Congress Moves to Grant Even More Power to the NSA
Privacy advocates are urging the House of Representatives and Senate to vote against bills that further increase the government’s widespread surveillance of citizens. The bills, called the “Protecting Cyber Networks Act” (H.R. 1560) and the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act” (S. 754) are the latest move by lawmakers to bolster the strength of the domestic spying apparatus.
One of the main objectives of the new laws is to eliminate consequences for companies that share their users’ private information with the government. The bills refer to this as “liability protection.”
Letters written to members of the House and Senate from a coalition of privacy advocates caution lawmakers that the bills
…would significantly increase the National Security Agency’s (NSA) access to personal information, and authorize the federal government to use that information for a myriad of purposes unrelated to cyber security.
This is because a provision of the bill is to “require federal entities to automatically disseminate to the NSA all cyber threat indicators they receive [from corporations], including personal information about individuals.”
One of the biggest problems with the bill, aside from exempting corporations from accountability and increasing NSA power, is the broad definition of a declared “cybersecurity threat.” As defined by the House version of the bill:
The term ‘cybersecurity threat’ means an action, not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, on or through an information system that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by or transiting an information system.
Using this vague definition, a person’s data could be shared with not just the NSA, but other “appropriate entities” including the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of the Treasury and Department of Justice. As the letters to Congress said, the bills
…[demonstrate] the potential for government overreach, particularly when statutory language is broad or ambiguous.
For example, the letters note:
Law enforcement would be allowed to use cyber threat indicators to investigate crimes and activities that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as robbery, arson, carjacking, or any threat of serious bodily injury or death, regardless of whether the harm is imminent.
Unsurprisingly, the White House and president back the proposed legislation.
It is particularly ironic that proponents of the bill argue it is necessary to neutralize hackers and protect national security. After all, the United States government is guilty of the hacking they claim to want to prevent, which has in turn harmed national security by inspiring hostility from targeted nations.
Further, the legislation merely paves the legal road toward the NSA’s front (and back) door access to private data, which the spy agency has consistently voiced its desire to attain. Though they are predictable, the proposed laws demonstrate a recurring pattern in government justifications for surveillance: politicians and bureaucrats claim to increase security while respecting privacy yet continually demonstrate that the latter is their lowest priority.
The letters to lawmakers bluntly reminded lawmakers of this lack of interest in the concerns of citizens by reminding them that
Notably, Congress has yet to enact reforms that would effectively rein in the government’s surveillance activities.
The letters to Congress were signed by – among many others – the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, the Government Accountability Office, FreedomWorks, and professors from Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. The House is expected to vote on its version of the law sometime this week while the Senate incarnation is expected to stall.
Regardless of the outcome, it remains clear that the federal government has every intention of retaining its immense surveillance powers in spite of sweeping skepticism of these policies.
Carey Wedler writes for TheAntiMedia.org, where this article first appeared. Tune in to the Anti-Media radio show Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific.
Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/04/congress-moves-to-grant-even-more-power.html
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,603,496,277 |
| Stories: | 8,150,322 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Its scary that you believe that anything congress does, applies to you!!
Why does everyone blindly accept that the governments laws, codes, statutes, edicts, rules and regulations apply to the private person without EVER questioning it?? Obviously there are going to be some idiots whose opinions are in lock step with government employees, their indoctrination to blind obedience is unshakable.. BUT CAN ANYONE ACTUALLY PROVE THEIR LAWS APPLY TO THE PRIVATE PERSON?? Can you??
IF you ask government employees if their CONstitution and laws automatically apply to everyone just because of their physical location within what we commonly refer to as a state, their collective opinion is that YES, their CONstitution and laws apply to everyone, automatically. BUT if you ask them what facts they rely on that PROVE their BELIEF that it is applicable to you, they have no plausible answer. They can’t believe you would even question their laws. They’ll ignore the question as though you never asked it, they’ll hang up on you, feign as though they don’t understand the question, tell you that they aren’t going to debate with you “EVEN THOUGH ALL YOU DID WAS ASK FOR FACTUAL PROOF OF THEIR ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION” They’ll tell you that it’s common knowledge that it applies and you, like them, should just accept it without any evidence of applicability whatsoever, they’ll even tell you to prove it doesn’t apply to you, this is all an attempt to avoid answering your question!!, but they’ll continue to refuse to answer as to what facts they rely on to prove any of it applies to you, BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FACTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR BELIEF, BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED!.. remember, they already told you it applies, it is their responsibility to prove it applies because they are the ones attempting to bring a charge against you, so the onus to prove it applies is theirs,.. It is not up to you to disprove anything applies!!!
Everyone has been told that the CONstitution and law automatically apply to everyone. it’s everyone’s opinion that it applies, everyone feels it applies, everyone believes it applies, everyone assumes and presumes it applies. HOWEVER; hearsay, opinions, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, presumptions and or so called common knowledge aren’t proof of a damn thing.
What factual, first hand, irrefutable evidence can anyone offer that proves that their CONstitution and laws apply to the private person simply because they are physically in what we commonly refer to geographically as a state.
Keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal “per their own laws”. Further, no private person is a party to their CONstitution, nor is any private person a signatory to their CONstitution, nor has any private person sworn an oath to be bound by or to obey the CONstitution and laws.
Do you grasp the gravity of NOT being a party to some agreement, contract, compact or constitution??
When one is NOT a party to some agreement, contract, compact or CONstitution, then one is NOT BOUND TO OBEY IT OR ANY PROMULGATIONS ARISING FROM SAID INSTRUMENT! “those promulgations would be codes, policies, statutes and laws etc”
Who precisely is a party to their CONstitution?? The States are parties to the CONstitution. NOT YOU, THE LIVING BREATHING FLESH AND BLOOD MAN/WOMAN!!
Should you choose to accept the challenge to show your proof/evidence. You shall adhere to the following;
Your proof/evidence MUST be factual and personal first hand information, your proof/evidence shall not be comprised of hearsay, your opinions, someone else’s opinions, your beliefs, someone else’s beliefs, your feelings, someone else’s feelings, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheticals, conjecture, sophistry, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.
Further; You shall not invoke laws, statutes, codes, etc, or their CONstitutions or any amendments to their CONstitutions, as that presupposes that it is applicable, when that is what is in question in the first place!
And since you won’t be able to show any factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence at all, I included the following!!
the maxim applies: quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.