Thursday, May 22, 2014
House Passes Restraints on Bulk Data Collection
For once it seems that the White House and Congress are on the same page. Today the House voted on the USA Freedom Act. The goal of this bill was to restrict the NSA bulk data collection surveillance program. This bill is clearly a step in the right direction. The bulk data collection conducted by the NSA is highly questionable as to both its legality but also effectiveness. This bill, though, will not totally curb government surveillance programs but will definitely limit them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The United States government should never be allowed to spy on its citizens without a warrant. It is hard to imagine that there is a debate on this: the Fourth Amendment is pretty clear in its prohibitions of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This is an issue that conservatives and liberals alike should be able to unite behind. This bill, from my understanding, was quite watered down. The bill ought to have outright ended the practice of spying on American citizens.
ReplyDeleteI find the last comment by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner surprising: “The N.S.A. might still be watching us, but now we can be watching them." Were members of Congress oblivious to the actions of the NSA before? The NSA is a government agency; as such, its actions should have been monitored from the very start. I don't understand how a government agency could have been given a blank check to monitor US citizens, but I'm glad they are now restricting its power.
ReplyDeleteFinally, something is getting done in Washington. I'm glad that the White House and Congress were finally able to agree on something. In addition, while I may not have been as outraged as some of my other classmates were when the story of the NSA surveillance broke, I am happy that the NSA now faces more restrictions. I hope congress and the White House can continue to reach successful agreements like this one.
ReplyDeleteIt is always good to see Congress and the White House agree on something, but I feel like this was unnecessary. I see Andrew's point with the Fourth Amendment and all that jazz, but honestly if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be scared. Either way this bill went I'm sure the overwhelming majority of United States citizens would detect little to no change in their daily lives.
ReplyDeleteWhen the two work in unison that can always be taken as a good sign. The fact that they are collaborating on the NSA surveillance bulk collection is better. I have never been a fan of it, thinking it was very invasive, and it's not like I have anything to hide. I just don't like the idea at all, and I read somewhere that it's hardly effective at all
ReplyDeleteI don't think I could agree more with you, Emily. We had a debate in another class about this issue. I feel that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be fearful of the surveillance. The focus is on finding threats, etc. But on the other hand, people have their fourth amendment rights. It's just nice to see some progress.
ReplyDeleteEmily Meyer said it perfectly. The fact that the White House and Congress are getting things done is very encouraging and shows a lot more maturity than they have in the past couple of months. I wasn't completely enraged when it came out about the NSA, but it's definitely beneficial for restrictions to be put in place on it. Every governmental agency needs it's restrictions.
ReplyDeleteI, like Emily Bond and probably everyone else in this class, have no thing to hide, but I still do not believe the NSA should have the broad authority they have at the moment. I disagree with these law on principle. My data is my property, and the government should not be able to have access to my information for no reason. This is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad it was bipartisan.
ReplyDeleteIt is a good sign to see a bipartisan bill pass, and I agree with the bill. The NSA should be limited in its power, and it should definitely not be allowed to just invade on people's privacy for not much reason at all. The American people have a right to privacy, and the NSA trampled on that right by spying on people. If the NSA has reasonable evidence to spy on someone, then they should do it only if necessary.
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of split on this issue. I agree that our information is our property and the US government shouldn't have access to it, but I also like being safe. And we all know that if there was another terrorist attack that could've been stopped by this program, then the general public wiuld be in an uproar, saying "why weren't you watching this person?" Or "who cares if their rights were violated; they're a terrorist!". I support the limitation of the NSA data collection program, but I don't think it's wise or possible to completely get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see more oversight of the NSA and greater restrictions on their ability to collect data from American citizens. Obviously there needs to be greater oversight of the NSA, and I'm of the opinion that we should overdo the oversight rather than underdo it, in light of the recent abuses. The notion that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is somewhat true in the purest sense, but the issue is more complicated than that. Everyone has "something to hide," even if it's just personal information you'd rather not everyone in the world know. People get annoyed when companies specifically target them with spam mail or when Facebook sells their personal information to companies for advertising purposes. If we don't know how the NSA uses its information or can't be confident in the security of the vast amounts of data, we can't be comfortable allowing the NSA to collect our data.
ReplyDeleteSeems I'm the only one who disagrees here. NSA should not have to operate within limitations. Our enemies no longer choose to fight us on the battlefield, they fight us from the shadows, where they cannot be seen. Providing limitations to our national protection gives a set of limits our protector. Our enemies do not have rules.
ReplyDeleteI, like Emily Evenden, am split on the issue. Safety in my opinion is a priority over privacy. Of course Ethan is right in saying that while people aren't hiding things there still is a sanctuary of privacy that most people like. But in the grand scheme I think it's worth losing privacy. Heller's right too when he says we need to search the shadows to find our enemies there. I'm glad we're at a midpoint between both sides, and I'm glad to see bipartisanship for once.
ReplyDelete