"The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

1
The ability of the United States to intercept and store Americans’ text messages, calls, and emails in pursuit of foreign intelligence was not only extended but enhanced over the weekend in ways likely to remain enigmatic to the public for years to come. On Saturday, US president Joe Biden signed a controversial bill extending the life of a warrantless US surveillance program for two years, bringing an end to a months-long fight in Congress over an authority that US intelligence agencies acknowledge has been widely abused in the past. At the urging of the agencies and with the help of powerful bipartisan allies on Capitol Hill, the program has also been extended to cover a wide range of new businesses, including US data centers, according to recent analysis by legal experts and civil liberties organizations that were vocally opposed to its passage. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, allows the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), among other agencies, to eavesdrop on calls, texts, and emails traveling through US networks, so long as one side of the communication is foreign. Americans caught up in the program face diminished privacy rights.

While the government requires a foreign target to commence a wiretap, Americans are often party to those intercepted conversations. And although US attorney general Merrick Garland insisted in a statement on Saturday that the updates to the 702 program “ensure the protection of Americans' privacy and civil liberties,” and that the government never intentionally targets Americans, the government nevertheless reserves the right to store their communications and access them later without probable cause. “Section 702 is supposed to be used only for spying on foreigners abroad,” says Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instead, sadly, it has enabled warrantless access to vast databases of Americans’ private phone calls, text messages, and emails.” Under the law, the government can retain communications captured by the 702 program for half a decade or more—indefinitely, so long as the government makes no effort to decrypt them.

A trade organization representing some of the world’s largest tech companies came out against plans to expand Section 702 in the final hours of the debate, claiming that a new provision authored by House Intelligence Committee members would damage the competitiveness of US technologies, “arguably imperiling the continued global free flow of data between the US and its allies.” US intelligence obtains its vast surveillance power through yearly certifications doled out by a secret court. The certifications permit the NSA in particular to force businesses in the US—categorized as “electronic communications service providers,” or ECSPs—to cooperate with the program, collecting data and installing wiretaps on the agency’s behalf.
A trade organization representing some of the world’s largest tech companies came out against plans to expand Section 702 in the final hours of the debate, claiming that a new provision authored by House Intelligence Committee members would damage the competitiveness of US technologies, “arguably imperiling the continued global free flow of data between the US and its allies.” US intelligence obtains its vast surveillance power through yearly certifications doled out by a secret court. The certifications permit the NSA in particular to force businesses in the US—categorized as “electronic communications service providers,” or ECSPs—to cooperate with the program, collecting data and installing wiretaps on the agency’s behalf. Liza Goitein, a FISA expert and senior director at the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, says the bill signed by Biden on Saturday represents “a gift to any president who may wish to spy on political enemies.” “Although some senators fought valiantly to protect Americans’ civil liberties, they could not overcome the barrage of false and misleading statements from the administration and surveillance hawks on the congressional intelligence committees,” says Goitein. “This is a truly shameful episode in the history of the US Congress, and sooner or later, the American people will pay the price.”
https://www.wired.com/story/section-702 ... expansion/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

2
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have reason to worry," or so the bullshit phrase goes.

To which my response is: "Wrong according to whom?" I'm dead solid certain that some of the things I do (which I won't describe here) would be considered "wrong" by even the nearest-to-left major politicians in this country (Bernie isn't so much a leftist as he's a centrist, same for AOC).

If I'm not doing anything "wrong," then you have no need to surveil my activities to see whether I'm doing anything "wrong."
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

5
As I've noted before, the 4th and 14th Amendment are shit-canned if the oligarchy can benefit. My guess is they're using all that info to market to us rather than to "make us safe." If they were truly trying to make us safe, the orange spirochete and all his minions would be scrubbin' Gitmo toilets with toothbrushes.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

6
CDFingers wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:54 am As I've noted before, the 4th and 14th Amendment are shit-canned if the oligarchy can benefit. My guess is they're using all that info to market to us rather than to "make us safe." If they were truly trying to make us safe, the orange spirochete and all his minions would be scrubbin' Gitmo toilets with toothbrushes.

CDF
They need to be tried in a court of law and found guilty of breaking a law. Just because you don’t like someone or think they are potential tyrant isn’t enough to throw someone in jail without due process. Ideally if laws are broken it shouldn’t take nearly four years to convict. I’d love to see biden in jail, but as far as I know he hasn’t been convicted of anything either.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Q~

8
Biden and Democrats will use this to campaign against Trump, 'you can trust us with this 702 power, but you can't trust Trump'. Bullshit ! Get a warrant from the FISA court if you want to snoop on Americans' telecommunications. These are the same privacy violations that we saw in the Patriot Act and federal courts are very reluctant to interfere in any thing that the Executive Branch labels as "national security". The FBI has already abused this power and they aren't the only federal agency that will be using 702.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

11
Neoliberals are not our friends. Yet they have a power base among the oligarchs. The only avenue to our salvation lies in campaign finance reform, which includes overturning Citizens United. When you can have anonymous oligarchs supporting "candidates" (read: whores), then you get the best .gov money can buy.

The answer after reform lies in public financing of campaigns. This would require the SCOTUS to rule that money is not free speech. Money is a bribe.

Yeah. Tell that to Clarence the Whore and his pals in robes.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

14
CD I agree. The Money trail in political campaigns is hidden and or murky at best. PACs should be limited in spending money only for campaign events and items such as political ads and the usual campaign items bumper stickers signs button etc. NOT for such stuff as TOS's trials legal fees for his lawyers. That should be paid out of his own pockets not the PACs. It should be illegal for PACs to accept any donation from foreign sources and all monies should have strict accounting where it came from including the original source. AIPAC is a prime example. Laundering contributions through another person should be illegal. Also I would like to see contributions only be allowed from citizens eligible and registered to vote. Corporations, business associations, trade groups, churches, non-profits, etc. have no right to vote therefore no right to buy elections. Also limit the amount of money from each donor donate to each candidate or party.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

16
TrueTexan wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:12 pm CD I agree. The Money trail in political campaigns is hidden and or murky at best. PACs should be limited in spending money only for campaign events and items such as political ads and the usual campaign items bumper stickers signs button etc. NOT for such stuff as TOS's trials legal fees for his lawyers. That should be paid out of his own pockets not the PACs. It should be illegal for PACs to accept any donation from foreign sources and all monies should have strict accounting where it came from including the original source. AIPAC is a prime example. Laundering contributions through another person should be illegal. Also I would like to see contributions only be allowed from citizens eligible and registered to vote. Corporations, business associations, trade groups, churches, non-profits, etc. have no right to vote therefore no right to buy elections. Also limit the amount of money from each donor donate to each candidate or party.
This would be a great start to fairer elections. I doubt any of us will be alive to see it.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

17
sig230 wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:31 pm There is almost zero chance for progressive change as long as Citizens United is not overturned.

And so far there is no model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that has a chance of being successfully implemented to allow that change.
Yup. This exactly, IMO.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

20
Democrats have decried the Citizen's United 2010 decision, but they used it to their advantage to beat Trump in 2020 and I expect they're using it again in 2024.
For much of the last decade, Democrats complained — with a mix of indignation, frustration and envy — that Republicans and their allies were spending hundreds of millions of difficult-to-trace dollars to influence politics. “Dark money” became a dirty word, as the left warned of the threat of corruption posed by corporations and billionaires that were spending unlimited sums through loosely regulated nonprofits, which did not disclose their donors’ identities. Then came the 2020 election. Spurred by opposition to then-President Trump, donors and operatives allied with the Democratic Party embraced dark money with fresh zeal, pulling even with and, by some measures, surpassing Republicans in 2020 spending, according to a New York Times analysis of tax filings and other data.

The analysis shows that 15 of the most politically active nonprofit organizations that generally align with the Democratic Party spent more than $1.5 billion in 2020 — compared to roughly $900 million spent by a comparable sample of 15 of the most politically active groups aligned with the G.O.P. The findings reveal the growth and ascendancy of a shadow political infrastructure that is reshaping American politics, as megadonors to these nonprofits take advantage of loose disclosure laws to make multimillion-dollar outlays in total secrecy. Some good-government activists worry that the exploding role of undisclosed cash threatens to accelerate the erosion of trust in the country’s political system. Democrats’ newfound success in harnessing this funding also exposes the stark tension between their efforts to win elections and their commitment to curtail secretive political spending by the superrich.

A single, cryptically named entity that has served as a clearinghouse of undisclosed cash for the left, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, received mystery donations as large as $50 million and disseminated grants to more than 200 groups, while spending a total of $410 million in 2020 — more than the Democratic National Committee itself. But nonprofits do not abide by the same transparency rules or donation limits as parties or campaigns — though they can underwrite many similar activities: advertising, polling, research, voter registration and mobilization and legal fights over voting rules.

The scale of secret spending is such that, even as small donors have become a potent force in politics, undisclosed money dwarfed the 2020 campaign fund-raising of President Biden (who raised a record $1 billion) and Mr. Trump (who raised more than $810 million). Headed into the midterm elections, Democrats are warning major donors not to give in to the financial complacency that often afflicts the party in power, while Republicans are rushing to level the dark-money playing field to take advantage of what is expected to be a favorable political climate in 2022. At stake is not just control of Congress but also whether Republican donors will become more unified with Mr. Trump out of the White House. Two Republican secret-money groups focused on Congress said their combined fund-raising reached nearly $100 million in 2021 — far more than they raised in 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/p ... onors.html

Democrats have benefited as much or more from Dark Money allowed by the Citizens United decision, they're just hypocritical in blaming Republicans for using it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

22
Feel free to expound on the third option or fourth. I’m sure there’s alternatives, mine was a basic historical point. Look at our independence, after political failed it was revolution. Yes some chose to do nothing, that would be a third option. However, that doesn’t fix anything.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

23
highdesert wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:52 am Democrats have benefited as much or more from Dark Money allowed by the Citizens United decision, they're just hypocritical in blaming Republicans for using it.
Which is why (IMO) the Republic is lost - how would we expect Citizens United to be overturned when *Both Sides* of our Representation, many/most of our representatives are gaming the System to get filthy rich? They aren't going to rescind or overturn something that they are using to get filthy rich and powerful by catering to those who are already filthy rich and powerful. This goes for the SCOTUS - We have already seen that they are being bought and paid for by the Oligarchy.

We can't vote our way out of this mess and revolution in a fragmented nation is not a viable option for the change we seek and desperately need. It's not a 21st century solution.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

24
VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:13 am
highdesert wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:52 am Democrats have benefited as much or more from Dark Money allowed by the Citizens United decision, they're just hypocritical in blaming Republicans for using it.
Which is why (IMO) the Republic is lost - how would we expect Citizens United to be overturned when *Both Sides* of our Representation, many/most of our representatives are gaming the System to get filthy rich? They aren't going to rescind or overturn something that they are using to get filthy rich and powerful by catering to those who are already filthy rich and powerful. This goes for the SCOTUS - We have already seen that they are being bought and paid for by the Oligarchy.

We can't vote our way out of this mess and revolution in a fragmented nation is not a viable option for the change we seek and desperately need. It's not a 21st century solution.

VooDoo
Revolution happens when there’s no viable option as well as the country simply falling apart into smaller pieces. That’s not really a great option especially if we’re disarmed as it will mean those with power will simply solidify their fiefdoms and we’ll be just as powerless.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "The Next US President Will Have Troubling New Surveillance Powers"

25
The third option is to organize at the local level and get modern thinkers into office. That's how change took place in the 60's in Civil Rights, the Environment, and many other things. What's unfortunate is how profitable is military hardware. It's like fast food but way more expensive: you can't re-eat a burger just like you can't re-shoot a missile or repair a totaled tank or sunken battleship.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests