A Bunch Of Politicians Who Complain About Trump's Authoritarian Tendencies Just Gave Him 6 Years To Warrantlessly Spy On Americans
from the because-reasons dept
As was widely expected after Tuesday's close vote on cloture, the Senate officially voted to renew (in a somewhat expanded way) Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act by a vote of 65 to 34. That also means a few of those who voted against cloture switched over and voted for the program, including Senators Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer. President Trump will almost certainly sign the bill shortly, despite confusing basically everyone last week by tweeting out complaints about the program, despite his White House vehemently supporting it.
Trump's confusion isn't all that surprising. What is surprising is just how many people who have been complaining and warning about Trump made this possible. In the House, vocal Trump critics including Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell were among those who voted for this bill which, again, gives the FBI the power to spy on Americans without warrants via the collection of content (not metadata) swept up by the NSA. While defenders of the program keep insisting the program cannot be used to "target" Americans, they leave out that a ridiculous amount of American content is swept up into this collection, which can then be sifted through without a warrant, including a huge amount of communications of Americans.
Over on the Senate side, things were even more ridiculous. Senator Jeff Flake voted for cloture, helping to end (the already non-existing) debate on such surveillance, and blocking any amendments. And then, the very next morning, went on the Senate floor to slam the President, compare him to Stalin, and warn that our democracy may not survive. Again, this was mere hours after Senator Flake voted to give more surveillance powers to the President he was about to compare to Stalin.
Or how about Dianne Feinstein? It may be no surprise that Feinstein voted to continue and expand surveillance -- she has a long history of doing exactly that. But just about an hour before voting for cloture, Feinstein herself introduced an amendment that would have required a warrant to search the corpus of data collected under 702. And then she voted to block that amendment from even being voted on. Let me repeat that, because it's just that insane: Feinstein introduced an amendment to the 702 renewal, that would have required a warrant to sniff through the data... and then voted against allowing that amendment to be heard and voted on. Within an hour or so. And, since cloture needed 60 votes and just squeezed through with those 60 votes... Feinstein could have changed the debate herself. But chose not to.
Or how about Senator Claire McCaskill. She was the final vote for cloture and took over an hour after the vote was called to actually reach the floor. She was the actual deciding vote, as, if she voted against it, the cloture vote would have had only 59 yaes, and the debate would have continued, and amendments proposed. Trump has been loudly denouncing McCaskill for months as she's facing a tough reelection campaign. And her response was to deny any further debate or amendments and to vote to give Trump more surveillance powers.
These are not the only ones. Many vocal critics of the President just handed him much greater power to warrantlessly spy on Americans -- something the President (in a confused way) complained about concerning what he believed (incorrectly) was illegal spying on his own campaign.
Zack Whittaker at ZDnet has also compiled a list of elected officials who had put out earlier statements promising to reform surveillance... only to then vote for this program. It includes both Swalwell and Feinstein mentioned above, but many others as well.
Over at Lawfare, a site that has long defended basically every aspect of the surveillance state, reliable surveillance defenders Jack Goldsmith and Susan Hennessey tried to defend the paradox of not trusting Trump, but giving him the ability to warrantlessly spy on Americans. The crux of it is basically... "we don't trust Trump, but there are good people in the intelligence and law enforcement communities and they'd never abuse these powers."
More broadly, one of the underappreciated developments in the post-Snowden-revelations era is the absence of credible allegations of political or venal use of 702 authorities. In essence, the public evidence confirms that the problems that used to bedevil secret electronic surveillance through the Hoover/Nixon era—namely, senior political figures deploying intelligence agencies and tools for inappropriate, abusive political purposes—have been resolved by a robust legal regime of oversight and reporting. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren points to the surveillance abuses directed at Martin Luther King Jr. to argue against 702, she actually highlights the opposite point: the massive transparency, both voluntary and involuntary, over the past few years about how Section 702 operates shows that it has not been abused for domestic political spying and implies that the 40 years of post-Hoover legal reforms are largely a success (though not without hiccups). The fact that President Trump has not focused his abusive energies on intelligence collection is a testament to the efficacy of the legal and cultural constraints on electronic surveillance.
Not surprisingly, Marcy Wheeler rips these claims to shreds in a response on her own blog, noting that beyond factual errors in the piece, it more or less ignores the FBI's role in all of this. Even if we grant the (incorrect) claim that the NSA doesn't abuse this data, that's not at all clear on the FBI side -- especially when the FBI refuses to provide any details at all:
You can’t pass a bill that effectively blesses FBI’s use of back door searches on Americans about whom it has no evidence of any wrongdoing, while admitting you don’t know how FBI conducts those back door searches, and make any claim to conduct adequate oversight. Rather, the bill permits FBI to continue practices it has stubbornly refused to brief Congress on, rather than demanding that FBI brief Congress first, so Congress can impose any restrictions that might be necessary to adequately protect Americans.
Furthermore, Wheeler notes that Hennessey and Goldsmith completely ignore how this gives Attorney General Jeff Sessions incredible unreviewable power to make use of this warrantless data for criminal prosecutions, hiding where he got the information from.
But it’s the unreviewable authority for Jeff Sessions bit that is the real problem.
We know, for example, that painting Black Lives Matter as a national security threat is key to the Trump-Sessions effort to criminalize race. We also know that Trump has accused his opponents of treason, all for making critical comments about Trump.
This bill gives Sessions unreviewable authority to decide that a BLM protest organized using or whistleblowing relying on Tor, discovered by collection done in the name of hunting Russian spies, can be referred for prosecution. The fact that the underlying data predicating any prosecution was obtained without a warrant under 702 would — in part because this bill doesn’t add teeth to FISA notice — ensure that courts would never learn the genesis of the prosecution. Even if a court somehow managed to do so, however, it could never deem the domestic surveillance unlawful because the bill gives Jeff Sessions the unreviewable authority to treat dissent as a national security threat.
This is such an obviously bad idea, and it is being supported by people who talk incessantly about the threat that Trump and Sessions present. Yet, rather than addressing the issue head on (which I doubt Hennessey could legally do in any case), they simply remain silent about what is the biggest complaint from privacy activists, that this gives a racist, vindictive Attorney General far more authority than he should have, and does so without fixing the inadequate protections for criminal defendants along the way.
And, now, it appears that (unless Fox News somehow intervenes again) the President will sign this bill. EFF has put out an open letter about how awful this is, and how it intends to fight this in court. But, this was a major missed opportunity, and what's most incredible and disappointing is how many people who complain about Trump's authoritarian tendencies were central to making it possible.
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: adam schiff, backdoor searches, dianne feinstein, eric swalwell, fbi, fisa, jeff sessions, nancy pelosi, nsa, section 702, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Feinstein
Hope she dies soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feinstein
84 years old, out of touch with reality, seems right.
And running for re-election!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feinstein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feinstein
Might there be a slight problem in the U.S. plurality voting system that installs authoritarians like Feinstein into high office ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feinstein
The one that many of these fucks ignorantly and sanctimoniously believe is a democracy.
You just can't help stupid, it has to help itself first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Feinstein
Eugene Volokh would like a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feinstein
I'm not big on the ageism thing, and "hope she dies soon" is a pretty terrible thing to say about somebody. Maybe instead of wishing for Feinstein's death, you could give some support to Kevin de Leon, who's running against her in this year's primary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Sides of the Same Coin
son of a bitch pardoned the mega banks for fraud too... just like Obama, Bush....
We should just shut it all down and start over... this shit has been rooted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Trump was supposed to drain the swamp (he filled it) and demolish the Deep State (he whined about it but did nothing about it); he hasn't. The alphabet soup of competing security agencies either are or are not subject to rigorous oversight; I think we can agree they are not.
Instead of shouting "False equivalence!" let us embrace our ally and see what we can do to change the political landscape in the mid-terms. No one is obliged to agree with all of us all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
He's certainly been doing a reasonably decent job of cleaning out career public servants from various government departments, and it's my understanding that that is exactly who the Deep State is supposed to be: the people who remain in place across changes of administration, and (according to the reasoning) are therefore in position to block whatever reforms the new administration wants to put in from having meaningful effect.
I suspect that the "deep state" is also what was being referred to by mentions of the "swamp", and that cleaning it out is exactly what he was promising to do when he said he'd "drain the swamp".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Result: people who don't know what they're doing are in charge.
Meanwhile, the apparatus of surveillance remains in place and his cabinet is full of the Wall Street types he pledged to get rid of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
I don't think talking about "draining the swamp" was talking about getting rid of big-business Wall-Street types at all.
I think it was talking about getting rid of the "deep state" -the entrenched "muck" in which policy-change efforts sink - and that he defines that in the way I described.
And although I agree that cleaning out the people who know how things work and keep things running is a (potentially catastrophically) bad idea, he does seem to have been effective at doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
But if you have sources to indicate that most (and/or the most important) of the non-elected public servants who persist across administrations and provide institutional knowledge, et cetera, are still there, I'd be interested to learn of them; it would be positive news, from my perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Coin
Might there be some slight defect in that overall government system that we overlooked ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same Coin
1) Government does not deliver rulers of any kind over us, we vote them in and we can vote them out.
2) There's no defect in the overall government system, people are not availing themselves of the opportunity to take part in the democratic process, which might be down to decades of a) not teaching civics properly (if at all) and b) presenting the government as the boogeyman, not the servant of the public to do its bidding.
If you want to see 2) in action take a look through the history of SOPA. Bear in mind that liberty requires eternal vigilance and many of us are sleeping on the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
OK, well enough-- after properly learning civics & availing yourself of the opportunity to take part in the democratic process -- who did you vote for in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election? And are you fully satisfied with that election process from your personal viewpoint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
1. It wasn't Trump.
2. I am fully satisfied with our election process from my personal viewpoint.
Unlike some, I can accept reality as it is instead of constantly screaming 'but that's not fair!' like a 6 year old in a school yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
That may be fine for some people but I think this really won't solve the problem. You will instead get people saying their votes were shifted to someone they didn't want. And it still trends towards a two party system.
I think our voting system is fine as is. The problem is not the system, it's the people. People have become so polarized and afraid that 'a vote for a third party is a vote who you don't want' that they don't truly vote their conscience, they vote for who they think has the best chance of winning who isn't the candidate they really don't want to win.
I don't think the system needs to be changed, people do. And I think there are things we can do to discourage a 'two party' system without changing the voting system itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
No votes get shifted, that way.
(And, no, we can't meaningfully prevent a two-party system without changing the voting system. Over the long term, the structural incentives of the single-choice first-past-the-post voting system cause it to inevitably devolve towards a two-party model.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
It's a massive problem here, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
So disenfranchisement is ok with you?
Gerrymandering is definitely the way to go?
Cult Of Personality is wayyy cool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same Coin
I wasn't able to vote in American elections because I'm Irish and live in the UK.
Apparently there's a massive problem with gerrymandering, vote suppression, etc., because the people don't rise up and campaign against it. Politicians tend to do what we want if there's enough of an outcry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
great comment by the way you dick riding motherfucker...
The only thing I said I did not care about is the comment above that was written by someone reliant on a corrupt system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Given that most people on here disagree with you and agree with that comment you don't care about, then you really don't care about the majority of people on here, including the TD authors since I'm quite sure they are not in favor of burning our system of government to the ground and starting over.
As for who says more, well, your comment does say something, just not what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Do you take everything literally?
Do you lack empathy?
Everyone else is wrong and you are right - always.
I think this is actually some sort of mental illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claim
What happened to the constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Claim
There's the one they teach in school, sometimes - old thing, written long ago. Its not used much except when its impossible not to, or when the public is paying attention.
Then there's the one that was rewritten by corporate lawyers after the 9/11 false flag operation, to allow, among other things, the invocation of the war measures act against American civilians - "the adversary" - in secret.
War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on File-Sharing, all a part of the War on the Adversary - civilians.
There is no way that anyone could have stopped this FISA fiasco, because it was never really up for a vote. That's just smoke and mirrors now, as with elections.
The Spy on The Adversary program is a major part of the corporate secret war effort, and absolutely necessary for blackmail of the opposition - read Democrats - and to prevent public revolt by eavesdropping on all their communications, which allows them to root out any fledgling conspirators before they can get organized.
You all just witnessed a bunch of Democrats suddenly turn 180 degrees from their public stance. This is the power of blackmail.
It is truly fascinating to watch millions of adults pretend there is nothing bad going on, just to protect their income.
Astounding really. But this one is definitely gonna bite you in the ass if you don't wake up and smell the coffee.
Hell, its probably already too late.
===
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Claim
There is no evidence to support anything that you assert and is in fact a large amount of evidence proving you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Claim
Now that is impressive!
A blanket denial, followed by a blanket claim, both without even the smallest bit of supportive data.
Just can't deal with scary thoughts eh.
Well, at least you're in good company.
This is generally how most Americans deal with the notion that the bad-guys are winning.
Its called make-believe.
===
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Claim
Pardon me if I rely more on facts than thinking there is a massive conspiracy so large that it encompasses our entire government, yet not one bit of evidence has leaked to prove it. Either they are so good at keeping secrets that it defies all statistical odds and probability, or there is no conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Claim
Was the Constitution rewritten after 9/11, in your world?
===
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Claim
Aaaaand we're done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
With the over-arching view you will never again be surprised by apparent contradictions: "What is surprising is just how many people who have been complaining and warning about Trump made this possible."
Nor is it "incredible". Ordinary operation of the Washington DC branch of The Globalists. DC is like most countries in active conspiracy with The Globalists and against The Public.
Don't be misled (or try to mislead) either because are many commercial fronts for SPYING: Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Microsoft... All SPIES. There are NO major corporations left outside for an alternative.
It is only ONE concept because The Rich strive for ONE WORLD totally under Their control. Corporatization has been put in place patiently for over a hundred years, and with computerization near total surveillance is on verge of becoming reality -- better than in the novel "1984".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
You forgot Disney, Verizon, Comcast, and the 1989 Denver Broncos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn this ONE concept: THE Establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I think they said was...
Not just sifted through, interpreted, maybe out of contexts, maybe not. Some of this will come down to what they 'think' they said, in a court, and then, given the way things are going, it will be up to the defendant to prove they are not guilty, rather than enjoy the presumption of innocence.
How many ways is this backwards? Void the 4rth Amendment, void the presumption of innocence, give sanction to Brady material violations (they presented what they believed to be the truth rather than giving over exculpatory information) etc..
Can this pass a SCOTUS review? Will several Appellate Courts question it? I hope no to the former and yes to the latter, though it will probably be that the reverse (order of decision) is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 40s had Nazism
We have Trumpizm
Hide like little fucken whiny bitches
while your freedoms go down in flames
Keyboard strokes will repeal those folks .
don't worry be happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spines and self-respect: Not to be found in DC apparently
And then, the very next morning, went on the Senate floor to slam the President, compare him to Stalin, and warn that our democracy may not survive. Again, this was mere hours after Senator Flake voted to give more surveillance powers to the President he was about to compare to Stalin.
Something which any even remotely intelligent political opponent will be able to use against him to completely undercut any such claims in the future.
"Sure he claimed he had a huge problem with Trump, but what did he do mere hours before? Gave him more power! It's obvious then that he was simply grandstanding, and nothing he said should be taken seriously."
Let me repeat that, because it's just that insane: Feinstein introduced an amendment to the 702 renewal, that would have required a warrant to sniff through the data... and then voted against allowing that amendment to be heard and voted on. Within an hour or so.
Likewise with Feinstien. She's been a cheerleader for domestic spying for ages, so the fact that she would support it here is no surprise, and by introducing an amendment that she then immediately voted to block, it's pretty trivial to see that it was nothing more than a pathetic attempt to have it both ways. To look like she was in favor of warrant requirements, yet 'reluctantly' vote against them. I would hope that such a blatantly obvious attempt will be pointed out by any critic and/or opponents.
Trump has been loudly denouncing McCaskill for months as she's facing a tough reelection campaign. And her response was to deny any further debate or amendments and to vote to give Trump more surveillance powers.
I dearly hope she has enough self awareness to realize that she just torpedoed her ability to criticism him on the subject in the future, and understand that she sold out to help someone who apparently holds her in contempt, dodging one possible way for political opponents to attack her merely to open up another.
They can make all the claims they want, when it came down to it the ones who actually oppose indiscriminate surveillance of the US public made their position clear, and those for whom selling out the public for cheap PR is seen as a good trade likewise made their positions crystal clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spines and self-respect: Not to be found in DC apparently
Cheerleader, can she do a split? Would anyone want to see her do a split?
On the other hand, she certainly seems to be doing 'splits' all over the place. Is that what we call politics? Is that what politics should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spines and self-respect: Not to be found in DC apparently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote for us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, I heard roughly the same claims being made about the violent Nazis marching in Charlottesville.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Losers
More Washington double speak. Say one thing to the press and your voters, and then do the exact opposite when you vote.
Kick them all out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Losers
Seriously, don't get me started on that Neocon in Progressive clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we can't have nice things
2nd we spy and fight with each other
Thank you Patriot Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our happy Republic" is toast
References in comments I'm seeing these days as to "How's the weather in St. Petersburg" are sounding pretty silly. Hillary didn't lose because of Russia. U.S. election corruption is of the home-grown variety & probably favored Hillary. What little "Russian meddling" there may have been was laughably ineffectual. That's why the lamestream media doesn't harp on it so much any more.
doublespeak is one word
no hyphen in nonexisting (nonexistent, nonexistence)
no hyphen in midterm, midterms
schoolyard is one word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]