Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#81

Post by hypothesis »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #66
hypothesis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without FISA, the intelligence agencies have less oversight and fewer restrictions. What restrictions are you talking about? Constitutional warrant requirement was sidestepped using this law and you are still cheering here.

Well, before FISA, constitutional warrant requirements were not sidestepped , they were simply ignored . So now we're acknowledging that the constitutional requirements are still there, but now we use this weird dodge to get around it. So is that better or worse?

Are you really asking if being unconstitutional is worse than being codified and legal?

I’m not the one here cheering for demise of constitutional republic…

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#82

Post by pessimizer »

jedberg wrote: post #32

What's most interesting is that this wasn't on party lines. The yes/no mix is very mixed party-wise. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

The parties only have "disputes" on a short list of wedge issues, and either side winning on those removes the that issue as a cudgel that can motivate their base.

If you look at their donors, you'll see the lines. The people who voted for it make money from the defense and intelligence industries, and the people who didn't, don't. Voting for for something majorities of the voters of both parties are against is expensive (in terms of being re-elected.) That price is paid by donors, and the media control that those donors will exercise. Which again, is why the wedge issues are needed: you're going to have to vote for those people who voted against your civil liberties if you want Democrats to pretend to protect abortion rights for another 4 years, or Republicans to pretend to end them.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#83

Post by pessimizer »

Gud wrote: post #71
stanford_labrat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in reality the two party system is not accurate. It’s rich versus poor, those with power versus those without. Nobility versus peasants. That’s just how it works.

That's how it works in the USA, not necessarily how it works. Other forms of governing exists. A big step forward for the USA would be a vast reduction of federal power over the states.

Other countries don't institutionalize the two-party system by law. Because it would be insane and antidemocratic to create a complicated network of laws that would have to be eliminated state by state in order to ordain that an entire country must be ruled by two intimately-linked private clubs in turn.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#84

Post by xyst »

This was going to pass regardless of the outcry. The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater.

We need a significant change in leadership for all those that voted this in.

If I recall correctly, this bill also includes an expansion of surveillance performed by federal law enforcement agencies and NSA.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#85

Post by randcraw »

verdverm wrote: post #41
hellcow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really disappointed that even in CA (which is pushing for better privacy rights with CCPA), one of our senators voted for this.

Are you aware the alternative is less oversight? FISA protects Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

I used to work for several of the US intel agencies. I can say with great confidence that we never have acted gainfully on preventing a major event using intel and we never will. The catalyst for acting boldly to prevent or defend a major event is much mor political than informational. No intel will ever play a big role in deciding whether a country lives or dies.

But we most certainly WILL abuse individual civil rights my abusing that intel. THAT has been confirmed in history again and again.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

xyst wrote: post #84

This was going to pass regardless of the outcry. The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater. We need a significant change in leadership for all those that voted this in. If I recall correctly, this bill also includes an expansion of surveillance performed by federal law enforcement agencies and NSA.

> This was going to pass regardless of the outcry

There was a real moment in the House where it might not have, at least without a warrant requirement. My Congresswoman was one of the attack dogs on this issue. She thought they would get an outpouring of support. She didn’t. The call sheets registered basically zero calls in support, and several lobbying against. So she caved. (This is a pattern I saw play out in New York years earlier in another privacy battle.)

> The unnecessary drama of stalling until after midnight is all theater

Sort of. The Senate calendar is funky. Putting it at the end of the roll was theatre. Having something voted on after midnight was not.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#87

Post by Onawa »

karaterobot wrote: post #80
njarboe wrote: post #12

Here is a link to how the senators voted[1]. [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... Unfortunately both my senators voted for it. I did call their offices Thursday to no avail.

People generally vote for the incumbent if they happen to claim the same party affiliation. They complain for 4-6 years, then when it comes to what box they tick on the ballot, all of that is out the window. The lure of an incumbent is that they might have acquired enough markers and enough seats on various committees to help the state, when it often seems the reality is that they've probably just acquired more lobby…

The joys of the "first past the post" election system. Take your choice of a shit sandwich, or a shit sandwich with pickles. Heaven forbid we actually update our voting system to break up the inevitable 2-party outcome.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#89

Post by calgarymicro »

ryandrake wrote: post #22
dexwiz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides are mostly rich or put there by the rich. A few populist reps get outsized airtime, but that isn’t the majority of people running the show.

There are a lot more similarities between "both sides" than that. They make a big show out of arguing over a small number of things they disagree on. But for many important things, they don't significantly differ. The two parties do not significantly differ on indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil. The two parties do not significantly differ on domestic spying, dragnet-style data collection and warrant…

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of earmarks and pork barrel spending.

This is not true; the Republicans strongly oppose them and have repeatedly tried to abolish them (and were temporarily successful at one point).

> Neither of the two parties have (recently) proposed plans for balancing the budget.

This isn't true. Both parties have recently proposed plans for balancing the budget; Biden proposed plans to balance it by raising taxes and instituting a wealth tax just last year, and Republicans have put forward various entitlement reform proposals to balance the budget.

> The two parties both favor and continue sanctions on Iran.

Obama ended sanctions on Iran with the nuclear deal before Trump reinstated them; Republicans blocked Senate ratification of the deal, allowing him to do that and ensuring the Iranians wouldn't trust future entreaties from the US. Claiming the two parties are the same on this is odd.

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of super PAC funding and their support of unlimited spending from corporations and special interest groups.

Dems support and have repeatedly attempted to pass an anti-Citizens United amendment.

> The two parties do not significantly differ on their use of gerrymandering to gain political advantage.

Dems repeatedly tried to pass a bill banning gerrymandering federally when they controlled the House in 2021.

I'm no expert but for these 5 at least, I am aware of significant and specific interparty differences.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#90

Post by pas »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #58
memish wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-t...

If that were true, Trump would have been carried out of Helsinki feet-first.

why, what was/happened in Helsinki?
Post reply on HN