Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Freedom act doesn't pass. Is wholesale government surveillance here to stay?

Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:51 am
Posted by AndyCBR
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2012
7547 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 2:51 am
The Freedom act didn't get the 60 votes needed to pass.

Very little evidence of this vote taking place occurred in the mainstream media today.

Sen. Paul himself voted against the measure but only because he felt it didn't go "far enough" to limit wholesale government surveillance on the citizenry.

Opponents to limiting NSA surveillance claim that would make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Based on recent data it appears the government is most interested in pursuing drug cases with the powers of the Patriot Act.

LINK /
Posted by Tommy Callahan
Member since Dec 2012
437 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 4:56 am to
quote:

Sen. Paul himself voted against the measure


That is disappointing. If one believed that it didn't go far enough surely you vote for it as a start in the right direction.
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
27067 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:24 am to
Last I read, it renewed the Patriot Act for a decade. Very valid reason to vote against it, if so.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 7:53 am to
quote:

That is disappointing. If one believed that it didn't go far enough surely you vote for it as a start in the right direction.
If this is the same USA Freedom Act I'm thinking of, it was absolutely gutted in committee, to the point where it ended up making some minor concessions on the phone dragnet (and only the phone dragnet) and codifying almost everything else (i.e., the internet stuff), in a very vague and expansive way that the NSA could run away with. In addition to renewing the PATRIOT Act wholesale, it also gave telecoms immunity.

The notion that it stopped "bulk collection" was a fiction given that it allowed the intelligence community to use financial and tech corps as selectors. For instance, a request for all the business records of Western Union would not be "bulk collection," since it's "targeted" at Western Union. It exempted the FBI from any kind of reporting requirements for back-door searches.

It was a POS bill and nobody should mourn its loss.
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
126962 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:07 am to
quote:

That is disappointing. If one believed that it didn't go far enough surely you vote for it as a start in the right direction.

This.

I suspect he is trying to have it both ways to appease both opponents of the bill and its supporters in his presidential campaign.

"I voted against it (but would vote FOR a stronger privacy bill)."
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123896 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 8:23 am to
quote:

Sen. Paul himself voted against the measure


That is disappointing.
It is all about content. This is a bill, duplicitously-titled, which serves basically to extend the Patriot Act
Posted by AndyCBR
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2012
7547 posts
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:50 am to
Yes I agree this bill was very low on content that actually did anything meaningful to limit government surveillance.

However, if a watered down NSA reform bill cannot pass it doesn't seem likely a stronger one would.

It's too late now but once a freedom is eroded it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to get back.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram