Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act—a good step forward in ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties.–Hillary Clinton
From day one following the revelation of the NSA’s bulk collection program, I have said that the warrantless collection of records on all Americans violates both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the plain reading of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Today’s Second Circuit ruling makes clear that the executive branch’s interpretation of the statute—interpreting records “relevant” to a terrorism investigation to mean all records everywhere—is “unprecedented and unwarranted.” In light of this ruling, Congress must not proceed with the latest version of the USA Freedom Act. While limiting certain types of bulk collection, the latest USA Freedom Act would authorize bulk collection of Americans’ records for the first time, thereby undoing some of the progress resulting from the Second Circuit’s decision. Instead, Congress should pass, and the president should sign, the original USA Freedom Act, as introduced in 2013 before amendments, that protects the liberty and privacy of all Americans while providing the intelligence community the authority necessary to deal with those who seek to harm us.-Rep. Justin Amash
Who’s right?
Rep. Tom Reed supported the USA Freedom Act of the 113th Congress; his views on the current bill are unknown.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048
http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-supports-usa-freedom-act
There is a big difference between collecting bulk phone records and listening to individual phone calls. Sitting outside a suspected drug house and watching who enters and exits is different than warrantless eavesdropping of conversations in the drug house. Why would the NSA want all these records? In the millions.
Well, if they identify one terror suspect they can then track who that person calls . Not the actual conversations but just who the other contacts are. They may be able to discover a web of terrorists with this method. They may be able to take down cells BEFORE they strike.Or, if there is an attack, they will be able to trace all the folks who had contact with the terrorists.
Personally, I do not see how collecting this particular type of mega data is a civil liberties problem. I see it as a valid investigative tool. It is not obtrusive and does not include any private conversations. Not what you say. Just who you call.
Is it an invasion of privacy by the government? I don’t think so. It is much less invasive than my daily robocalls and sales calls for questionable “businesses”. .Less intrusive than the information about my personal spending habits. Just last week I looked up cell phones on the internet. Guess what? I am now being bombarded with cell phone ads every time I open my browser. That is not the NSA doing it. It is private businesses which keep close tabs on all of us.
So. I say continue to collect and use mega data . After all, the next time we get a terror attack all the loonies will be screaming at the government for NOT preventing it ahead of time, won’t they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is yet another view:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/letter_to_members_of_judiciary_usaf_2015.pdf
LikeLike
What about Rep. Amash’s claim “that the warrantless collection of records on all Americans violates both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the plain reading of Section 215 of the Patriot Act?” Does today’s Second Circuit ruling affirm Rep. Amash’s view?
LikeLike
I don’t think it violates the 4th at all. No personal converastions are being taped I don’t know enough about the Patriot Act to comment.
LikeLike
Trick question! Tom Reed is never right.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on showavery and commented:
All congressmen should read this now.
LikeLike