EFF calls this bill "a real first step because it creates meaningful change to NSA surveillance right now, while paving the way for the public to get more information about what the NSA is doing." They've got a quick analysis of what it does and doesn't do is at [1]
Marcy Wheeler sees it as an improvement over the bill the House passed (which isn't hard) but isn't sure it's an improvement over the status quo. See [2] and [3] for her concerns
Call me unconvinced. It follows entirely the flawed US gov interpretation of "collection", which means collect everything, and only call it "collect" when if you search through it.
How should this convince the global business that using US IT, telecom and cloud services is trustworthy and legally safe? There are still massive holes in a number of public laws and who knows in how many secret laws and interpretations, not talking about illegal practices. Without a 2nd Church Committee nothing will change.
Nope. This is a different bill; in the article it says: "The bill, which has White House backing, goes further than a version passed in May by the U.S. House of Representatives in reducing bulk collection and may be more acceptable to critics who have dismissed other versions as too weak."
The 'too weak' bill is the one that was watered down.
The article doesn't mention it ... but can they still get around it by (what I believe is called) traffic shaping? Where you force the traffic to leave the US, then collect all the "foreign" data, and then send it on its merry way again?
Comments
Interesting internet habits you have there Senator.
I assume you'll be voting against this new bill Senator?
EFF calls this bill "a real first step because it creates meaningful change to NSA surveillance right now, while paving the way for the public to get more information about what the NSA is doing." They've got a quick analysis of what it does and doesn't do is at [1]
Marcy Wheeler sees it as an improvement over the bill the House passed (which isn't hard) but isn't sure it's an improvement over the status quo. See [2] and [3] for her concerns
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/new-senate-usa-freedom...
[2] http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/07/29/leahy-freedom-act-permi...
[3] http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/07/29/leahy-usa-freedoms-bulk...
Call me unconvinced. It follows entirely the flawed US gov interpretation of "collection", which means collect everything, and only call it "collect" when if you search through it.
How should this convince the global business that using US IT, telecom and cloud services is trustworthy and legally safe? There are still massive holes in a number of public laws and who knows in how many secret laws and interpretations, not talking about illegal practices. Without a 2nd Church Committee nothing will change.
Afaik the first Church Committee never ended. Sure Church got shut down[0], but the committee is still technically "active".
BTW, it would be a good idea to wear a radiation sensor.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Death
This is the one that got watered down a lot, right? Which would explain its "wide support", including from the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/22...
Nope. This is a different bill; in the article it says: "The bill, which has White House backing, goes further than a version passed in May by the U.S. House of Representatives in reducing bulk collection and may be more acceptable to critics who have dismissed other versions as too weak."
The 'too weak' bill is the one that was watered down.
Now we just need legislation that limits the phone company retention of these records to (say) three years.
I think we really need to stick with 1 year, unless a court action is pending.
I think we should also require the NSA, etc. to reveal their NSL, etc. after 1 year.
The article doesn't mention it ... but can they still get around it by (what I believe is called) traffic shaping? Where you force the traffic to leave the US, then collect all the "foreign" data, and then send it on its merry way again?