End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

I think the bit about the single vote was about her? Does it mean they had just one vote in the committee or a single person quashed the bill?

Feinstein lives in an ivory tower, completely isolated from the needs of ordinary citizens in California. She gets six years in office with every election, and was just recently re-elected. She's totally safe, like those tea-party republicans in gerrymandered districts. California is too big of a state for a grassroots organization to challenge her in a primary and she placates enough of various groups with the funds to start an astroturf war and so they leave her alone. She's pretty much untouchable. She often starts on the wrong side of many issues, a notable exception being LGBT rights (good for her and us), and only with intense pressure from public opinion does she bow for appearances only. For example she was for SOPA, against meaningful health reform, and she's been a staunch defender of the NSA.

Senator Feinstein is a defender of the status quo. She's a conservative. Not a social conservative or neo-conservative, but someone who fights progress. Her office is in an actual giant tower right outside of the Montgomery Street Bart station and she wouldn't even come down to visit protestors and talk to them when we were there on behalf of OFA and there quite a few of us. It might as well have been built in ivory. That was the only protest I have ever taken part in. It wasn't even really a protest, just a show of support for Obama's health care plan.

Politicians like Feinstein make me cynical about politics. I feel helpless to be able to contribute change, so I just don't want to care anymore. Whatever, she's the boss. Great. Could be worse I guess.

> "Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism."

bzzt!, oh, sorry, that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is set out in the oath that all US Senators take upon being sworn into office[1] which reads:

>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So no, sorry, the first priority is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which includes the NSA. Their oath says nothing about terrorism.

>"If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records."

Are you done supplicating yourself fully before the police state? My copy of the Constitution (which does not contain the root password "thinkofthekids" or "terrorism") says you need not just suspicion, but probable cause for a warrant.

>"When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity."

bzzt!, again, so close! Let's look at what it really says[2], shall we (emphasis mine):

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not only do you need suspicion, but you need probable cause for a warrant or the search needs to be reasonable some other way (border crossing, subject gave consent, search subject to arrest, etc).

>Our bill would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless “backdoor searches” of Americans’ communications — including emails, text messages and Internet use — under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Again, so close! Read the fourth amendment again. Nowhere does it say "The right of US Citizens". It says "The right of the people". That means all people - citizens and non-citizens, and that distinction is important. The protections afforded under this amendment apply to everyone in the country and extend to those parties being contacted by someone from this country, otherwise the wording would be different.

[1] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/...

[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

Not very worried about Google arresting me at some point in the future with their jackboot thugs for something I did or said in the past (when X wasn't illegal).

This applies to Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Snapchat, and so on. When these guys start trying to acquire their own domestic armies, then I'll get really concerned.

There seems to be a common gloss-over regarding the fact that it's the United States Military that is doing the domestic spying. They were tapping Obama's phones when he was a Senator; most likely they own everybody at this point. This isn't some fluffcake brigade; it's the US freakin' military. Slip, and you're knee deep in a military dictatorship very quickly.

This is true, but if we can't even keep the NSA from poring through the communications of citizens, what hope do we have of limiting them internationally? We must begin with the practically achievable steps even if they are insufficient.

The idea that 'data' vs 'metadata' loophole has been scaled beyond belief to undermine the plain english understanding of 'reasonable' is worthy of new jurisprudence.