Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Extends from 7 to 10 years the maximum term of FISA judges. Makes such judges eligible for redesignation.
Permits FISA courts to appoint special masters to advise on technical issues raised during proceedings.
Requires orders approving certain electronic surveillance to direct that, upon request of the applicant, any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance).
Prohibits acquisitions under FISA relating to a U.S. person, or acquisitions under Executive Order 12333 targeting a U.S. person, without a warrant based on probable cause.
Requires the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to destroy any information collected under the repealed Acts, or acquired under Executive Order 12333 without a warrant, if the information concerns a U.S. person that is not related to an investigation that is actively ongoing on the date of enactment of this Act.
Prohibits the federal government from requiring manufacturers of electronic devices and related software to build in mechanisms allowing the federal government to bypass encryption or privacy technology.
Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report annually on the federal government's compliance with FISA.
Permits an employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community with knowledge of FISA-authorized programs and activities to submit a covered complaint to the GAO, to the House or Senate intelligence committees, or in accordance with a process under the National Security Act of 1947 with respect to reports made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Defines a "covered complaint" as a complaint or information concerning FISA-authorized programs and activities that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of: (1) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Prohibits an officer or employee of an element of the intelligence community from taking retaliatory action against an employee or contractor who seeks to disclose, or who discloses, such information.
My favorite is when people claim its ok to have the Patriot Act because we at one point had the Sedition and Espionage Act and how President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Hebeas Corpus. Yes, because we have previously violated the peoples rights, we should do it again!!!
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.
Why not scrap the whole thing and start from scratch with the things that do not violate the Constitution?Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.
Why not scrap the whole thing and start from scratch with the things that do not violate the Constitution?
why can't we use a hatchet? what is it about this legislation that needs to be surgically removed as opposed to doing away with it entirely?
Yes
No
other
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1466/all-info
I support it.Its a step in the right direction
I've addressed this a few times in various threads, so we'll see if repeating myself makes me talk more or for once makes me less verbose due to fatigue
Why the scapel? Why not scrap the whole thing? A number of reasons...
One, the vast majority of it is sound and solid law. Even it's biggest critic at the time of it's passage, the one man to vote against it Russ Fiengold, acknowledged that 90% of the bill is solid worth while law. Most of PATRIOT is aimed at bringing out survelliance law into the modern age. Prior to PATRIOT, the two most instrumental survelliance laws in the country was Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act in 1978 and TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets act of 1968. Prior to PATRIOT we had a cobbled together pieces of patchwork trying to deal with the massive advances in technology since then; patchwork that left gaping holes and horrible grey areas. Scrapping a large amount of legitimately worth while updates to our intelligence law to get rid of some problematic parts is inefficient and wasteful. In part because....
Two, the political poison that is PATRIOT, mixed with the highly politicized atmosphere today, makes it extremely unlikely that an option of "Just repeal the whole thing and put back the good parts" is likely to work. ANYTHING related to Patriot is largely panned by the public and is unpopular, making it very fertile ground for anyone looking to attack an incumbant if they were to support a bill bringing back any part of PATRIOT. As such, it'd likely be politically damaging for someone to take up a bill restoring the majority of the good parts. Not to mention, with how divided we are today, the likelihood of such a bill actually gaining wide scale acceptance to a level necessary to actually pass (let alone make it past a presidents desk) is likely small.
Given that I feel the majority of it is good, and given that I believe getting those things rewritten into law would be extremely difficult and potentially unlikely anytime in the near future, to me that creates a recipe asking for a measured approach. We have a house with a good foundation and solid structure, but with a busted toilet, a linking sink, and a light fixture that's out. All problematic things that definitely make life more difficult and you don't want to leave there; but you don't bulldoze the entire house, especially when building prices are much higher than before and the potential contractors you could hire are much more limited this time around.
There are all kinds of methods of dealing with the more problematic portions of it; many that have already been working for years. Sunets built into the bill itself, court cases striking portions of it, new bills amending or removing portoins of it. Those methods should continue to be employed to clean out the troubled parts while leaving the solid foundation in place.
I see no point in repealing PATRIOT unless one has an inherent issue with Government Survelliance in general, in which case calls to simply repeat PATRIOT but not many of the other laws (Like FISA or Title III) are simply either short sighted and useless OR a sign that the person is not actually caring about survelliance but rather a political hot button.
this all makes sense if we accept the idea that 90% of the bill is good. I don't know if I agree with that, however, because I honestly don't know a ton about what's actually in it. what are the parts that you would take out and how are they different from the parts that you would leave in?
oh and sorry to make you repeat yourself. I suppose i'm still reasonably new around here and haven't talked about PATRIOT in a long time.
Second, an example of the type of things I find good are the multitude of updates To past surveillance laws like Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act and Title III of the Omnibus Crime control and safe streets act of 1968, which brings many of those laws up to speed with things like email, cell phones, etc the were just non existent at those times. For example, Section 204 updates a part of Title III dealing with Survelliance to read "wire, oral, and electronic" as opposed to just wire and oral, removing the grey area regarding modern communication and how it fits with a title III. This allowed for the government to obtain a voicemail via a search warrant, where as previously the law would require them to get a warrant to tap the phone and then hope the individual played said voicemail.
Section 214 and 216 are similar, bringing the technologies of penregisters and trap and trace devices into the modern era of email and chat rooms, allowing the government to obtain warrants to use devices to gleam what keys a person is pushing instead of just what numbers they're dialing.
Third, some of the things I'd have no qualms seeing cut (mind you, it's been 8 years since I heavily studied the bill so many of these mayve been altered/removed already). Section 206, dealing with roving wiretaps. Patriot lowered the burden of proof to gain a warrant for such a thing, needing to only show its needed because the persons movement between communication sources circumvents detection rather than showing that they're doing it specifically to circumvent detection. I'd be fine seeing that standard bumped up once again.
Another instance is section 213 dealing with sneak and peek warrants. I'd be fine seeing the "foreign agent" require,enr placed back in, removing its ability to be used on domestic targets. A look at section 215, the "any tangible things" provision, and it's cousin action 505 would be absolutely reasonable as well.
Finally, I'd love for them to reexamine section 802, the definition of domestic terrorism as defined in Patriot, as I feel it's FAR to broad and gives the government way too much leeway.
Do you support the H.R.1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act?
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet
It's a step in the right direction. More is needed to properly constrain the government, but this at least starts in the right direction it would seem. Particularly getting rid of the Anti-Patriot Act.
I've addressed this a few times in various threads, so we'll see if repeating myself makes me talk more or for once makes me less verbose due to fatigue
Why the scapel? Why not scrap the whole thing? A number of reasons...
One, the vast majority of it is sound and solid law. Even it's biggest critic at the time of it's passage, the one man to vote against it Russ Fiengold, acknowledged that 90% of the bill is solid worth while law. Most of PATRIOT is aimed at bringing out survelliance law into the modern age. Prior to PATRIOT, the two most instrumental survelliance laws in the country was Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act in 1978 and TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets act of 1968. Prior to PATRIOT we had a cobbled together pieces of patchwork trying to deal with the massive advances in technology since then; patchwork that left gaping holes and horrible grey areas. Scrapping a large amount of legitimately worth while updates to our intelligence law to get rid of some problematic parts is inefficient and wasteful. In part because....
Two, the political poison that is PATRIOT, mixed with the highly politicized atmosphere today, makes it extremely unlikely that an option of "Just repeal the whole thing and put back the good parts" is likely to work. ANYTHING related to Patriot is largely panned by the public and is unpopular, making it very fertile ground for anyone looking to attack an incumbant if they were to support a bill bringing back any part of PATRIOT. As such, it'd likely be politically damaging for someone to take up a bill restoring the majority of the good parts. Not to mention, with how divided we are today, the likelihood of such a bill actually gaining wide scale acceptance to a level necessary to actually pass (let alone make it past a presidents desk) is likely small.
Given that I feel the majority of it is good, and given that I believe getting those things rewritten into law would be extremely difficult and potentially unlikely anytime in the near future, to me that creates a recipe asking for a measured approach. We have a house with a good foundation and solid structure, but with a busted toilet, a linking sink, and a light fixture that's out. All problematic things that definitely make life more difficult and you don't want to leave there; but you don't bulldoze the entire house, especially when building prices are much higher than before and the potential contractors you could hire are much more limited this time around.
There are all kinds of methods of dealing with the more problematic portions of it; many that have already been working for years. Sunets built into the bill itself, court cases striking portions of it, new bills amending or removing portoins of it. Those methods should continue to be employed to clean out the troubled parts while leaving the solid foundation in place.
I see no point in repealing PATRIOT unless one has an inherent issue with Government Survelliance in general, in which case calls to simply repeat PATRIOT but not many of the other laws (Like FISA or Title III) are simply either short sighted and useless OR a sign that the person is not actually caring about survelliance but rather a political hot button.
So your excuse for not repealing the whole thing is because it may not be politically beneficial for future politicians to enact what you may think are the good parts of the patriot act.Sounds like Nancy Pelosi lying her ass off saying she is against domestic spying while supporting unconditional funding of the NSA.
No. I think that we shouldn't repeal the whole thing because the vast majority of it is sound, useful, reasonable intelligence law and I don't believe attempts to reinstitute the good parts would be successful anytime soon.
The REASON I don't think those attempts would be successful is because it would not be politically beneficial to politicians to push for reintroducing those portions, and thus few would likely do it let alone vote in favor of it.
It's like saying I'm for legal immigration, but against those who do it illegally. My solution for dealing with those doing it illegally isn't to say "**** immigration entirely" and toss the whole thing out; it's to deal with the problems that are inherent as they come up.
Similarly, I have an issue with unconstitutional domestic surveillance and believe that efforts should absolutely be made to combat that. However, I don't have an issue with survelliance as a broad concept. Just like I have an issue with illegal immigration into this country, but that doesn't mean I have an issue with immigration as a broad concept.
If the vast majority of it is useful and not unconstitutional then it should be able to pass on it's own merit and politicians should have nothing to fear from passing those things.
Not comparable
So basically you've learned nothing of politics in your 9 years of posting heavily on a political message board. You're seriously suggesting that bills pass, and public perception of a bill relies, simply on it's "merit"?
That's funny.
PATRIOT has been lambasted from the left and right in some fashion since it's inception. The attacks on it have generally not been detailed, they have not been nuanced, they have not been specific. Rather, they've been generic in nature, attacking the bill as a whole. To believe that a politician attempting to pass a bill that is 90% of what PATRIOT was originally is not going to have his opponents raking him over the coals and trying to tie his name to the overall negative stigma of it (REGARDLESS of it's merit), and to think that the public isn't going to simply view it as PATRIOT redux, with all the same stigma attached, then you're being laughably naive and ridiculously unrealistic in a political sense.
Of course its not...can't accept that your claim that I'm like Nancy Pelosi equally applies to your pet issue. Much easier to just wave it away. You're right, acting unconstitutionally is illegal. As such, illegal survelliance is illegal and wrong and should be combatted. But that doesn't mean we should harm LEGAL survelliance that is in line with the constitution. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to oppose illegal uses of survelliance powers and illegal survelliance laws, while still strongly supporting the governments ability and the legal foundation for them to engage in survelliance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?