So that's it - the net legislative effect of all the "bombshell" disclosures that Ed Snowden made has been what - Nothing, NADA, Zilch.<p>Proving once again that going thru "Official" Channels was never an option. That in the toxic hyper-partisan environment of Washington the Powerful will find a way to kill any meaningful reform of even the worst abuses.<p>The solution to this has to be first and foremost Technological.
Nice of the article to clearly lay out the partisan divisions here. None of that "blame both sides" bs.<p>The vote:
All D's voted right except Bill Nelson of Florida.
All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski.<p>Where "right" means "for the overhaul bill" and "wrong" means the opposite.<p>You'll also notice that this bill got way over 50 votes, but still failed due to the modern filibuster.
If what the purest form of this bill was trying to do is important to you and you're from the US, keep working for it. I suggest the following:<p>1) Show up at the primaries.
2) Reform your local laws to allow you to vote in the primaries for both parties.
3) Don't shut up. Keep talking.
4) Keep in mind, at all times, that the fight isn't over once the NSA is squelched. AT&T et. al. still get to keep this information forever.
5) Think about parallels. Encryption isn't good enough, as the same kind of meta-data is generated when you visit an encrypted site. It's not any one activity it's the pattern of all activity that's important and no one is making anyone give up that data, either.
Does anyone have a history of the "60 votes needed" to pass a bill in the Senate?<p>I could have sworn that within my lifetime, the press talked about "50 votes needed" to pass a bill. Then at some point in the Bush years, threat of filibuster was regularly invoked, making 60 votes the requirement in practice.<p>Now no one even mentions a filibuster. As a non-American, it's rather strange.
At least your media even talks about this, I'm in a 5 Eyes Alliance country and none of them have written anything except excuses why we should be under 24/7 surveillance. Our senate can't even block bills.
Not to sound more cynical than the situation warrants, but in this case I'm not particularly surprised or disappointed. Congress is clueless and more concerned with partisan politics and re-election fundraising.<p>We should be (and many are) working to secure ourselves so that Congress and the legal system must work to catch up to the possibilities of citizens to protect themselves on their own terms: good end-to-end encryption, true anonymity when it's needed, and as much open and auditable code as we can get.<p>They're not going to give security and privacy to us — they wouldn't even if they could. So we make it ourselves, slowly, surely, and publicly, and maybe in a few years <i>they'll</i> be the ones that are outraged.
I have no pity for the Republicans and every one that voted against it needs to be reminded of it every day from now until election.<p>I'm also not such a noob at politics that I think this is the entire story. Democrats knew this wouldn't pass. This was their last couple of months of control. So it's a poke in the eye to Republicans on the way out.<p>The really interesting counter-factual here is what would have happened if a large block of Republicans switched up. My bet is that you'd see quite a few defections in the Democratic camp.<p>If I'm a politician, I can either support something, oppose something, look like I'm supporting something when I really don't, or look like I'm opposing something when I really support it. The key issue isn't my stance, it's how I can position myself against the other politicians.<p>I'd love to see movement on this. Not for a second did I think this vote was anything but political posturing. But still -- any vote is a good one. Just wish it would have actually meant something instead of more fodder for all the partisans to throw dung at each other. It also looks like the beginning of "See! If we were just back in power, this time we'd really fix all those problems we approved of and encouraged the last time we were there!"<p>I wonder if this will have any traction among the base, which was the entire point. Sadly, I think it will.
"Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension"<p><a href="http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244" rel="nofollow">http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244</a>
"“This is the worst possible time to be tying our hands behind our backs,” Mr. McConnell said before the vote, expressing the concerns of those who argued that the program was a vital tool in the fight against terrorism."<p>When would be a good time? Seriously, I hate these arguments, because there is no reasoning with them. Sure, these various programs may have helped stop terrorism, or at least have the potential to.<p>However, so would killing anyone (citizen or not) who has any potential threat. I would argue the later is even more effective, and uses the same chain of reasoning.<p>Why then, can we not move past that and try to stand a bit more on law (being the constitution in this case), if not reason. Clearly, these programs are disliked by a large number (if not the majority) of the constituents these senators represent. Then, why are they not voting on their behalf?<p>That seems like a far better question.
Not to sound more cynical than the situation warrants, but in this case I'm not particularly surprised or disappointed. Congress is clueless and more concerned with partisan politics and re-election fundraising.<p>We should be (and many are) working to secure ourselves so that Congress and the legal system must work to catch up to the possibilities of citizens to protect themselves on their own terms: good end-to-end encryption, true anonymity when it's needed, and as much open and auditable code as we can get.<p>They're not going to give security and privacy to us — they wouldn't even if they could. So we make it ourselves, slowly, surely, and publicly, and maybe in a few years they'll be the ones that are outraged.<p>(pasted from the other thread where I wrote this before I saw this one)
> <i>With the bill’s defeat, the Senate faces a hard deadline for new legislation since the legal basis for the phone records program, a provision of the Patriot Act, expires in June. After that, when the 90-day orders to phone companies requiring them to turn over their customers’ records expire, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would be unable to issue a new round of orders.</i><p>Given the "rifts between the [GOP's] interventionist and more libertarian-leaning wings," what are the probable endgames? Specifically, what are the odds of–and promoting factors for–an obstructionist minority flipping over the table in June?
If there's any nugget of gold in there, it's that Dianne Feinstein voted <i>with</i> Ted Cruz in a <i>Yea</i>. I would have expected a different outcome.<p>Apart from that it's hard to frame positively. Is this something Americans should be proud of? Should the Germans have been proud in the '30s?
I can very much understand people for the 2nd amendment and people for government surveillance but for the love of me I cannot understand people for both things, they seem direct contradictions of what your idea of government involvement in citizen's life should be.
I think they just reflect what the people want. In other words, a majority of American population does not want overhaul of NSA program. Right or wrong we will see in the future.
The democrats want the government to control everything. Do you think we will have less data collection when we have universal health care? How about making the Internet a "utility"? You don't think when this happen there won't be a direct pipe to our data??<p>I can't believe anything I read on the Internet anymore. I would be interested to see why they voted against it.<p>I'm shocked that a group that claims they are open and accepting, yet when the word republican is used, the tactics and tone change to that of the people you are against (personal attacks, slander, bigotry, and bias). It's because most of it is bullshit. There is only acceptance when someone aligns with your personal beliefs.<p>I can see how evil dictators can come into power. The average person can so easily be swayed by emotion.