McConnell Patriot Act Expansion Would Hand AG Barr Unprecedented Spy Powers

[ZiprHead]

If This 'Doesn't Give You Chills I Don't Know What Will': McConnell Patriot Act Expansion Would Hand AG Barr Unprecedented Spy Powers
"These amendments would pretty much guarantee the ability of an incumbent administration to spy on its political opponents without consequence."

Sen. Ron Wyden was joined by privacy advocates Wednesday in forcefully condemning a new proposed amendment to the PATRIOT Act put forward by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that would greatly expand the U.S. attorney general's surveillance powers under FISA.

McConnell's amendment, which the Senate began debating Wednesday as lawmakers took up the reauthorization of the 2001 PATRIOT Act, would explicitly permit the FBI to collect records of Americans' internet search and browsing histories without a warrant. It would also mandate that Attorney General William Barr, and his successors, conduct an annual review of the FBI's submissions into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

"It is open season on anybody's most personal information."
—Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Barr would be permitted to review for "accuracy and completeness" evidence presented to the FISA Court by the FBI regarding potential surveillance targets.

"Under the McConnell amendment, Barr gets to look through the web browsing history of any American—including journalists, politicians, and political rivals—without a warrant, just by saying it is relevant to an investigation," Wyden told the Daily Beast this week, before speaking out against the amendment on the Senate floor.

 

[Patooka]

I wonder if all the people who were outraged at this will be equally furious at this Orwellian shit being pursued by a Republican politician.

Ah, fuck we already know the answer to that. Don't tread on me only applies to Demonrats amirite?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Edit

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why wasn't this law done away with under Obama? It can't be extended if it doesn't exist anymore.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I wonder if all the people who were outraged at this will be equally furious at this Orwellian shit being pursued by a Republican politician.

Ah, fuck we already know the answer to that. Don't tread on me only applies to Demonrats amirite?

As someone who criticizes both democrats and Republicans for such things, yes, I would.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if all the people who were outraged at this will be equally furious at this Orwellian shit being pursued by a Republican politician.

Ah, fuck we already know the answer to that. Don't tread on me only applies to Demonrats amirite?

The PA extension that had RVonse so upset was about accessibility to bulk phone records, not something that could be used to target individuals opposed to a regime's agenda.
This is exponentially more dangerous to freedom. But Conservocrites don't care about government surveillance, as long the government doing the surveilling is under the thumb of the Naz - er, Republican party.

 

[Derec]

Senate Proposal Against Warrantless Internet Spying Died by One Vote. Bernie Sat It Out Entirely.

Danke Bernhard!

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to know the rationales for voting against this amendment.

I would hope Mr. Sanders was too sick to vote. Otherwise, not voting is a dereliction of duty and, in this case, the action of a coward.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I wonder if all the people who were outraged at this will be equally furious at this Orwellian shit being pursued by a Republican politician.

Ah, fuck we already know the answer to that. Don't tread on me only applies to Demonrats amirite?

As someone who criticizes both democrats and Republicans for such things, yes, I would.

Unlike republicans, most democrats criticize both dems and reps.

You want a ladder to help you down from that high horse?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I would like to know the rationales for voting against this amendment.

I would hope Mr. Sanders was too sick to vote. Otherwise, not voting is a dereliction of duty and, in this case, the action of a coward.

He is probably voting against the ENTIRE bill as are a number of others. Note that a couple prominent liberals such as Feinstein and Whitehouse voted against the amendment, not merely not voting. Note also, USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act sponsored by Nadler a Democrat which appears to be the original bill being so amended:

USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020

This bill reauthorizes through December 1, 2023, provisions related to intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) and amends FISA-related provisions.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not seek certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain (1) call detail records on an ongoing basis, (2) a tangible thing where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would typically be required, or (3) cellular or GPS location information.

In applications for certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain information or conduct surveillance, the applicant must certify that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has received any information that might raise doubts about the application. The bill imposes additional requirements on FISA-authorized orders targeting a (1) U.S. person, or (2) federal elected official or candidate.

The bill increases criminal penalties for violations related to electronic surveillance conducted under color of law or false statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court).

The bill broadens the criteria for when a FISA court decision shall be declassified and requires the declassification review and release of such opinions within 180 days of an opinion being issued.

The bill broadens the FISA court's authority to appoint an amicus curiae (an outside party that assists in consideration of a case) and expands such amici's powers, such as the power to ask the court to review a decision.

Each agency that submits applications to the FISA court shall appoint an officer responsible for compliance with FISA requirements.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6172

Of course, the Republican-majority Senate made its own amendments to the bill once it got to the Senate but the concept of "freedom reauthorization" meaning extending portions of the USA PATRIOT Act should leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The Republicans will make it worse and Sanders is probably voting against the whole thing like he normally does.

Let's be real, though, the Democratic leadership knows exactly how many votes they need to get something to pass or fail, regardless of Sanders. So, if most voted for it and some of the leadership voted against it, then they collectively wanted it to fail because they actually feel it is necessary, but want to make political noise, and those who are safe fall on the sword in order to get the job done--failure of the amendment.

The blasting of Sanders in the title of a Daily Beast article is really a Democrat-led over-reaction and partisan political spin in order to continue the battle against Sanders.

In my opinion. Maybe I am wrong.

This bill in full passed WITHOUT the amendment by a vast majority of the Senate. 80 votes for it:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00092

Only 15 Democrats voted against the bill. So the majority voted for it. If Democrats really found it to be unacceptable, they'd vote against the whole thing and not have sponsored it in the first place in the House. Or one would think.

 

[laughing dog]

<snip>>
Let's be real, though, the Democratic leadership knows exactly how many votes they need to get something to pass or fail, regardless of Sanders. So, if most voted for it and some of the leadership voted against it, then they collectively wanted it to fail because they actually feel it is necessary, but want to make political noise, and those who are safe fall on the sword in order to get the job done--failure of the amendment.

The blasting of Sanders in the title of a Daily Beast article is really a Democrat-led over-reaction and partisan political spin in order to continue the battle against Sanders.

In my opinion.

In what world is Mr. Sanders "not safe" in his seat? And how much effort is it to actually vote for or against an amendment?

Sorry, I am not buying that explanation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

<snip>>
Let's be real, though, the Democratic leadership knows exactly how many votes they need to get something to pass or fail, regardless of Sanders. So, if most voted for it and some of the leadership voted against it, then they collectively wanted it to fail because they actually feel it is necessary, but want to make political noise, and those who are safe fall on the sword in order to get the job done--failure of the amendment.

The blasting of Sanders in the title of a Daily Beast article is really a Democrat-led over-reaction and partisan political spin in order to continue the battle against Sanders.

In my opinion.

In what world is Mr. Sanders "not safe" in his seat? And how much effort is it to actually vote for or against an amendment?

Sorry, I am not buying that explanation.

I was not talking about Sanders being safe or not. He is not a Democrat. Admittedly, my post was disorganized. Let's review what I believe is salient:

1. The is a Democratic-sponsored bill. The bill is badly named just like the USA PATRIOT Act: FREEDOM Reauthorization Act. The vast majority of Democrats voted for it in the House as it was, no Senate amendments yet.
2. A Democrat-led amendment from the Senate was created but a few Democratic party LEADERS voted AGAINST it. The vast majority voted for it, but a few voted against it. Notably, Feinstein and Whitehouse but also others. Therefore, the amendment failed.
3. The bill went on to PASS 80-16 with again the vast majority of Democrats voting for it WITHOUT the amendment.

In my informed opinion (maybe I am wrong), I am concluding that therefore putting that failure all on Sanders in a title on Daily Beast is political spin. The title could have easily been "Feinstein votes against amendment. I find this opposite kind of spin at the Democratic leadership makes more sense when you consider Democrats voted for the bill initially without any such proposed change and then Democrats voted for it in finality also without any such proposed change. In some sense, any kind of spin is spin, but it seems there are more hoops to jump through and more apologetics, if one has to put all this on Sanders in a news title, while there are less hoops to jump through and less apologetics, if one puts the blame on Democrats who voted against it like Carper, Casey, Feinstein, Hassan, Jones, Kaine, Manchin, Shaheen, Warner, and Whitehouse.

But this wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was saying, that even IF Bernie voted, we don't know for sure that other Democrats would still vote the way they did. The Democratic Party leadership knows the tallies of whether a thing will pass or fail and tries hard to make that outcome happen. Now, if Democrats were actually okay with the original pre-amendment bill and okay with it in finality without the amendment, and they did not successfully push the passing of this amendment, then I am of the opinion that it is just as likely that the amendment itself was noise and maybe they wanted it to fail. So, IF Bernie voted for it, then maybe leaders like Feinstein and former VP candidate Tim Kaine would push for one other Democrat to also vote against the amendment. One other to fall on their sword.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why wasn't this law done away with under Obama?

The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Because by the time he took office, it had become steadfast law and there was no Democratic majority nor need to repeal it in full. So Obama did the next best thing he could, he fought for and signed the USA Freedom Act, but he had to fight the obstruct-the-nigger-at-all-costs McConnel to do it, who had been pushing for a “clean” extension of the Patriot Act — without any changes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why wasn't this law done away with under Obama?

The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Because by the time he took office, it had become steadfast law...

I am not defending Jason 100%, but responding to the thing having become "steadfast law" (your words). In reality, many portions of the USA PATRIOT Act had extensions that needed to be reauthorized each time frame (like a year or whatever). President Obama did a lot to get Obamacare passed, and so why not put that same sort of motivation into simply failing to extend one of these portions of the Act that required authorization?

Here's an example news story relevant to USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization from Obama era:
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243850-obama-signs-nsa-bill-renewing-patriot-act-powers

It seems like they tightened it in some good ways, but on the other hand, they also extended portions of section 215, the most egregious.

 

[laughing dog]

<snip>>
Let's be real, though, the Democratic leadership knows exactly how many votes they need to get something to pass or fail, regardless of Sanders. So, if most voted for it and some of the leadership voted against it, then they collectively wanted it to fail because they actually feel it is necessary, but want to make political noise, and those who are safe fall on the sword in order to get the job done--failure of the amendment.

The blasting of Sanders in the title of a Daily Beast article is really a Democrat-led over-reaction and partisan political spin in order to continue the battle against Sanders.

In my opinion.

In what world is Mr. Sanders "not safe" in his seat? And how much effort is it to actually vote for or against an amendment?

Sorry, I am not buying that explanation.

I was not talking about Sanders being safe or not. He is not a Democrat. Admittedly, my post was disorganized. Let's review what I believe is salient:

1. The is a Democratic-sponsored bill. The bill is badly named just like the USA PATRIOT Act: FREEDOM Reauthorization Act. The vast majority of Democrats voted for it in the House as it was, no Senate amendments yet.
2. A Democrat-led amendment from the Senate was created but a few Democratic party LEADERS voted AGAINST it. The vast majority voted for it, but a few voted against it. Notably, Feinstein and Whitehouse but also others. Therefore, the amendment failed.
3. The bill went on to PASS 80-16 with again the vast majority of Democrats voting for it WITHOUT the amendment.

In my informed opinion (maybe I am wrong), I am concluding that therefore putting that failure all on Sanders in a title on Daily Beast is political spin. The title could have easily been "Feinstein votes against amendment. I find this opposite kind of spin at the Democratic leadership makes more sense when you consider Democrats voted for the bill initially without any such proposed change and then Democrats voted for it in finality also without any such proposed change. In some sense, any kind of spin is spin, but it seems there are more hoops to jump through and more apologetics, if one has to put all this on Sanders in a news title, while there are less hoops to jump through and less apologetics, if one puts the blame on Democrats who voted against it like Carper, Casey, Feinstein, Hassan, Jones, Kaine, Manchin, Shaheen, Warner, and Whitehouse.

But this wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was saying, that even IF Bernie voted, we don't know for sure that other Democrats would still vote the way they did. The Democratic Party leadership knows the tallies of whether a thing will pass or fail and tries hard to make that outcome happen. Now, if Democrats were actually okay with the original pre-amendment bill and okay with it in finality without the amendment, and they did not successfully push the passing of this amendment, then I am of the opinion that it is just as likely that the amendment itself was noise and maybe they wanted it to fail. So, IF Bernie voted for it, then maybe leaders like Feinstein and former VP candidate Tim Kaine would push for one other Democrat to also vote against the amendment. One other to fall on their sword.

If Sanders is not a Democrat, how could he run for the Democratic nomination for President.

I agree, the failure of the bill is not due to Sanders. But unless he was ill or has some good reason to not vote at all, his failure to vote was cowardly.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why wasn't this law done away with under Obama?

The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Because by the time he took office, it had become steadfast law...

I am not defending Jason 100%,

Wise choice

but responding to the thing having become "steadfast law" (your words). In reality, many portions of the USA PATRIOT Act had extensions that needed to be reauthorized each time frame (like a year or whatever).

Right, which is why I posted this link regarding that process and the USA Freedom Act that came as a result of his efforts.

President Obama did a lot to get Obamacare passed, and so why not put that same sort of motivation into simply failing to extend one of these portions of the Act that required authorization?

He did. That was my point.

Here's an example news story relevant to USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization from Obama era:
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243850-obama-signs-nsa-bill-renewing-patriot-act-powers

Yes, that is in regard to the USA Freedom Act that I posted about.

It seems like they tightened it in some good ways, but on the other hand, they also extended portions of section 215, the most egregious.

I wouldn't say it's the "most egregious," but it's certainly the most misunderstood. It's just regarding the collection of bulk telphony "metadata":

Background: Section 215, also known as the “Tangible Things” or “Business Records” provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, amended Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and permits the collection of “…tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information…” The collection of such items is permitted if the investigation seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information that does not concern U.S. persons. If it the information sought does relate to a U.S. person, it must be relevant to preventing terrorism or espionage, and not be based solely upon activities protected by the first amendment. To prevent improper utilization of the data, Section 215 requires the adoption of specific minimization procedures, which have been outlined in recently declassified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) orders. This provision of the PATRIOT Act has been interpreted to permit the bulk collection of “telephony metadata,” or the mass collection of basic call-log information, from telecommunications companies. This includes the date, time, and duration of calls to and from all phone numbers. This telephony metadata does not include specific personally identifying information such as the names or addresses connected to the phone numbers. If a problem is found with a particular number, and the number is believed to be attributed to a U.S. person, that information is passed to the FBI, which must then use publicly available information, either through other sources of intelligence or court orders, to connect the number with subscriber information.

No individual is eavesdropping on anyone's private conversations, like with a wire tap. It's just to see who is calling (or receiving calls) from suspect foreign numbers. Iow, if you're getting twenty short duration calls of say, ten or twenty seconds each and at unconventional hours, from an unregistered cellphone located in Pakistan, yeah, you'll get flagged for further investigation.

If you're calling your sister in Idaho, no. No one gives a fuck.

And, by most accounts I can find, it works. The link above (from 2014), claims:

Section 215 data has contributed intelligence to 12 counterterrorism cases with a potential homeland nexus.

Now, can such technology be abused? ALL technology can be abused. Is this technology being abused? Well, again from the source above:

Section 215 bulk data is protected against misuse through multiple oversight mechanisms, including minimization procedures that seek to restrict the retention of certain classes of data, like U.S. person data, and internal personnel controls to limit access to the data. To ensure continued program relevance and compliance with established parameters, the 215 collection program is reviewed for reauthorization every 90 days by the FISC, and reports are filed with the court every 30 days. Review by the House and Senate Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence provide an additional layer of oversight. In total, since 2003, there have been 12 confirmed cases of intentional misuse of collected signals data (not necessarily related to 215), most of which were targeted at a personal connection or romantic interest of an individual analyst. Since 2009 there have been a few isolated unintentional incidents of data misuse, only two of which represented broader Section 215 rules violations.

In the first instance, 3000 call detail records over five years old, which had not been properly disposed of in accordance with minimization procedures, were discovered on an NSA server. The records were not accessible for intelligence analysis, and were deleted upon discovery. In the second incident, the NSA received customer credit card information from a telecommunications company after the company made an unannounced software change, which altered the data delivered to the NSA. Upon discovering the unrequested data, the NSA concealed the data from intelligence analysis access, and later deleted it. All of other reported incidents were small, incidental, and resulted in the imposition of measures to prevent repetition in the future. Even very minor incidents were recorded and duly reported to the FISC.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck if Trump himself wants to sit in a dark corner of the Oval listening breathlessly to every phone call I ever make, but I sure as shit don't give a fuck about whether or not some GS-6 wonk is looking to see if my cell phone is making suspicious calls to Iran since I'm not making any suspicious calls to Iran.

Yes, yes, "slippery slope," but, again, that takes us back to the fact that ANY technology can inherently be used by bad actors to do bad things. So, the REAL issue is making sure there are no bad actors in the first place and/or establishing methods to prevent them from acting with bad intentions, which is precisely what the Obama administration did (and tried to do further).

 

[lpetrich]

???

WASHINGTON, DC - House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today regarding the Floor schedule:

"At the request of the Speaker of the House, I am withdrawing consideration of the FISA Act. The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March have indicated they are going to vote against it now. I am told they are doing so at the request of the President. believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people."

Dell Cameron on Twitter: "Democratic leaders are doing anything and everything they can to prevent privacy protections from being added to FISA.
People need to be asking themselves why this is happening. What do Pelosi/Hoyer/Schiff have to gain by defending warrantless surveillance? https://t.co/2mW3C5SUlR" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Democrats should not allow FISA to proceed.
Congress should be fighting for people’s rights, not the dangerous expansion of warrantless surveillance, nor exposing people’s private browser histories w/o a warrant.
We shouldn’t support it ever, and we *especially* shouldn’t now." / Twitter

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Democrats are trying to become the national security party ala Russia scandals. Republicans want to get away with shit. Thus, the shifting positions.

That said, citizens ought not get caught in the crossfire. Let it die.