So apparently this happened:
[From The Hill]
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) wrote on Facebook that the intelligence authorization bill that easily passed through the House contained “one of the most egregious sections of law I've encountered during my time as a representative.”
“It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American,” explained Amash, who has a record of skepticism toward the National Security Agency and other agencies. Last year, he nearly succeeded in an attempt to end the NSA’s controversial phone records program.
The bill was originally set to be considered with just a simple voice vote, but Amash rushed to the House floor on Wednesday to demand a recorded vote. He also fired off a letter to his fellow lawmakers warning them not to back the bill.
Hidden in the law is “a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process,” Amash told other lawmakers.
THAT PROVISION ALLOWS "THE ACQUISITION, RETENTION, AND DISSEMINATION" OF AMERICANS COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER OR A SUBPOENA
That type of collection is currently allowed under an executive order that dates back to former President Reagan, but the new stamp of approval from Congress was troubling, Amash said. Limits on the government’s ability to retain information in the provision did not satisfy the Michigan Republican.
Despite Amash’s late attempt, the bill easily passed, 325-100.
The bill passed the Senate earlier this week and is now on its way to President Obama
Original facebook post from Congressman Amash:
The Hill article
Original passage of said bill (prior to addition of the new amendment)
Yes lets ddos them
>>by the time the nsa figures out you entertain an ip adress, your neighbour will be driving porsche with all the amateur porn they have posted of you banging the ex wife
I'm actually uncertain where his biggest supporters stand on this bill. The safe assumption is that they're all for it but, on the off chance they aren't he might veto for some goodwill.
Remember, he has to demonize the right boot as much as he can while the left boot still controls congress.
Is this the man responsible?
He's the sponsor, so I imagine he is the one that is the most invested in it and is pushing it, right?
Because he's giving power over himself to a government he isn't going to be part of in a short time
>I'm going to sign this bill into law, so after I'm finished being president, the next president can freely monitor everything I do
NSA ahead of the game again!
It's easier to spy on everyone indiscriminately and just compile a huge network database instead of going through due process and going after suspects with reasonable suspicion.
This is why I hate biased people.
I see good and bad people in all sides of the spectrum.
>mfw a based republican
>mfw ron paul
>mfw the CEO of Troll, Inc. Blasted thumblr so they could no nothing in this happening.
So what's gonna happen?
a) People who care actually pressure lawmakers into fixing it.
b) Or they keep autistically clinging to the dream of encrypting everything while 99.9% of the population is oblivious.
I'm gonna go with B.
The timing is pretty convenient but, I doubt there's any great conspiracy on mооtykins part.
It depends on how this goes through the media. Will the right-wing outlets shout it from the rooftops or do
I don't see some like Warren going along with it or she shouldn't if she's smart and wants a run in 2016. She's already railing against the spending bill because it removes certain derivative regulations that were established in Dodd-Frank.
China has sold us out now they need to create a total police state destroy the country economically then move on to start making Americans kill each other in hopes that other nations would do something about it and start a total war with the US
shits getting really scary.
List of biggest intruders
1. Some poor faggot building a backdoor into a keyboard driver
7. Cell operators
9. Your neighbour
10. Mfw nsa also catches up
collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order, subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications.
Covered communication.--The term ``covered communication'' means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a party to the communication, including communications in electronic storage.
In other words, EVERYTHING
I am happy with it. I realise some nsa faggot could randomly pick out my web cam, only to find out a bang the blue smoke out of my wife.
But i realise that if i get fucked over by an oem, that runs a private network, i can always just ask for the proof.
bottom line is no one will fuck with you unless you fuck with them
>bottom line is no one will fuck with you unless you fuck with them
holy shit, are there retards who seriously believe this? do you really not understand the issue of abuses from these agencies?
>bottom line is no one will fuck with you unless you fuck with them
Tell that to the Dixie Chicks... oh wait exercising your 1st Amendment Rights to claim fact are grounds to be persecuted by the fucking Government.
Is there any hope of obama not signing this abomination, or of it being stopped in any way?
What bugs me most...
Is that everyone is going to forget about this, and all the other shit, next time we're arguing about just how free of a country the US is, despite gun rights being so well protected, vs. other Western countries that don't allow their citizens to own weapons as freely... but, ya know, also don't spy on them as much, or at all, among other differences.
>The U.S. tortures POWs, suspends due process for "suspected terrorists", and spies on its citizens, in violation of international treaties and its own constitution
>The government watches everything that you do, if they pick you up the burden is on you to prove that you're not a terrorist, if you can't you can be swept off to some Ministry of Love type place and no one will ever be held accountable, even if you are eventually exonerated
>citizens think "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
How do you expect purity of product if you outsource to a percieved enemy? At the very least suspicion should lead you.
Why the fucking hell is that allowed? Lets build macs in china, has no fucking clue what 4 pin port on 2.5inch hdd is used for.
I'm trying to find the exact amendment when this was added
They already visited me because i got drunk and miss spelled some shit on facebook on my phone later i went over to see wtf happen after the visited me to ask questions i wrote "Me terrosit is destroid" i was trying to write my propriety is destroyed because some faggot jump off my couch and landed on my TV fucked my entire room and left my house unclean. idk why i wrote that i was too drunk with my buddies
What's even better is that people read that and their response is "That sort of thing doesn't happen!", even though the U.S. government has demonstrated its willingness to use national security laws to classify things that are politically inconvenient.
What you've posted there is essentially the same as the current procedure for retention of information collected. If a communication is collected that doesn't meet the criteria in section 3B (Limitation on retention), it must be destroyed.
That section doesn't allow the retention of any US Person information that isn't collected under a warrant.
If a person were to neglect destruction of that data, they would be criminally liable. Anyone dealing with signals collection/analysis has to take a training about this, and pass a test once a year.
This is negating the need for a warrant, allowing seizure of your data without a warrant. The 4th Amendment clearly states that you *need* a warrant for this sort of thing. Too bad our government is an illegitimate organization of traitors to the nation, and doesn't give two shits about the constitution.
Its talking about incidental collection, which essentially means it was collected by accident. Specifically targeting US Persons information is, and has been, illegal, unless a warrant is secured. Furthermore, if you see information dealing with a US person, it must be destroyed immediately. This law ensures that even if no one sees the information, it gets destroyed.
Except now, they can tap all of your phone calls, read every email, download anything you have stored online, access any banking/financial records online, monitor every website you ever go to, watch everything you download, track every search, and store it all for a minimum of 5 years without having to have any form of warrant
Don't know how it is in America, but in germany I remember several cases were the german SWAT equivalent raided the wrong fucking house because they didn't get the address right. So they kick in the door of some grandpas or something and beat the shit out of innocents until they realized their fuckup. I would be surprised if this type of stuff doesn't happen overseas.
Besides that people are fucking retarded. Next time you hear a guy justify surveillance with "I've got nothing to hide" etc. ask him for his wallet and have a look through is stuff. Or ask him for the keys to his house.
>if you see information dealing with a US person, it must be destroyed immediately.
Do you believe this actually happens? I don't. And as far as I understood they just use the data foreign intelligence communities collect on us citizens and vice versa. 5 eyes and whatnot.
You literally said the exact opposite of what the law says.
>collected by accident
"any intelligence collection activity"
>unless a warrant is secured
not otherwise authorized by court order subpoena, or similar legal process, that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person
>if you see information dealing with a US person, it must be destroyed immediately
and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B).
(B) Limitation on retention.--A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless--
it happens all the time, and the statists and bootlickers defend the cops actions like they are superheros. lookup copblock on facebook, they ride the cops asses over this kind of shit.
this is one burgerclap that sure as fuck isnt defending it, this is bullshit totalitarianism through and through. the fuckers that wrote this should be tried and hanged for treason against the people and constitution of the United States of America.
Yes it actually happens, and people who don't handle/destroy data properly have actually gotten in trouble for it. The rules are very clear, and there are criminal consequences for those who don't follow the laws. 2nd party persons (five eyes) are to be treated as US Persons as well, and they are to treat US Person data in the same manner.
Also, the terms "US Citizen" and "US Person" are not interchangeable. US Person has a MUCH more broad definition than US Citizen. For instance, foreign nationals on US soil are considered US Persons.
This subject is far more complicated than what can be learned from 4chan or some leaked documents. Reading the law is a good start.
Read the title, it says "incidental collection" in the goddamn title. It means that incidental collection during any intelligence activity.
Re-read those other lines you posted. They define what type of information CANNOT be retained for over 5 years. This part of the law is dealing with information that got collected, but has not been looked at. In which case, it will automatically be purged.
There are other laws that say if you see information that contains US Person data or is even about a US Person, it must be destroyed immediately.
The portion of the law above is dealing with incidental collection and data that is never reviewed. There are a lot of other laws covering other activities.
There are legal differences, but in terms of intelligence gathering, there are US Persons and Foreign Persons. US persons include US corporations, naturalized citizens, legal aliens, visitors to the US, people with student visas, natural citizens and a ton of other types of people.
Foreign people who posess foreign intelligence information are the only people who can be targeted under EO 12333. Of course, there are other laws dealing with warrants etc.
Also, newer laws typically take precedence when there is a contradiction, unless there older law comes from a higher level of government. Constitution overrides new fed laws that override old fed laws that override state constitutions that override...
As a futurist I generally tell people what the future will probably look like... but the coming police state vision is so disturbing that i'm hesitant to tell others. Basically it'll come to a point where literally everything you say will have consequences, this whole phase of rampant feminism is only the beginning as they play a key role in the suppression of thought & ideas unknowingly. Most of society is still being subconsciously driven by subliminal messaging from television, it drives peoples actions by altering the subconscious emotions.
Day by day more of our rights and basic freedoms will be stripped away, people will yell in scream in the streets but none of that will matter much because it's all part of the plan to turn people against one another.
But not all is bad, the more they take away the more they'll give in other areas, but those will just be illusions of freedom such as legalizing prostitution, and currently legalizing marijuana. However the more they constrict the more people will wish to escape into the virtual reality space to find comfort. Sigh, I hope i'm wrong, someone tell me i'm wrong.
... yes, they do. Maybe not in contracts, but in laws like this, titles carry plenty of weight. I also doubt this is the entire contents of this section. Sections addressing this subject in other laws are pages and pages long.
This law hardly does what Amash and other claim, which is to allow the bulk collection of US person information.
So what you're saying is that as a "futurist" you tell people about some kind of bullshit future you came up with based on the extremely narrow experience of one single person (you).
> I hope i'm wrong, someone tell me i'm wrong
You are. This is real life, not some gay anime.
I got in an argument with my family over this one- I voted third party, and they told me how naive it was to even try. They advocated the 'lesser of two evils' argument, and insisted that if the Republicans won, it would be like 'letting the bad guy win'. I'm embarrassed that they're that deluded and unable to understand that that's not how government works, nor how this bipartisan government works.
Why do they even need to pass a law when the NSA can fuck around with everybody's communications as much as they want already, and they can just pass Executive Orders whenever they want?
Nope, and there will be no public outcry against it. If there is, it will be a fringe group that may grow as massive as maybe into the pseudo-activist masses, but will die when people forget as they tend to do.
>tfw the roots of the police state really start to sprout around 9/11, so Bush & Congress passes a bunch of this shit and later Obama & Congress
>tfw Bush would not be President if Nader's supporters went with Gore instead
You're right, I haven't read the entire bill, and I never said I did. I was wrong thinking incidental collection would be described in more detail within this bill, but I hardly stated that as fact. I am however, extremely familiar with the current practices and laws. Those laws (some where in USC Title 50) do define what incidental collection is, and unless they are superseded by something else, those laws still stand. In fact, I don't even see anything in this section that strays from the current laws in effect, but there could be some legal subtilty that I'm not picking up.
I have to deal with these laws every day, and I'm speaking from experience, and from the extensive training I have to take to ensure that I do my job properly and don't end up in jail. I know what incidental collection is, and I know what retention limitations are, and I'm making an argument from that standpoint.
Yes, futurists have have a history of being spot on. I believe every word of your statement.
>Democrats still argue this
You understand Republicans swung for Nader also? And that Bush still would have lost if not for ethically questionable actions taken by his governor brother in Florida? You know, the recounts, denial of registered minorities at the polls, who overwhelmingly swung Democrat?
>implying Bush was the first administration to impose an authoritarian agenda
>implying Bush was the cause of the actions of his administration
>implying the Democrats don't contribute equally to the police state
Here's the thing:
Their opinion about truth is what shapes the truth. It's like thinking you'd have to be an asshole because everybody else was an asshole. So you end up with millions and millions of assholes who all tell you to adjust to a certain paradigm, because that's just how life is (according to them). But you've got to realize that you, as a singular human being, are just one of all the others perceived by someone else. And most of the others justify their actions in the same way. You, the other, are the one who's forcing them to act in a certain way, apparently. But then you yourself say it's them who's creating pressure to adjust. In a way everybody is right, but that perceived reality you're acting upon is more like a common agreement than a natural law. And I think it's only going to change when people understand that the sum of our individual decisions is what creates the current state of society.
Do you see the problem?
>The government can retain your encrypted data until quantum computers are real and can BTFO the old bit-based encryption
>I signed up for a google account, I'm signed into Chromium, and I still have to type text every time I post
Third parties force primary parties to consider new ideas. It doesn't matter that they'll never win. If enough people vote for them, that gives the primary parties incentive to incorporate parts of their platform in order to win those votes back.
If I ran for President as a third party saying that I would immediately pardon Snowden upon election and I got a large enough number of people to vote for me that it swayed an election, the major parties would have to think about doing that the next time to try to get those votes back. In this way, third parties get things done without ever winning any seats.
No legal degree either, but I've had several classes on it in order to teach law to Flight Instructor applicants, and like half of my job is doing just that.
It's not that it's not defined, it's that it never states anywhere that any of the information collected is incidental. Arguments could be made about the spirit of the law because of the title, but the law itself is awful and never makes a definitive statement about incidental collection
How would non-votes be counted though? With the current election climate if we counted no-shows as votes for "none of the above" nothing would ever get done because no one would ever show up.
Incidental collection is well defined elsewhere, and so are pretty much all of these retention caveats. And like 100% of my job involves these laws.
3A addresses the type of information covered. Basically, it says that any type of intelligence gathering that isn't intended to capture "covered communications", which happens to capture "covered communications" is subject to the restrictions in 3B. That pretty much covers incidental communications. Obviously if you are performing some kind of legal collection that is supposed to obtain covered communications (eg collection under a FISA warrant), that communication isn't incidental.
If you are collecting on some foreign target who can be targeted legally under EO 12333 and he emails someone a bunch of US Person information, which gets collected somehow, but not viewed, that is an incidental collection. That is the case in which this law would apply.
Seems pretty clear to me. That in conjunction with multiple other laws makes it very clear.
>nothing would ever get done
I think this would a good thing regarding the majority of politics. I guess they count it just by by including non participation. They know how many people voted so they should know how many didn't.
Yes, and that's why I voted third party. If truth is the sum of collective knowledge and ignorance, it is the duty of those with knowledge to dispel ignorance. And if the platforms of parties are not to one's liking, it is up to them to change it by showing what they do want.
There is only one covered communications in 3A. It's the one recovered from the unauthorized activity. It then goes on to "permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B)."
There isn't anything unintended about it, only unauthorized
>so they could no nothing in this happening.
Snowden said his biggest fear was that nobody would care and that nothing would change (for the better).
I'm sorry, Snowden. We failed you.
True. The only prediction that has not played out yet is the mechanics of nanotech. We can isolate the components but dont have a means to assemble them yet. Apart from that the guy is legend
What's creepy is how fucking accurate were both Orwell and Huxley when describing where society was headed towards. Right now we stand at a mix of both scenarios, where the government is actively pushing for big brother while at the same time, through media, inducing people into being complacent with garbage (entertainment industry as a whole = feelies, legalization of drugs = soma). It's some seriously frightening shit, both fucking scenarios becoming a reality