an extremely challenging environment. That is why probes are always 15-20 years behind the tech curve. (as a manner of perspective, the MSL [curiostiy] Rover has a power PC 603E processor, state of the art in 1995)
  
  As for the Hubble, the spherical abberation was a screw-up, nothing more, nothing less. It is also well known that, for scientific purposes, NASA wanted to use a slightly larger mirror. They went with the smaller mirror currently fitted as a cost-savings measure (the anecdote that I heard was that the cost savings came due to common parts/production with the USAF birds). The mirror would have still had the abberation if looking at the planet and not into space. Moreover, Hubble time is some of the most valuable telescope time for any astronomer. People would notice if time useful for making astronomical observances were suddenly retasked to something taht was not talked about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LeftShark, 31 May 2015 @ 6:07pm

sunset
It just seems unworldly to be cheering for Rand Paul.

But, we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: sunset
  I'm not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The guy may have some of the right ideas on surveillance, but he's still a libertarian.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re: sunset
    Sometimes voting for the broken clock is the only way to fix the rest.
    
    Sad that a lot of people refuse to accept this.
    
    We have been playing the political game the same way for decades now, hoping for something different.
    
    I believe someone said that this was the definition of insanity. As insane as it sounds voting for a turd like Rand Paul should be something you only need to do every once in a while to send a Critical and Required shock that is necessary from time to time. If you don't... just remember... you will not see it coming until its too late.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: sunset
      Agreed. I don't like any of his other views, but if I accept that privacy and surveillance is a dominant problem today, it might not be a wasted vote to give it to Rand.
      
      Single-issue voters on subjects like abortion have not gotten their desired result, but they've sure as hell succeeded in making abortion a hotly debated topic...for 40 years. I'm bored of that subject, but I would not mind talking about my civil rights for a while. Heck, even 40 years would be OK.
      
      Any other candidate that aligns with Rand on privacy would also stand a good chance to get my vote.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: sunset
  Hey, his foreign policy is naïve and a little too isolationistic, but his domestic policy is based on the US Constitution and limiting the federal government, things we should all be for.
  
  He's kind of like Perot in that he brings up many good points, but has zero chance of being, an indeed should NOT be, elected president.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re: sunset
    The libertarian concept of "small government" is also hopelessly naive. When you get down to it, it's fundamentally based on the notion that you can somehow get rid of power, that if you get the government to loose its grip on power, that all that power will magically evaporate into a beautiful rainbow of sparkles, happiness, and more liberty for everyone.
    
    There are only two reasons why someone would make such a ridiculous claim: 1) they don't know what a power vacuum is, how it works, or how ugly it gets for the people caught in one, or 2) they do know, and deliberately want to create one in the hopes of profiting from the ensuing chaos.
    
    It's hard to say which is more dangerous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: sunset
      Yea, because platitudes are perfect examples of how stuff won't work.
      
      Remember... there is more than 1 government you have to deal with.
      
      Central (the one that should be small)
      State
      County
      City
      
      That is a lot of fucking government. You just like everyone else already knows (additionally proven by history time and again) that Centralized Monolithic institutions are always a fucking disaster yet you can't seem to figure this shit out.
      
      The idea that the libertarian concept of a small government magically takes away TOO much power is just as fucking stupid as you are accusing them of being!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: sunset
        "there is more than 1 government you have to deal with"
        
        You forgot one from your list: corporations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: sunset
        On the contrary. History proves that so-called "centralized monolithic institutions" are the only way to build a stable social structure of non-trivial size.
        
        Look at any social institution in the world around you. Your family. The business you work at. The church you attend. The government. Clubs or social organizations you belong to. Look at their organization: they're all shaped like pyramids. It is the great pattern of human nature, and history has proven time and again that it's the only thing that works. (Most recently by giving us the example of the Occupy Wall Street movement. So much potential, but they consciously refused to organize, and so for all the resources they had at their disposal, they ended up accomplishing a whole lot of nothing.)
        
        When you understand this, you see that the only way to have a small government is to have a small nation. You really want to go down that road?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: sunset
        ... there is more than 1 government you have to deal with.
        
        Central (the one that should be small)
        State
        County
        City...
        
        You forgot special districts. Take a look at your property tax bill next time. If your area is like mine there are more special districts than actual government entities.
        
        And we might include HOAs in that too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2015 @ 6:19pm

So what happens to the extension provisions? Section 215 will no longer be law when the final vote for passage takes place, let alone having the president sign it into law. Only way that could be fixed is if McConnell puts an amendment to the floor that retroactively reauthorizes 215, but then that means going back to the House...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2015 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re:
  So what happens to the extension provisions?
  
  All recent extensions to Section 215 have been voted down so far. They could still try another vote. Although I don't think it has much of a chance of passing.
  
  As Mike notes in this post, they will most likely move forward with what I consider to be NSA's "Plan B" (i.e., The USA Freedom Act). Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the plan all along.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2015 @ 7:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except the underlying law will have already sunset.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Once expired (i.e., "sunset"), it's expired. There is no set "final vote". Only a deadline they need to vote by one way or the other (or not at all). At the time of my above reply, all proposed extensions to that point had been voted down. Since there was no subsequent vote in favor of extension, the reauthorization of 215 has expired. That's it for Section 215 reauthorization - it is dead. Any legislation granting a similar version of these specific powers will have to be new. Either a new legal interpretation of an existing law or completely new legislation (e.g., The USA Freedom Act).
      
      Anyway, this is just a first step in a never ending battle. It's something, but there's a long way to go - Don’t Worry, the Government Still Has Plenty of Surveillance Power If Section 215 Sunsets
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LeftShark, 31 May 2015 @ 6:33pm

According to this, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/patriot-act-rand-paul-expire-sunset-section-215-20150531 ,
it might not be legal to re-authorize the act after it expired. Congress will, in effect, pass new legislation. That puts the USA Freedom act in murky waters, legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 31 May 2015 @ 10:08pm
  
  Re:
  That would assume the people behind it would care. If you think about it, it covers stuff that has been done illegally for decades now. why would they suddenly start obeying the laws when they have been constantly ignoring them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 31 May 2015 @ 7:26pm

Or as the hawks would say, Al Qaeda and isis have sovereign control of the US for the next 48 hours, and its Obama's fault!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 31 May 2015 @ 8:01pm
  
  Re:
  I really wish that was funnier, as opposed to almost certainly what will be said by the war and spy-happy nutjobs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 1 Jun 2015 @ 3:12am
  
  Re:
  Or as the hawks would say, Al Qaeda and isis have sovereign control of the US for the next 48 hours
  
  So what? It has taken years and hundreds of billions of dollars to dismantle the U.S.A. and its principles in the manner the NSA did.
  
  So this would just be handing sovereign control to the lesser (and significantly more affordable) evil. People try that every election with little success, so this might be worth a try. But 48 hours is a bit short.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 31 May 2015 @ 10:09pm

I do love the mentality of people in power that "citizens are safer without all those pesky freedoms cluttering up their daily lives"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 31 May 2015 @ 11:12pm
  
  Re:
  They may well be right. Pets are safer locked in a cage than roaming free.
  
  At one point of time, you need to make a choice. The founders of the Republic chose freedom, and that is spelled out in the Constitution. If you want a different choice, you don't belong in the U.S.A. Either you or the U.S.A. need to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Every way of life has its risks. You can face threats that are primarily from the outside or from the inside. The American way is an example of the former. We need to move back that direction as we're drifting ever closer to the latter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Pets are safer locked in a cage than roaming free."
    
    Not when their captors are abusive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GEMont (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  You're just misunderstanding what they mean when they use the word "citizens".
  
  When billionaires say that "citizens" are safer when the public no longer has all those pesky rights cluttering up their lives, the "citizens" they are referring to are themselves.
  
  You see, in an Ownership Society, only the Owners are actually citizens. The rest of us are Denizens, and have no standing under the laws that protect Citizen Rights.
  
  Don't forget, the Boys in Power gave themselves the legal right to "re-interpret" the Constitution after 9/11, so the meaning of any part of Constitution is very likely now the exact opposite of what you think it means.
  
  ---
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin Foil Hat, 31 May 2015 @ 11:09pm

I hope Ed Snowden is eventually pardoned. He is a far more of a patriot than this shamelessly named piece of legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 31 May 2015 @ 11:15pm
  
  Re:
  What's wrong with the naming? They put on a Patriot Act alright, verily the most transparent act in the history of the U.S.A.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 3:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a whole Patriot Theater, with stunning new productions regularly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 1:28am

SO for a few days they might be breaking the law running their illegal operations - I'm sure that'll stop em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 3:12am

If we need a "USA Freedom" bill then we have already lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
noneya beeswax, 1 Jun 2015 @ 4:29am

Why try
Why try when illigal activity by the government just passes another law doing the same thing? What perverts. All this spying creates bad blood with are allies, helps recruit terrorist who already knew not to use any comms. That are run by the USA.this new law don't change how the nsa contractors steal pretty girl pics. And gather evidence against the public with no terrorist connections.(its really to help the war on drugs and political people.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Swafford (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 5:39am

I still think that the NSA couldn't care less what is passed and by whom. They are going to do whatever the hell they want to do and nothing will ever keep them from doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  I still think that the NSA couldn't care less what is passed and by whom. They are going to do whatever the hell they want to do and nothing will ever keep them from doing it.
  
  People keep saying this and it's simply not true. Not only that, but it hurts the efforts at real reform that many are working on because it's a cynical response that suggests nothing can be done. It's wrong.
  
  Yes, the NSA will push the boundaries, but it tends to push those boundaries by focusing on the legal authorities it has. Reform can and will work in limiting the NSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    My biggest concern is that if the USA FREEDOM Act passes---as now seems likely---then that will be the end of it. Whatever positive steps it may take toward reform, it isn't enough, but I'm afraid the next steps will become that much harder once the first one is taken. After all, they "already did something" about that.
    
    Normally I'm against massive bills that try to cover a million different things all at once, but in this case I kind of wish we could get a bit more in there.
    
    Both of my Senators apparently voted to move ahead with USA FREEDOM, and I still can't decide whether I should get in touch and thank them or ask them to hold the line for a better law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 2 Jun 2015 @ 5:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Take what you can get for now, then push for more when you've got it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MarcAnthony (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don’t know, Mike. I’ve lost faith in their intention to respect the law. The NSA has a lot of power, operates in a veil of secrecy, and acts in extra-judicial ways with some regularity; surely they never reasonably believed that some piddling executive order and a clearly unconstitutional rubber stamp court gave them actual legal authority. They’ve also “pushed” so hard and so far that boundaries became practically nonexistent; e.g. Clapper brazenly lied under oath, and, by surveilling the legislative branch, the NSA threw our system of checks and balances right out of the window. We should all take anything our government says about surveillance activities with a well-deserved grain of salt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I’ve lost faith in their intention to respect the law. The NSA has a lot of power, operates in a veil of secrecy, and acts in extra-judicial ways with some regularity; surely they never reasonably believed that some piddling executive order and a clearly unconstitutional rubber stamp court gave them actual legal authority. They’ve also “pushed” so hard and so far that boundaries became practically nonexistent; e.g. Clapper brazenly lied under oath, and, by surveilling the legislative branch, the NSA threw our system of checks and balances right out of the window. We should all take anything our government says about surveillance activities with a well-deserved grain of salt.
      
      I absolutely agree that you shouldn't trust anything that they say. And I agree that they will push and probe and reinterpret things to try to get what they want.
      
      But... that's very different than the claim that some are making that they will flagrantly IGNORE the law and just do what they want.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - GEMont (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But... that's very different than the claim that some are making that they will flagrantly IGNORE the law and just do what they want."
        
        Well of course. They will definitely NOT just flagrantly ignore the law and do what they want. That would let the cat out of the bag.
        
        If they cannot blackmail lawmakers into changing the law so that they CAN continue to do what they want, then they will simply; once again, secretly reinterpret the new laws and continue to do what they want, knowing full well that there are no consequences for pretending to misunderstand the letter of the law should they be caught and called onto the carpet once again.
        
        Not a single hour of global surveillance will be lost through this legislation, regardless of what form it takes.
        
        The Agency has already moved its 215 offices to the new building months ago and has been operating under the radar ever since. Knowing that section 215 was threatened, they have already set up a new and better and completely secret operation to carry on the work and escalate the process unfettered.
        
        Remember; they are Hydra.
        
        Remove one surveillance operation and two more will take its place.
        
        ---
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I’ve lost faith in their intention to respect the law."
      
      You're ahead of me, then. I've never had such faith (because of their history over my lifetime).
      
      However, that doesn't mean that legislation is pointless at all. The point of passing such legislation isn't that they will magically start obeying the law. It's that if what they're doing is in violation of the law (and the information we currently have says it's not) then there is a chance of being able to hold them accountable.
      
      Right now, there is no such chance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, the NSA will push the boundaries, but it tends to push those boundaries by focusing on the legal authorities it has.
    
    And by making up new authorities that it was never given.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:02am

The Fascists Handbook - Sleight of Hand
If Section 215 is allowed to sunset, even briefly, it simply means that section 216, the much broader, secret replacement for section 215, is now is full effect, along with secret section 217, which makes section 216 100% legal.

Those who direct the spy agencies of the USA will NEVER take a REAL step backwards in their eternal search for more ways to control "The Adversary"; the American people, through blackmail, coercion and character assassination, made possible through these surveillance programs.

Any apparent set backwards, is always just a PR move to cover their behind-the-scenes escalation of the powers of the surveillance state and its apparatus.

Remember this always.

The US Spy-guys adopted the motto of Hydra:

"Cut off one arm and two more take its place."

They adopted this motto for a very simple reason.
Its always been their modus operandi and for the same reasons as the comic book crime syndicate Hydra:

Control.
Profits.
Yachts, Bimbos and Cocaine.

---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wecv, 1 Jun 2015 @ 9:33am

The first thing I thought when I read the Title was that 'USA Freedom' will pass us by shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 10:58am

Hurry, Hurry! Short-term offer!
For Rent: Data storage center in Utah with excess capacity. SaaS, Big data analytics included. Won't last! Call now!

http://goo.gl/9sJP1s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]