HR 4681 - Both sides do it.

I guess no one wants to have their names attached to it... 

Who knew you can vote anonymously in the gov't and here I thought when they forced a voter ID law to make sure everyone name is recorded, it excluded our gov't members

It will only pass if Obama signs its, let see what Obama do

 
They're also the same people who decided it was a good idea to fund the NSA's activities. Why not have the logical extension of having Minority Report for reals?

 
In CO we had a Senator who was consistently challenging the NSA , trying to get more transparency he was defeated by a tea party stooge who openly lied to get elected.

We get the government we deserve
 
Has anyone actually read the actual bill? I was wondering what was up here when the only news I was finding on it was from Alex Jones' Infowars and other similarly conservative blogs. Upon reading more on this, it's clear this whole thing has been stirred up by Representative Amash who seems to be either confused about the issue or intentionally misleading people. Sec. 309 of HR 4681 doesn't grant unlimited surveillance of Americans. Instead, it puts a limit on the amount of time electronic data can be retained under authority they already had.

Here, feel free to read the text of the bill directly from Congress's website:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%22HR+4681%22]}

SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Covered communication.--The term ``covered communication'' means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a party to the communication, including communications in electronic storage. (2) Head of an element of the intelligence community.--The term ``head of an element of the intelligence community'' means, as appropriate-- (A) the head of an element of the intelligence community; or (B) the head of the department or agency containing such element. (3) United states person.--The term ``United States person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801). (b) Procedures for Covered Communications.-- (1) Requirement to adopt.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the requirements of paragraph (3). (2) Coordination and approval.--The procedures required by paragraph (1) shall be-- (A) prepared in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence; and (B) approved by the Attorney General prior to issuance. (3) Procedures.-- (A) Application.--The procedures required by paragraph (1) shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or certification issued by a court established under subsection (a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B). (B) Limitation on retention.--A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless-- (i) the communication has been affirmatively determined, in whole or in part, to constitute foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or is necessary to understand or assess foreign intelligence or counterintelligence; (ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency; (iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning; (iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably believed to be non-United States persons; (v) retention is necessary to protect against an imminent threat to human life, in which case both the nature of the threat and the information to be retained shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees not later than 30 days after the date such retention is extended under this clause; (vi) retention is necessary for technical assurance or compliance purposes, including a court order or discovery obligation, in which case access to information retained for technical assurance or compliance purposes shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees on an annual basis; or (vii) retention for a period in excess of 5 years is approved by the head of the element of the intelligence community responsible for such retention, based on a determination that retention is necessary to protect the national security of the United States, in which case the head of such element shall provide to the congressional intelligence committees a written certification describing-- (I) the reasons extended retention is necessary to protect the national security of the United States; (II) the duration for which the head of the element is authorizing retention; (III) the particular information to be retained; and (IV) the measures the element of the intelligence community is taking to protect the privacy interests of United States persons or persons located inside the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me that the new Sec309 outlines the exact circumstances under which the Federal Government is allowed to maintain non-public communication that has been obtained without proper legal authority.

This new addition provides a shield under which the Federal Government can say "Well... we're complying with the law."
 
usickenme said:
In CO we had a Senator who was consistently challenging the NSA , trying to get more transparency he was defeated by a tea party stooge who openly lied to get elected.

We get the government we deserve
Click to expand...
Thats pretty much all he was good for. I say good riddance and if Cory is just as bad then hopefully he will be replaced as well.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Thats pretty much all he was good for. I say good riddance and if Cory is just as bad then hopefully he will be replaced as well.
Click to expand...
Incorrect , he did much to protect Western lands and renewable enegry as well but der der der...he voted for Obummer care.. der der der.

And dream on, the hicks in this state eat up that Tea Party bullshit. Gardner ( Cory? what are you president of his fan club?) is much much worse. He simply and ONLY a politician.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
usickenme said:
Incorrect , he did much to protect Western lands and renewable enegry as well but der der der...he voted for Obummer care.. der der der.
Click to expand...
Tell me more about his plans for energy, Do try to act like an adult, its hard to take you guys seriously when you just post memes and talk like high school kiddies.

( Cory? what are you president of his fan club?)
Click to expand...
What?

 
So we can all agree that the original topic is a non-issue at this point?

Cause I get it, I'm all for stopping government surveillance but there's a reason this story is only appearing on the back alley conservative blogs. It's because every other news agency took it to their legal analysts right away who probably took 10 minutes looking at it and went "nah, nothing here". I mean it's gotta tell you something when Infowars is the most prominent site carrying the story and even Fox News isn't running it.

The surveillance agencies don't need additional authorization, they've been doing it for years with near-impunity anyway. I don't like it any more than anyone else but they'd never be silly enough to have it put into a bill and bring more attention to it. Fuethermore, if they just keep doing it rather than getting a bill passed they don't have to worry about Obama not signing it, or more likely, the Supreme Court overturning it. This is the exact same Supreme Court that recently overturned warrantless GPS tracking of cars so I'm pretty sure they'd strike down any explicit authorization to fully spy on the American public as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top