These Clueless Politicians Are The Ones Determining If The NSA Gets To Keep Spying On All Of Us

from the we-deserve-better dept

On Thursday, the 2nd Circuit appeals court delivered a huge win for people who believe in the 4th Amendment and civil liberties, even if the court didn't make it all the way to a 4th Amendment analysis. It still showed that the big metadata collection program that the NSA (and its defenders) claim is authorized by Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act clearly was not so authorized. The law is pretty clear that you can't do what the NSA is doing, but thanks to an ever-compliant rubber-stamp-wielding FISA Court, the program got a quick rubber stamp with little real thought. However, that's now changing (thanks to Ed Snowden...).

But the really incredible thing has been the reaction to this ruling by the politicians who are about to vote on surveillance reform. The claims are so ridiculous and so wrong that it makes you wonder how the hell these are the people in charge of determining the future of NSA surveillance. Let's start with Senator John McCain. Rather than discuss the specific reasoning in the ruling and the failures of the NSA and Congress that the case pointed out, McCain went with the kneejerk "But 9/11!" response even though it makes absolutely no sense at all in this context:

“It’s pretty clear that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had known about some of the communications that were linked to those who committed the terrible atrocity of 9/11.”

McCain added that the government has to balance that capacity with privacy and admitted that it has overstepped from “time to time.” While he called for a public debate to come to an agreement that balances privacy with security, he said it’s integral that Americans “understand” the threat.

“People seem to have forgotten 9/11,” he said.

“People don’t understand that there are thousands of young people all over the world who are motivated by this radical brand of Islam, which is our enemy.”

First of all, no, 9/11 would not have been prevented if this info had been available. While some have claimed that such a program would have allowed officials to track a phone call from Khalid al-Midhar, that story has since been debunked, as it was noted that federal officials were already tracking such info -- they just failed to put the information together in time. Meanwhile, as for all these repeats of "9/11, 9/11," it's worth remembering that even the leaders of the 9/11 Commission have said the surveillance program goes too far.

And, of course, none of that touches on what was actually in the ruling itself, which makes a really strong argument as to why the bulk phone records program is bogus and a violation of the 4th Amendment (no, it doesn't go all the way there, but lays all the groundwork for such a ruling). And, really, it's incredibly hypocritical to argue that because of an attack 14 years ago, we should completely give up our fundamental Constitutional freedoms. Is McCain seriously arguing that a single terrorist attack should wipe out the 4th Amendment?

Next up on the parade of cluelessness: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who not only continues to defend the bulk phone records collection, but is more adamant than ever that Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act must be renewed to keep that program going -- even though the court just clearly said that the law does not authorize such a program. But, even worse, McConnell still doesn't seem to understand even the most basic facts about the program he thinks it's urgent to renew. His main complaint about the alternative "USA FREEDOM Act" is this:

"The USA Freedom Act would replace Section 215 with an untested, untried, and more cumbersome system. It would not end bulk collection of call data," McConnell said, referring to the provision of the Patriot Act that the NSA says justifies its bulk data sweeps. "Instead, it would have untrained corporate employees with uncertain supervision and protocols do the collecting. So it switches this responsibility from the NSA, with total oversight, to corporate employees with uncertain supervision and protocols.

Except, he's 100% wrong. As in totally wrong. The data he's talking about are the phone records that every phone company already has and already keeps for a certain period of time. The bulk phone records program just makes sure that the same info is also given to the NSA. So, get rid of the program and the same employees at the same telcos with the same experience and training will still have access to it. Nothing changes on that front, no matter what insane thing McConnell says.

But that also doesn't stop Senator Tom Cotton from making the same absolutely incorrect claim:

"One alternative offered by opponents of this program is to have phone companies retain control of all call data and provide the NSA only the data responsive to searches phone companies would run on the NSA's behalf. This is not technologically feasible."

Uh, sure it's technically feasible. It's how plenty of other programs already function.

Seriously: how are these the people voting on this?

Or how about Marco Rubio? He also plays the stupid, wrong, debunked "would have stopped 9/11 card":

"Here's the truth. If this program had existed before 9/11, it is quite possible that we would have known that the 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar was living in San Diego and making phone calls to an al-Qaida safehouse in Yemen. There's no guarantee we would have known. Theres no way we can go back in time and prove it, but there is a probability that we would have known and there's a probability that American lives could have been saved."

Except, as already noted above, that claim was debunked by multiple people, including in a detailed ProPublica piece.

Rubio also went further in misrepresenting the program:

"The next time that any politician—senator, congressman, talking head, whatever it may be—stands up and says that the U.S. government is listening to your phone calls or going through your phone records, they're lying. It just is not true."

Rubio is setting up a strawman here. No one is saying that they're listening to your calls or "going through" your phone records (though they are doing that for some people. But everyone (now) openly admits that the NSA collects those phone records -- and that's the thing people are concerned about.

Finally, we have Senator Richard Burr, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who's supposed to understand these programs. Yet he screwed up so badly that his office had to issue a correction and go back and literally rewrite the official transcript, after Burr claimed that the same program sucked up IP addresses in addition to phone numbers.

Either way, there's a lot of pure FUD going on out there right now, almost all of it in the service of trying to let the NSA keep its toys and continue to undermine the 4th Amendment. Don't let them get away with it.

But, even more importantly, people should be asking: why are we letting these idiots make the decision on this stuff when they either don't understand it or are outright lying to the American public?

Filed Under: bulk collection, john mccain, marco rubio, mitch mcconnell, nsa, patriot act, richard burr, section 215, senators, surveillance, tom cotton, usa freedom act

Send A Sympathy Card Over The Death Of The Internet To Your Senator

from the condolences dept

Alexis Ohanion, founder of Reddit (and Hipmunk and Breadpig), is kicking off a neat campaign to send condolence cards to Senators, mourning the "death of the internet" in response to the effort to move forward with PIPA. In a video he put together, he questions why our elected officials, who admit they don't understand the technology, seem to have no problem at all moving forward with a bill regulating that same technology -- and shows the condolence card he's sending to his own Senators in New York. " He separately notes how odd it is that in this era of political gridlock, where almost nothing can get done in Congress, so many in Congress jump to push through bad legislation they don't understand -- written by the entertainment industry -- while ignoring the many real problems this country faces...

Because I can already hear some of the SOPA/PIPA supporters out there revving up the "but it doesn't kill the internet!" cries, let's dig into that issue. No one is saying that it kills off the entire internet, so that it goes away. What we've been saying all along is that it kills the established legal framework under which the internet has grown and thrived for decades. That's a big deal. Multiple studies have shown that the protection from secondary liability is a large part of what enabled the internet to grow the way it did, and to build the kinds of innovative new services that have shown up over the years. Taking that away doesn't mean that "the internet" goes away -- but it does mean that the key protections on which the internet were built are put at significant risk or, in some cases, wiped out. That's pretty scary if you want to see new internet services built up and to see existing ones grow. Under such conditions, sympathy cards seem perfectly reasonable.

Filed Under: alexis ohanion, death of the internet, pipa, protect ip, senators, sopa, sympathy card

To Pols Trying To Raise Money From Silicon Valley: Supporting SOPA/PIPA Probably Isn't Wise

from the well,-look-at-that dept

A brief, little report from Politico notes that various Democrats are ramping up their efforts to raise money from Silicon Valley for the 2012 election. What struck me as interesting was the first two names on the list:

As the election season is ramping up, so too are pols� trips to Silicon Valley. That includes Vice President Joe Biden, who�s heading to San Francisco on Jan. 18 for a lunch reception. Tickets cost $2,500 per person, with $7,500 for lunch and a photo for two. Sen. Robert Menendez will also be in the area on the same day, starting with a dinner in Menlo Park, Calif., followed by a breakfast in San Francisco.

Biden, of course, has been the leading voice in the administration for worse and worse copyright enforcement efforts, and almost certainly supports SOPA/PIPA. Sen. Menendez is a PIPA co-sponsor. Given how widespread the outrage in the tech community is against these bills, it seems like an odd choice for them to try to raise money while supporting legislation that will make innovation in tech a lot harder...

Filed Under: democrats, fundraising, joe biden, pipa, robert menendez, senators, silicon valley, sopa

Call Your Senators Today: Tell Them To Vote Against Censoring The Internet

from the make-this-stop-already dept

As mentioned last week, there's a big push going on by the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce (the largest lobbying organization in the world) to get PROTECT IP voted on and approved in the next few days or weeks. Some in the Senate leadership have decided that with everything else going wrong in the economy these days, they can repackage this as a "jobs" bill, and pretend that they're "helping the economy." Of course, nothing is further from the truth. PROTECT IP (PIPA) is a sure jobs killer in that it will significantly hinder innovation on the internet, including those responsible for millions of new jobs over the past decade. On top of that, it will set up the very first massive internet censorship program within the US. It's hard to see how that's helpful for jobs at all.

The backers of this bill are hoping that since SOPA is even worse than PIPA, there will be less protest and some may see it as a "compromise." That's ridiculous. It's a very dangerous bill that will have long-lasting consequences. If you're an American citizen and believe in the importance of innovation online, today is the day to call your Senators. The folks at Fight for the Future have set up a very easy system to do that. You just put in your info, and it will first give you a quick summary of key points, and then connect you to your Senators. If the Senate realizes that the public really is against this bill, then hopefully they'll finally dump it.

Filed Under: copyright, free speech, internet, pipa, protect ip, regulations, senators, sopa

The Only Eight Senators Who Think Extending The Patriot Act Deserves More Discussion

from the way-too-small-a-list dept

Tragically, this list is way too small, but as expected, the Senate has moved much closer to extending some controversial spying provisions of the Patriot Act, without any modifications or new oversight. As we noted when the "deal" was brokered, the Senate leadership (of both parties) hoped to avoid having to actually debate the issue, and the Senate has now voted to skip over any such debate by an overwhelming margin: 74-8. Only eight Senators voted against this move, and they deserve to be highlighted for actually standing up for American principles against over aggressive government surveillance:

• Max Baucus (Montana)
• Mark Begich (Alaska)
• Dean Heller (Nevada)
• Jeff Merkley (Oregon)
• Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
• Rand Paul (Kentucky)
• Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
• Jon Tester (Montana)

It's really unfortunate that this list is so small. While it does appear that some who voted in favor of cloture are still going to try to introduce amendments that might limit the extensions (but not the overall clauses), it's a real shame that so many of our elected officials don't seem to want to even bother discussing what's at stake.

Filed Under: cloture, patriot act, senators

On The Media Seeks Senator Who Killed Whistleblower Bill

from the seek-and-you-shall-find? dept

At the beginning of the year, we wondered if a "whistleblower" might reveal the anonymous Senator who killed the whistleblower protection bill that was making its way through Congress (and had already been approved by the Senate earlier). Now, to be clear, there were many complaints about the bill, and some people claimed it was worse than what came before. However, it did seem somewhat ironic that a Senator would choose to use an anonymous hold on a bill about whistleblowing. The folks at WNYC's On The Media program are attempting to find out which Senator put the hold on by having volunteers ask their Senators and report back. As of this writing, there are a bunch of "No" answers, but still a lot of blanks.

Filed Under: senators, whistleblower

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

from the free-speech-isn't-free dept

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

• Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
• Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
• Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
• Dianne Feinstein -- California
• Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
• Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
• Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
• Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
• Jon Kyl -- Arizona
• Chuck Schumer -- New York
• Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
• Dick Durbin -- Illinois
• John Cornyn -- Texas
• Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
• Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
• Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
• Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
• Al Franken -- Minnesota
• Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.

Update: Some people in the comments are claiming this is not about censorship, so I've put up a new post explaining in detail why this bill is all about censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, coica, senators

Back When The Senate Tried To Ban Dial Telephones

from the a-series-of-tubes dept

With a group of Senators now looking to block various websites the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology. The Nieman Journalism Lab points us to the news that, back in 1930, the Senate came close to banning dial telephones (where you dialed them yourself), preferring to have an operator do the connection instead. To the anti-dial Senators, it was seen as inappropriate to do the work of operators themselves. The resolution, which passed, read:

Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building.

Now, it's true that the resolution only impacted the Senate -- but when another Senator asked why they didn't ban dial phones from all of Washington DC, Senator Carter Glass from Virginia who sponsored the resolution apparently said that "he hoped the phone company would take the hint," and would remove all dial phones.

While the resolution did pass, some younger Senators were apparently upset about it -- as they actually preferred to dial their own numbers, and put forth a resolution to let Senators choose which they wanted -- leading to a "compromise" where those who wanted dial phones could keep them, but those who wanted to have the operator handle the difficulty for them, could do so. As one Senator, Clarence Dill, noted in support of the ban:

In his experience, the dial phone "could not be more awkward than it is. One has to use both hands to dial; he must be in a position where there is good light, day or night, in order to see the number; and if he happens to turn the dial not quite far enough, then he gets a wrong connection."

Is it any wonder that some of us think that it's not a good idea for elected officials to determine the relative merits of technology?

Filed Under: censorship, history, senators, technology

Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T

from the just-saying dept

We mentioned, when the recent FCC report on broadband came out, that it seemed notable that the first politician out of the gate complaining about it, Rep. Cliff Stearns just happened to have had massive financial support from the biggest broadband players around when it came to raising money for his political campaigns. Given that, it seemed worth looking into the sponsors of a new bill designed to prevent the FCC from implementing net neutrality rules. Now I'm still not convinced the FCC really has the authority to do what it's trying to do, but I find it even more troubling when a group of Senators get together and call a new bill the "Freedom for Consumer Choice Act (FCC Act)," and it seems like they're all funded by AT&T. Somehow, I don't think that AT&T is supporting "freedom for consumer choice" when it comes to broadband. Over the years, they've done exactly the opposite, and worked hard to limit competition.

So, let's see. The bill's main sponsor is Senator Jim DeMint. Over the course of his career... AT&T is the second largest contributor to his campaigns. Ditto for Senator Tom Coburn. John Cornryn no doubt knows that AT&T is the 4th biggest contributor to his campaigns over the years, and Orrin Hatch must be happy that AT&T is the fifth largest contributor to his campaigns over the years (amusingly, AT&T is the only non-healthcare company in the top 8 on Hatch's list).

There are three other co-sponsors who don't have AT&T among their top contributors, but apparently they all want to start. If you drill down and look at campaign contributions this year all three -- John Ensign, Jeff Sessions and John Thune see AT&T appearing on their list of top contributors after being absent in previous years.

Funny how that works.

Now, of course, you could argue that AT&T contributes to politicians who have the same views as AT&T, rather than that these politicians are responding to AT&T's bidding. But, either way, it's hard to argue with a straight face that this particular bill has anything to do with protecting consumers, when it's pretty clearly designed to protect AT&T.

I've seen people suggest in the past that elected officials should have to wear "sponsorship patches," like Nascar racers, to show who funded their campaigns. While I think the idea was a joke, I have to admit, it's growing on me. Also, a special thanks to Karl Bode for inspiring me to write this post, in noting that none of the press coverage of the newly introduced bill seems to note the AT&T contributions to these Senators...

Filed Under: cliff stearns, contributions, jeff sessions, jim demint, john cornryn, john ensign, john thune, orrin hatch, senators, support, tom coburn
Companies: at&t, fcc

Senators Sniff Around Exclusive Handset Deals

from the lurking-with-intent dept

A group of senators has announced they'll hold a hearing in Washington on Wednesday to examine exclusive deals between mobile handset vendors and operators, and has asked the FCC to look into the practice. The senators want to know if the deals (such as those that make the iPhone exclusive to AT&T and the Palm Pre to Sprint) "unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition". Exclusive deals are becoming a big part of the operators' strategies as they look to grab users from their rivals. As prices, coverage and other competitive factors reach a degree of parity, exclusivity on certain devices is a major way the operators seek to differentiate themselves. Smaller and rural carriers argue this puts them at a disadvantage, because of their small size, which makes it impossible to compete for hot devices if a bigger operator wants an exclusive deal. The senators seem to be capitalizing on the recent outcry from some iPhone owners regarding AT&T's upgrade policy, as well as its lack of support for new features in the latest version of the iPhone software. It's unclear just how far the senators want to take this. For instance, if exclusives are banned, would manufacturers be forced to build variants of a handset for any operator's network? Say the exclusive deal for the iPhone was abolished. Would Apple be forced to build a CDMA version for Verizon and Sprint? Would it have to make a model that supported the frequencies used by T-Mobile's 3G network? Hopefully the attempt to gain some publicity by seizing on a hot topic won't lead to rushed legislation that brings unintended consequences.

Filed Under: exclusive deals, handsets, senators