House Votes To End Spy Agencies' Bulk Collection of Phone Data 142
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a story at Reuters that gives a rare bit of good news for the Fourth Amendment: The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill on Wednesday that would end spy agencies' bulk collection of Americans' telephone data, setting up a potential showdown with the U.S. Senate over the program, which expires on June 1. The House voted 338-88 for the USA Freedom Act, which would end the bulk collection and instead give intelligence agencies access to telephone data and other records only when a court finds there is reasonable suspicion about a link to international terrorism.
Re: (Score:1)
*John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!*
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Interesting)
The EFF just withdrew support of the Freedom Act after the 2nd Circuit decision that said Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't authorize ANY data collection of Americans. The Freedom Act is a step back from current collection efforts, but actually codifies some that could possibly be overturned without it!
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
meh. I say that the section 215 of the patriot act as written is not necessarily a violation of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. it authorizes the collection of business records relevant to a terrorist investigation. it only became unconstitutional when "business records" was interpreted to mean "anything we want" and "investigation" was interpreted to mean "eternal vigilance." Section 215 could very easily be implemented in a way that is constitutionally sound, and thus the provision itself is not unconstitutional.
Given the options on the table i would take the improvement. this legislative improvement, along with a bitch-slapped NSA who would stay within the intent of the law, is much better than what we had before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the world would you think the NSA is going to actually follow the law? They've not exactly given any signs they give a shit about doing so lately. Rather the opposite, in fact.
As long as no one, except whistle-blowers, are getting any jail time, don't expect any actual change. They'll just rename the programs and do a better job of hiding what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Section 215 could very easily be implemented in a way that is constitutionally sound, and thus the provision itself is not unconstitutional.
All evidence to the contrary... limitless authority is unconstitutional whether it is acted upon or not. And in this case we know the government is using that blank check authority to carry out dragnet searches of all Americans communications and business records. Phone records are a drop in the bucket.
Re: Whatever... (Score:1)
So that means they have been breaking the law all this time? How many years in prison for how many people?
Re: (Score:2)
they will likely have "qualified immunity" because at the time they were breaking the law they had implicit/explicit approval from the FISA court.
Re: (Score:2)
No court can authorize an inherently illegal action. The Supreme Court of the United States can approve me murdering schoolchildren all it wants, but my ass will still fry for it (and rightfully so).
Re: (Score:3)
Inherently illegal isn't really a thing. Maybe you mean immoral?
In any case, courts in the US have been just fine with authorizing the killing of schoolchildren. None of the involved parties fried for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Inherently illegal isn't really a thing. Maybe you mean immoral?
No, I mean illegal. The US Constitution recognizes that there are things beyond the reach of any government's authority and by their very nature, such things cannot emanate from the government. Ergo, violation of such rights is inherently illegal regardless of what laws or judges or kings and queens might say or do.
In any case, courts in the US have been just fine with authorizing the killing of schoolchildren. None of the involved parties fried for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Regardless of the unfortunate case you cited and the suspicions that a grave injustice was done, capital punishment is not murder by its very definition. To clarify my example, the Supreme Court
Re: Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's the entire point of a warrant: it's the state's written grant of immunity for people to do things that would otherwise be illegal. Ordinarily, it's illegal for anyone to forcibly restrain you and hold you against your will. But with an arrest warrant, it's legal.
Re: (Score:2)
There are things the state cannot grant or authorize because they would violate the rights of the people. The US Constitution recognizes some of that (at least on paper; in practice...). The government lacks the requisite authority to authorize those rights to be denied or revoked.
When they do it anyway, all involved should be hauled off to prison, even if it takes an army of the people to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
your ass probably wouldn't fry for it. You may be convicted in trial court, but the conviction would likely be overturned in the appellate courts because of supreme court precedent saying that in your particular circumstances it's legal to do what you described.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you know, "befehl ist befehl". That worked so well at the Neurenberg trials after WW2 so why not now?
Re: (Score:1)
yes, they believed they were doing the Lord's work, therefore, by definition, it could not be illegal.
Kill the USA Freedom Act (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also section 215 is not even dead [govtrack.us] - if you look at section 705 of the USA Freedom Act:
705.Sunsets
(a)USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (50 U.S.C. 1805 note) is amended by striking June 1, 2015 and inserting December 15, 2019.
(b)Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking
of which agency? (Score:3, Interesting)
For every program we discover there's probably 3 or 4 that we haven't yet.
For every agency we know about, there's probably at least 1 or 2 more.
NSA gets all the news. When's the last time anyone mentioned the NRO?
Does this include DOD, DOJ, all branches of the military, private contractors used to skirt the laws, etc...?
And: of which communication types (Score:5, Insightful)
Also -- why the focus on a tiny subset (just Metadata) of a dying communiation system (phone).
It'd be far more interesting if they'd do something about far more invasive (not just metadata, but content too) that's being captured from (presumably) all internet traffic (skype, email, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping "phone records" includes phone metadata, like keep-alive packets. That's one of the primary concerns to me: by collecting "phone records" they're effectively tracking the physical location of everyone with a powered cell phone (i.e., the vast bulk of people) all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the media's focus, not the law's.
Granted, I haven't been able to find more details than that (on a cursory read of the Wikipedia article, anyway).
They've invested billions (Score:5, Insightful)
They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
I won't.
Re:"Citizens united" was a coup (Score:4, Insightful)
388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines. I'd say it's a dead program.
Re:"Citizens united" was a coup (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say it's a dead program.
No, it's a 'dark' program.... again... kinda-sorta..
Re: (Score:1)
I'm with you on that. The telecoms companies got immunity back in 2007, so even if its illegal, they will hand over the data just as they did when it was illegal-illegal, because they get paid to do it, and they get backing from the spooks in regulatory matters/competition matters.
As long as they get their backs scratched and have immunity, they will do it.
We have a similar situation in the UK with GCHQ, they have immunity from UK law if they spy on people as long as they have an order from the Secretary of
Re: (Score:1)
388 people who don't matter.
General Alexander did his program with ZERO and once he'd done it it took years before even the tiniest part of it is possibly starting a process that might lead to its dissembly!
He even got around the one court that was supposed to keep a check on him. Simply by telling them he needed access to {all records} to search for {terrorist record} and neglecting to tell the court that he intended to store {all records} and search it freely however he pleased for whatever purpose he ple
Re: (Score:1)
The bare faced lies told to Congress have never been prosecuted either.
Where's the incentive?
Re: (Score:1)
There is none. The White House lies to Congress AND the American public. As long as mainstream media glosses it over then there is no incentive.
Re: (Score:1)
The incentive has to come from the American public, otherwise nothing will happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress, look what happened to him (nothing).
Only charges that matter are from DOJ. They have the prisons that you go to if found guilty. Last I knew, Congress didn't have prisons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines.
Why guess that its a consensus that crosses party lines when you can know for a fact how the vote went?
I see this again and again here on slashdot. Supposed computer nerds averse to the simple act of looking at how exactly a vote went. Often times they guess, and guess wrong. This time you guessed correctly, but thats no excuse for you guessing something so fucking trivial to look up. Every vote in both the House and Senate are documented on their respective websites.
REPUBLICAN yeas 196 nays 47 nv 1
D
Re: (Score:2)
Even a modicum of common sense could tell you the Ayes crossed party lines. Neither party even has 388 seats. In fact, anything where the Ayes are 285+ or the Nays are 150- would be pretty safe to assume that it crossed the aisle in significant enough numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, just maybe, knowing that there are only 245 Republican congressman and 188 Democrats the gp was just commenting on the fact that a vote of 388 indicates exactly what he/she stated, that the bill has bipartisan support and is more likely than not to stand up to any challenges (at least in the House).
The word "guess" doesn't even appear in their comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Every vote in both the House and Senate are documented on their respective websites
Actually, not quite. There are a number of voice votes, where they don't even take an exact count. They're supposed to be used only when it's unanimous or nearly unanimous, though every once in a while somebody will play silly buggers and put things to a voice vote just to hide who said what. (Usually, when both parties want to avoid having the exact count known, since in theory anybody can request a division, which requires an exact count which will be published.)
Most votes are actually voice votes. They'r
Re: (Score:2)
He wanted a link. And we're "fucks" for not Googling it for him.
Re: (Score:2)
388 to 88. That's pretty much a consensus that crosses party lines. I'd say it's a dead program.
The only thing almost dead in the US is Freedom itself. This is a shameful vote to extend a shameful program without any meaningful limitations.
Re:They've invested billions (Score:4, Insightful)
They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
I won't.
I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.
Re:They've invested billions (Score:5, Insightful)
They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
I won't.
I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.
The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.
Re:They've invested billions (Score:5, Informative)
The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.
This.
Hope it gets defeated in the Senate, and they just let Sec. 215 expire. Call or write your Congresscritters in the Senate and tell them to vote down this deceitful POS. Sunset 215!
Re:They've invested billions (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no requirement to mothball it. They can still use it but only in accordance with the US Constitution. They have to get a warrant. Novel idea that, probably never catch on.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no requirement to mothball it. They can still use it but only in accordance with the US Constitution. They have to get a warrant. Novel idea that, probably never catch on.
Somehow the United States survived for over two hundred years requiring the government to get a warrant to search the records of individuals and businesses and without the kind of dragnet surveillance being perpetrated against the American people. The threat that the USA Freedom Act poses to the American People is far far greater than what any terrorist could do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the current crop is so incompetent that they can't do anything so difficult as applying for a warrant. That's too hard for them. If they knew their ass from a hole in the ground the World Trade Center towers would still be standing.
Re: (Score:3)
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
Phone records were likely but a small slice of what the surveillance networks are working on.
They likely have Internet tap aggregators with black boxes in all the major POPs across the country, nay the world.
If you post something on Facebook, Twitter, or Slashdot, they likely have the data indexed within 15 seconds, And connected to all the poster's personally identifying information for 99% of users, with a single clic
Snowden... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right? Because he's been proven to be correct time and time again, and congress continues to validate his position by voting to approve these counter-spy bills.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd really like to see that but I doubt it's going to happen, there's a lot of pressure by law enforcement and U.S. intelligence and the people he embarrassed by his disclosures to make an example of him so that anyone else with a conscience that works for the government will think a few times and decide "Nope, don't want to end up like Snowden in prison / solitary for the rest of my life".
Re: (Score:2)
The way the country goes, the powers that be would probably have Obama impeached if he tried to pardon Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! There's an easy end-run around that scenario. He does what all presidents do. He issues a whole shitload of pardons during the last few days of his presidency. You can't even begin to get the slow wheels of impeachment working in hours, even if anyone is paying attention on his final day.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no lawyer and I hope that someone with more knowledge than me chimes in here if I'm wrong, but I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime. So Snowden hasn't been charged or convicted even though there is a warrant out for his arrest should he enter a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with the United States.
Snowden has publicly said that he would return to the US (and wants to), if he is promised a public trial in civilian
Re:Snowden... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime.
Nope. See U.S. Proclamation 4311 [wikipedia.org], for example:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so Google can be wrong...... good to know :-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, one can be pardoned even before being indicted. See Ford's pardon of Nixon for an example. The presidential pardon is a pretty powerful tool, but the president can't wield it too freely as there is great potential for political backlash against the party.
If a Republican gets the White House in 2016 (or even if they don't), I hope Obama mans up and pardons Snowden and Manning and others who blew the whistle on this. It would be one of the few things he could do to redeem his half-assed presidency IMO, bu
Re: (Score:3)
Not likely. Obama doesn't have the balls. Nor does he have the desire.
Re: (Score:1)
Not likely. Obama doesn't have the balls. Nor does he have the desire.
Probably true, I would imagine being shown the Kennedy assassination tapes probably does stick with you even after a couple terms of presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
His own administration is the one that has so forcefully prosecuted all of these whistleblowers. What makes you think he has any desire at all to pardon them?
The weird Stockholm Syndrome (or battered spouse)-like feelings that people have towards politicians baffles me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no lawyer and I hope that someone with more knowledge than me chimes in here if I'm wrong, but I believe (from a quick Google search) that to be pardoned for a crime you first have to be convicted of that crime. So Snowden hasn't been charged or convicted even though there is a warrant out for his arrest should he enter a jurisdiction that has an extradition treaty with the United States.
I don't think that President Nixon was actually CONVICTED of anything [wikipedia.org] (but several of his minions were); but that didn't stop Gerald Ford from Pardoning him (but not his minions). The effect of the "Pardon" was to immunitize Nixon against any future prosecution for Watergate-related crimes.
Why yes (Score:2)
So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right?
If by "pardoned", you mean "Drone Strike", then yes, Snowden will be "pardoned".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So Snowden is going to be pardoned by Obama now, right? Because he's been proven to be correct time and time again, and congress continues to validate his position by voting to approve these counter-spy bills.
This is the one and only "counter-spy bill" they've passed (and it still needs to get through the Senate). Everything else from congress on this has just been hot air.
Re: (Score:1)
Spying on the German Chancellor's communications has nothing to do with domestic policies, for one.
Annoying as shit for the Germans, embarrassing for us, but certainly and decidedly not domestic. Should we not be doing it? Hell, I honestly don't know. Sure as shit they'd listen in on Obama's phone calls if they could, so why the hell not? Regardless, it's decidedly not illegal, not domestic, and exactly what the NSA is mandated to do: listen in to foreign communications.
For exposing the domestic program
Great for all ya Americans (Score:1)
But what about the rest of the world.....
Suuuure we'll "stop" "wiretapping" (Score:4, Funny)
NSA to the people:
PFCHFHFCHFHF! Yeeeeah. We'll "stop" "wiretapping."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very very weird when even the government of a people can't tell the spy agency of the government to stop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not really trying, and they don't really want to. It's a pacification thing.
Re: (Score:1)
They aren't ending the spying if you look at the "Freedom" Bill, they just require the corporations to do the spying instead and give them legal protection against lawsuits. The cost will likely be passed on as a new fee on the customer bills. The court orders for viewing the data is still the secret FISA court and I don't think their is anything preventing open ended court orders.
This is not a win. Instead of the government having the data, now the corporations and the government have the data and it free
"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" (Score:5, Informative)
Have you actually read the text of the bill? [congress.gov] The bulk collection of phone data is not only still allowed, they give legal protections and guidelines for monetary compensation to the businesses they order to collect the data.
Oh yeah, and at the very bottom of the bill? They reauthorize another section of the Patriot Act.
Re:"Ends spy agency bulk collection of phone data" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reading... but it is like reading a patch file for a language I don't understand, when I don't have the file that is being patched.
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “an order” and inserting “an order or emergency production”; and
That might as well be:
Go to line 57 and insert "else break;"
It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.
Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking the same thing. To really see what it does, you have to get the original text and apply the bill to it. Otherwise, yes, it's just a bunch of patches. I'd like to see more bills written in a form that replaces the entire section so the change can be seen in context.
Re: (Score:1)
This is an old tactic for getting an unpopular thing around readers. It's what the Lisbon treaty was: the EU's patchset for Maastricht, expressly intended to be incomprehensible to the reader because of exactly what you're describing. The French had killed the Treaty for the Constitution of Europe, which was written as a straightforward constitution, so the EU went back and reimplemented the Treaty for the Constitution of Europe as a set of patches on Maastricht. They almost got caught by the Irish, who
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.
Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."
Well I'm sure the Executive branch can define it for you, though you may find the particulars of their definition convoluted and self-serving.
Re: (Score:2)
Legalese is surprisingly similar to a programming language. The purpose of legalese is to turn ambiguous english into concrete lines. While this can be used for nefarious purposes, like intentionally ambiguous laws, its not that hard to parse once you start looking at it like a procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals already found NSA mass phone data collection to be illegal [eff.org] why would they need a new law to end it?
Sounds fishy.
Sham Bill - American Sheeple Duped Again (Score:2, Insightful)
Top NSA officials held "closed door" briefings with senators yesterday to scare them into voting to continue their massive illegal spying program.
It's a sham "reform" bill that extends the controversial surveillance state provisions of the "Patriot" Act set to expire June 1.
The reason you are hearing this "Wonderful News" is because the CIA issues press releases to all of their CIA assets (news agencies like NBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, et all) to make sure they highlight 1 good thing they are attempting to remove f
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's see if I can find that clip... yea, here it is on YouTube [youtube.com]
This is the one where Holder is asked if bulk collection of data includes members of Congress. Holder's response was basically "We should discuss that offline." Right. So I guess those closed door meetings with Senators is exactly the "forum for discussion" he was talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
This was my immediate reaction. They are claiming this stops the bulk collection, which comes from the Patriot Act provision that expires next month. If they want to end bulk collection they would just let that provision expire. Why do they need a new law? Any law they come up with to "stop" the bulk collection will only do the opposite. The article even mentions they would need "specific selection terms" to get the data, which means the data is still being collected. It also mentions they can only ge
Problem solved. (Score:3)
I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package.
Really, I mean that. I'm sorry if it sounded sarcastic.
Cleaning their skirts (Score:5, Interesting)
"The revised bill that makes its way to the House floor this morning doesn't look much like the Freedom Act.
This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end "bulk collection" of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.
But the bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for "area code 616" or for "phone calls made east of the Mississippi." The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
--- Justin Amash
Re: (Score:2)
Your signature doesn't help for such topics.
Re: (Score:3)
"No, no, we'd never ask you to turn over all your call records! That's illegal. But we do need all your call records for area codes that have an even number in them. Oh, and in an unrelated matter, all call records for area codes that have an odd number in them. Thanks!
xoxoxo, NSA"
Any vote from the house (Score:2)
Meanwhile, north of the U.S.A. (Score:4, Insightful)
Harper's government, helped by the Liberals, forcefully pushes bill C-51 [www.cbc.ca] to make such government spying legal.
Want to bet a lot of U.S.A. communications are going to go through Canada's carriers before reaching their destination? (even within the U.S.A.)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank dog for election years (Score:2)
...even though this isn't an election year, per se.
Sad that we can only hope for some semblance of our lawmakers actually doing their jobs for the barest fraction of time we pay attention to them doing it.
If A Spy Agency Stops Collecting Data on You... (Score:3)
If a spy agency stops collecting data on you...how do you actually know?
Strangely enough, having a bunch of politicians say "We voted against it, so we won't collect data on you, promise!" really doesn't seem too compelling to me.
I think I will be keeping my tinfoil hat on with chin strap secured, thank you very much.
distraction (Score:2)
This is a meaningless distraction from the real, underlying issues. Does anyone really believe this will matter at all? First, the spy agencies will likely continue to do whatever they want, just like they always have. Second, this little token doesn't even put the slightest dent in the collection of sensitive data.
It is appalling we even have the need for a so-called "USA Freedom Act".
Is that a breeze? (Score:2)
I can feel the winds of change already.
Was There Ever a Law that Allowed Bulk Collection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, a court found that no law existed that allowed bulk collections. Not even the Patriot Act: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... [nytimes.com]
This is a law that makes something illegal that was already illegal. More congressional theater.
Wake me up when the people who broke the law start seeing some time. Let me know when the guy who exposed this illegal activity is allowed back into the country with his liberty intact.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when the people who broke the law start seeing some time. Let me know when the guy who exposed this illegal activity is allowed back into the country with his liberty intact.
Good night Mr. van Winkle. We'll wake you in a thousand years.
Honestly? (Score:2)
Not all Congress would agree... (Score:2)
FYI, at least one Congressman thinks the NSA isn't collecting ENOUGH:
http://thehill.com/policy/nati... [thehill.com]
Public Repo? (Score:1)
Does anyone know of something along the lines of a GitHub type of public repo that folks have used to put in the texts of these bills and then updated them with the line changes so that we can see how the bills have changed over time more easily?
Completely wrong summary (Score:2)
Subject should read: House votes to extend Patriot Act, and changes some cosmetics when it comes to telephone meta data collection.
1.) Without the act, the Patriot Act, which is what allows the intelligence agencies and LE to collect way to much data, would be again illegal and/or practically much harder. The Freedom Act extends the Patriot Act so the agencies can continue legally to collect the data heaps.
2.) So, the data will be stored at the provider, and they need a court order. And FISA is known to rej
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Vote Starlight Glimmer for President in 2016. As the equalist candidate, Starlight invites all of America to experience true friendship for the first time. Starlight believes in an America where people don't flaunt their special talents because they have no special talents to flaunt.
Pretty sure she has been running the country for the last 6 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Oops looks I angered one of the hope and change people. Tell me which bothers you more, the complete failure of your guy or it's sheer obviousness ?