It’s a well-known fact at this point that the NSA has violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. The Snowden leaks and official disclosures have both pointed out that the agency has violated its own rules regarding the protection of Americans’ civil rights numerous times. The big question now is whether or not these violations were intentional.
The Hill reports that nine Senate Judiciary Committee members have sent a letter to the Charles McCullough, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, asking him to conduct a thorough review of the NSA. In particular, the letter calls for McCullough to look into the following matters:
the use and implementation of Section 215 and Section 702 authorities, including the manner in which information – and in particular, information about U.S. persons – is collected, retained, analyzed and disseminated;
applicable minimization procedures and other relevant procedures and guidelines, including whether they are consistent across agencies and the extent to which they protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons;
any improper or illegal use of the authorities or information collected pursuant to them; and
an examination of the effectiveness of the authorities as investigative and intelligence tools.
McCullough has until December 2014 to publish a report about his findings. After the completion of his report, the Senate Judiciary Committee hopes to publicly publish his findings. The Committee hopes that a public report will “help promote greater oversight, transparency and public accountability.”
While you might be skeptical of any movement within Washington to investigate the NSA, this particular investigation might actually yield some results. The President’s own NSA review panel is already starting to look like a waste of time, especially after an AP report published on Sunday found that the panel won’t be doing what Obama said it would. Instead of investigating whether or not the NSA overstepped its boundaries, the panel will instead look into how the agency can plug leaks before they happen.
Whenever House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte isn’t thinking about implementing a nationwide online sales tax, he’s busy thinking about the NSA. That’s only a good thing, however, as he’s one of the lawmakers that wants to subject the agency to more Congressional oversight.
“Over the past few months, the House Judiciary Committee has conducted vigorous oversight of our nation’s foreign surveillance programs, including today’s classified hearing. I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony today further detailing these programs and the current practices employed by the agencies to protect U.S. citizens’ civil liberties. However, I am convinced that further protections are necessary. I am committed to working with members of the House Judiciary Committee, House leaders, and other members of Congress to ensure our nation’s intelligence collection programs include robust oversight, additional transparency, and protections for Americans’ civil liberties while maintaining a workable legal framework for national security officials to keep our country safe from foreign enemies.”
What would Goodlatte’s NSA legislation entail? That remains to be seen, but he already has quite a few allies in the House to get something done. Rep. Darrell Issa has called for another vote on a House bill amendment that would have defunded the NSA’s phone metadata collection program. Likewise, Reps. Justin Amash and John Conyers introduced the LIBERT-E Act back in June that would rewrite the Patriot Act to remove Section 215 – the clause that allows the agency to collect phone records.
Regardless of what happens, Congressmen in both the Senate and the House will attempt to reign in the NSA through new legislation. What’s important now is that their efforts gain enough traction among their fellow lawmakers, and more importantly, President Obama. Any potential anti-NSA legislation would probably not be able to override a presidential veto.
You probably pay a lot for Internet, but at least you don’t have to pay taxes on your service with each monthly bill. That may all change next year, and two senators want to stop that from happening.
The Hill reports that Sens. Ron Wyden and John Thune introduced the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act into the Senate on Thursday. The bill would prevent state and local governments from imposing taxes on Internet service. In other words, the taxes that you see on your monthly utility bills would not appear on your Internet bills.
Do you think the Internet should remain tax free? Is there any benefit to taxing Internet service?Let us know in the comments.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act is nothing new. In fact, the bill was originally authored by Wyden all the way back in 1998. It barred the above federal, state and local taxes on Internet access, but it also barred said governments from imposing such things as a bit tax or a bandwidth tax. Such taxes were bad in 1998, and would be absolutely disastrous in today’s age of constant bandwidth consumption.
The government has three times now recognized that the Internet should be kept tax exempt. The most recent extension – the Internet Tax Freedom Amendment Act of 2007 – will expire on November 1, 2014. Wyden and friends hope to place a permanent ban on Internet service taxes by that time.
In defending the permanent tax exemption, Wyden says that it’s needed to facilitate the innovation and job growth that Internet brings:
“As the Internet Tax Freedom Act enabled and promoted Internet access and adoption across America, the Internet became a platform to facilitate global commerce, sparking nothing short of an economic revolution. It facilitated the development and growth of the digital economy and has created new industries and the good-paying jobs that come along with them. “Consumers, entrepreneurs, and innovators can breathe easy knowing that a permanent extension of ITFA is on its way.”
Wyden’s co-sponsor, Thune, said that the legislation would even help promote Internet access in rural areas that are still sorely lacking broadband Internet access:
“Use of Internet technology is one of the key drivers of economic growth, innovation, and information in our 21st century economy. Keeping the Internet accessible to consumers encourages innovation and investment in our global economy. Our legislation would make permanent the prohibition on Internet access taxes, would prevent multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce, and would promote Internet access throughout the country, which is especially important in rural areas of South Dakota.”
Interestingly enough, Wyden and Thune’s bill would go above and beyond what the current Internet Tax Freedom Act does. It would ban multiple and discriminatory taxes from being applied to digital items. The bill currently bans multiple taxes on the sale of digital goods, but there’s no law against discriminatory taxes on digital goods. If passed, you would no longer have to pay any taxes when buying digital songs, movies and apps.
As you would expect, the bill has already received tons of support from the wireless and Internet provider industries. In fact, CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent said that a permanent moratorium on Internet taxes is needed to preserve the current “affordability” of wireless and wired Internet:
“An affordable internet is vital to millions of American consumers and businesses, and Senators Wyden and Thune remain at the forefront of preserving this critical access to opportunity and information by introducing the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act of 2013. Wireless broadband was in its infancy when Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act fifteen years ago and put the first temporary tax moratorium in place. Today, millions of Americans rely on wireless technology for myriad purposes in their everyday lives, and it’s more important than ever to create a reasonable and permanent tax process on internet access. CTIA and its members look forward to working with Senators Wyden and Thune on behalf of all American internet users to ensure Congress will act on this important legislation before the current moratorium expires next year.”
In the wake of the bill being announced, a number of trade groups and companies have joined forces to create the Internet Tax Freedom Act Coalition. The group is made of the usual suspects, including Amazon.com, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Verizon and others. All of these companies have plenty to gain with the passage of this bill, and it’s unsurprising to see them voice support for it.
Unlike some issues that telecoms and wireless carriers push for, consumers would actually benefit from the passage of this bill as well. We may be paying a lot for Internet and wireless service, but we would paying a lot more if stuff like the bandwidth tax was enacted. The ban of multiple and discriminatory taxes will probably be a point of contention with traditional retailers, but I think everybody can agree that Internet access taxes are no good.
Do you support the permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act? Or should state and local governments be allowed to tax the Internet?Let us know in the comments.
Smart TVs are incredibly easy to hack. In a report from last year, hackers had discovered an easy exploit in Samsung Smart TVs that allowed them to take control of the camera and spy on the owner of said TV. A similar hack has one Congressman very concerned.
Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote a letter to television manufacturers earlier this week detailing his concerns regarding the security of smart TVs. He points to an exploit shown off at Black Hat USA last week in Las Vegas that allowed hackers to remotely take control of the microphone and camera in a smart TV. In response to this revelation, he asks TV manufacturers to work on security in smart TVs.
“You expect to watch TV, but you don’t want the TV watching you,” said Schumer. “Many of these smart televisions are vulnerable to hackers who can spy on you while you’re watching TV in your living room. Our computers have access to firewalls and other security blocks but these televisions do not and that’s why manufacturers should do everything possible to create a standard of security in their internet-connected products.”
Some might scoff at Schumer’s concern since smart TVs aren’t exactly flying off store shelves. That might not be the case for much longer, however, as Gartner predicted in late 2012 that most TVs will be connected to the Internet by 2016. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these TVs will have cameras and microphones, but they can still be accessed remotely by hackers. What if TVs start to store transaction data locally for when viewers buy movies or TV shows? A simple hack could lead to identity theft on a grand scale.
Schumer’s main concern may be hackers spying on consumers, but I would argue that the above scenario is a far more pressing issue. Hackers would really have no interest in seeing what you’re doing in your living room. They’re far more interested in the information that may be stored on the television, and security standards should be updated to prevent that data from being stolen.
Here’s the letter Schumer sent to television manufacturers in full:
Dear Television Manufacturer,
I was disturbed to read recent reports of hackers exploiting new features in television sets in order to break into the home entertainment systems of users and spy on unsuspecting channel surfers. For a TV to secretly function as a spycam would violate a fundamental expectation of privacy in the American home.
As technology has advanced in recent years, we are connected in ways that were previously unimaginable. Televisions now have Wi-Fi, cameras, and other features similar to those of a computer, and are able to complete new and exciting tasks: surfing the internet, making calls, streaming videos and more. These advances can dramatically improve the viewing experience of the American consumers. What has not changed, however, is that Americans expect that when they turn on the television they are in the safety and privacy of their home or office, and not being spied on by hackers.
With these expanding features, televisions must include additional security measures. I would ask that you, as the leading producers of televisions in the United States, work to adopt a uniform set of safety and security standards so that hackers cannot break into our TV’s. It is imperative that we protect people that purchase televisions with these features from being hacked or spied on, and possibly divulging information they do not desire to.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important issue.
In late July, Rep. Justin Amash proposed an amendment to the annual Defense spending bill that would prevent the NSA from targeting anybody not currently under an investigation. Unsurprisingly, the amendment was voted down. Now one Senator is trying the same thing in the Senate, but his attempt might be more successful.
The Hill reports that Sen. Dick Durbin, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, has introduced a provision into the Senate’s Defense spending bill that would require the NSA to reveal the number of phone records it collects. It would require the agency to also reveal when it started to collect phone records, how much it cost to collect said records and the kind of records it collects.
Durbin’s provision would also require the NSA to disclose how many phone records were seen by agency officials as well as how many terrorist attacks were thwarted by the collection of these records. If you recall, the NSA’s two favorite talking points are how only a select few have access to phone records, and that their data collection has thwarted a number of terrorist attacks. Recent leaks have cast doubt on the former claim, and some senators remain skeptical about the latter.
Echoing other lawmakers critical of the NSA, Durbin says that there’s no need for the agency to collect everybody’s phone records in the name of fighting terrorism:
“I believe the government can obtain the information it needs to combat terrorism in a far more targeted manner, rather than casting a dragnet for information about millions of innocent Americans. In the end, Congress permitted this type of intrusion because too few demanded a balance between security and our constitutionally protected freedoms. I hope this provision will help reopen the debate.”
So, will this provision be approved when the Defense spending bill goes up for a vote? It definitely has a better chance than the Amash amendment as Durbin is only seeking to inject some transparency into the NSA. He would have a much tougher time of it if he tried to defund the agency. He also has the support of at least 25 senators.
Of course, we could end up with a close vote again that rids the spending bill of Durbin’s provision. In that case, we can at least see who in the Senate is pro-NSA. With that knowledge, privacy advocacy groups and citizens can better target those senators who are pro-surveillance.
The NSA can spy on just about everything you do. The agency is able to do this thanks to the FISA Court – a secretive judicial system that approves or denies government requests to collect data. The only problem is that the government is the only one at these court hearings arguing in favor of surveillance. Three senators want to change that.
The Hill reports that Sens. Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal and Tom Udall have introduced the FISA Court Reform Act in the Senate. The bill would create a privacy advocate in the FISA Court to challenge government requests for data. In other words, there would finally be somebody in the court to argue for civil rights.
A central criticism of the FISA court at this point is that it rubber stamps every government request for data that comes its way. It’s not hard to see why as the judges only hear one side of the story and then they have to determine whether or not the request is constitutional based solely upon their own intuition and what the government says. With a second lawyer arguing on behalf of civil rights, the judges would finally have to consider alternative points of view.
Surprisingly, it seems that the government isn’t entirely opposed to having somebody challenge it in court. Deputy Attorney General James Cole said during a hearing on Wednesday that they would just have to look into the logistics of it all:
“There’s obviously issues we’ll have to work through as to clearances and classifications and who would be there and what their role would be. But those are the kinds of discussions we do need to have.”
In other news, the same three senators have also introduced another bill called the FISA Judge Selection Reform Act. This bill would change how FISA judges are appointed, and ensure that the judges are not all cut from the same cloth.
Both bills could go a long way in reforming what is obviously a broken system. Unfortunately, it’s only a tiny fix to a big problem. Congress needs to reign in the NSA, but the House proved last week that our lawmakers aren’t ready to put a stop to warrantless surveillance just yet.
How many American citizens are targeted by the NSA? It’s a question that the agency refuses to answer, and today’s leak makes it seem like the agency targets just about everyone. The NSA needs to be transparent about its domestic operations, and one senator wants to make that happen.
The Hill reports that Sen. Al Franken announced on Wednesday that he plans to introduce legislation that would force the NSA to reveal how many Americans have been spied upon by the agency. It would also allow tech companies to publish aggregate figures detailing how many data requests they receive from government agencies.
What’s interesting about all of this is that Franken is a staunch supporter of the NSA surveillance programs revealed over the last month by Edward Snowden. Despite that, he does feel that there needs to be more transparency:
“The government has to give proper weight to both keeping America safe from terrorists and protecting Americans’ privacy. When everything about these programs is secret and when the companies involved are under strict gag orders, the American public has no way of knowing whether we’re getting that balance right. I think that’s bad for privacy and bad for democracy.”
Franken’s bill comes only a week after some House members tried to attach an amendment to the Defense spending bill that would have defunded the NSA’s phone call collection program. The amendment was narrowly defeated, and some feel that the narrow vote was a sign that many in Washington are finally coming around to the idea that it may not be such a super idea to classify everything related to the NSA. We can only hope that’s the case.
Is there a direct correlation between violent video games and violent acts committed by young people? Most studies say no, but most also say that there is a correlation between violent video games and increased aggression. Note that aggression and violence are not one in the same, but your elected officials don’t care about semantics.
The Hill reports that the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee unanimously approved the Violent Content Research Act. The bill, which was drafted by Sen. Jay Rockefeller in the wake of the Newtown shooting, would have the National Academy of Sciences conduct research on whether or not violent video games, movies and television have any impact on children.
Rockefeller says that his bill is all about protecting our children from those darn, whacky video games:
“I strongly believe that we need to address all components of gun violence if we have a fighting chance at protecting our families and communities. This includes studying the levels of violence in the video games our children play and the media they watch.”
This particular bill can only authorize research into violent video games, but it’s pretty obvious that the findings will be used to push legislation that would seek to regulate the sale of violent video games. The gaming industry sees a few bills every year that try to single out video games for this kind of legislation, and it always gets beaten back by the courts. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that a California law that sought to regulate violent video game sales was unconstitutional.
Of course, it should be noted that Rockefeller’s bill will still have to make its way through the Senate and the House before it can become law. I don’t see that being much of a problem though. Congress needs a scapegoat after failing to pass any new gun regulations earlier this year, and video games remain one of the best scapegoats there is.
It’s been almost two months since Edward Snowden revealed the existence of the NSA’s spy programs to the world. Any other issue would have been swept under the rug by now, but Congress is still pursuing changes to the agency. The House had their chance last week, and now it’s the Senate’s turn.
The Hill reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing this week in which its members will be looking into the NSA’s spy programs. Both supporters and opponents of the agency will be present to make their case. In particular, James Cole, deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, and Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, will be making their case for or against the spy programs revealed last month.
What makes this hearing especially interesting is that it’s being headed by the Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. He has already introduced legislation that would curtail the NSA’s ability to collect phone records, and it sounds like he’s going to use this hearing to further pursue his legislation:
“I remain deeply concerned about the expansive use of government surveillance under [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]. The authorities under this law, and the government’s interpretation of them, must be carefully scrutinized by Congress. As I have said, just because we have the ability to collect huge amounts of data, it does not mean that we should be doing so.”
Leahy’s comments regarding the NSA leaves one hopeful, but the House’s prior performance doesn’t inspire much confidence. Last week, an amendment from Reps. Justin Amash and John Conyers that would have severely limited the NSA’s spying powers tried to piggyback on the 2014 Defense spending bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated in a narrow vote.
The narrow vote has some confident that a similar push in the Senate may yield more positive results, but you have to also remember that some of the most hardcore NSA supporters are in the Senate. This is largely the same Senate that refused to divulge details on how many Americans had been targeted by the NSA because some members said such details must be kept secret.
Even if I’m not particularly hopeful, the Senate does also house quite a few NSA opponents as well. Sens. Ron Wyden, Rand Paul and others could combine their powers with Leahy to push his legislation forward. We can only hope, right?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had hoped to be able to sail through the upcoming primary season unimpeded by any challenge from within his own party, leaving him to face off with a full war chest against likely Democrat nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes. According to Kentucky newspapers, today that hope was snuffed.
Investment manager and Tea Party activist Matt Bevin of Louisville threw his hat into the ring with an announcement that he would take on “mud-slinging Mitch”, a man he says is no longer in touch with what conservatives want.
While McConnell has aimed a continuous salvo of ads at Grimes that link her to President Obama’s policies, Bevin does the same to McConnell accusing him of voting for higher taxes, bailouts, debt ceiling increases, congressional pay raises and liberal judges.
McConnell’s modus operandi so far has been to use the considerable wealth at his disposal to level early attacks at anyone rumored to oppose him. He ran ads aimed at actress and activist Ashley Judd when she was considering a run against him. Then against Grimes long before she announced. And now, even before Bevin’s announcement, McConnell leveled charges that the Louisville businessman received a $200,000 taxpayer bailout for companies he owns in Connecticut and said that Bevin did not pay taxes on them. The ads call him “Bailout Bevin”.
Bevins denies any tax problems, and retorts that McConnell is from Alabama.
Grimes’ campaign adviser, Jonathan Hurst, pointed out how quick McConnell was to attack Bevin.
“Kentuckians are frustrated by Mitch McConnell’s lack of leadership, so it should be no surprise that he’s turned to bullying members of his own party,” Hurst said.
“This is simply the latest in McConnell’s political games and demonstrates just how out of touch he is with Kentucky families.”
AP reports that a Senate panel has approved a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill had support from every one of the Democrats and three of the Republicans on the committee of 22, which indicates that it has a strong chance of passage in the Senate when it comes up for full vote.
Recent events nationally have show shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage and gender identity issues. After years of fighting regarding a contentious ballot proposition in California that temporarily outlawed same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that supported a lower court’s call that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that same-sex spouses are entitled to the same federal benefits as other married couples in states where gay marriage is legal.
“I think society is there and the things that have happened in the Supreme Court show we’re ready to move on in a way we haven’t moved on in the past,” said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Democrats don’t know whether the House of Representatives will even take up their own version of the bill, but they do expect to have 60 votes in the Senate, enough to beat any filibuster that may arise.
It is already against federal law for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex, race and national origin. But there is no law to prevent an employer from firing or refusing to hire a worker solely because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
The bill does contains an exemption for churches, religious schools and religious nonprofit organizations to make hiring decision based on their faith. That exemption was necessary to gain GOP support of the bill.
Earlier this year, the House proved yet again that it doesn’t care about your privacy by passing CISPA. The controversial cybersecurity bill would let the government and private companies easily share information to counter cyber threats. Now the Senate has finally gotten around to drafting its own legislation, but it’s nothing like CISPA. It’s not like it matters though.
The Hill reports that the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has drafted a bill that would address the nation’s lack of cybersecurity standards.
So, who would be creating these standards? As it stands, the bill tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create “voluntary cybersecurity standards and best practices for critical infrastructure, such as banks and power plants.”
The bill doesn’t stop there, however, as it would also help improve research and education relating to cybersecurity. The latter is especially important as many people still aren’t aware of just how much malware is on the Web.
As you can see, the proposed bill contains nothing about information sharing. That doesn’t mean the Senate doesn’t want to pass its own version of CISPA though. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who just so happens to be the chairman of the Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation, says he would support legislation that enabled information sharing. That won’t come until later down the road, however, and the Senate bill will probably once again look different from the House’s CISPA.
But I digress, cybersecurity standards are incredibly important, and its encouraging to see the Senate only make them voluntary. It’s not like I don’t have faith in the National Institute for Standards and Technology, but mandatory standards are rarely a good thing when it comes to technology. The ever changing nature of it requires people that actually know what they’re doing to apply new standards as new threats emerge.
Sarah Palin appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Tuesday and said something that will likely be repeated, analyzed and parsed for some time to come.
Palin was asked by Sean Hannity whether she would run for Senate from Alaska, facing Democrat incumbent Mark Begich.
“I’m glad you brought that up,” she said, “because Senator Mark Begich has got to be replaced. He has not done what he has promised to do for the people of Alaska. I’ve considered it because people have requested me considering it, but I’m still waiting to see what the lineup will be and hoping that, there again, there will be some new blood, new energy, not just kind of picking from the same old politicians in the state. I, along with anybody, would have to say that I would do whatever I could to help. And, you know, if that was part of that help, then it would have to be considered.”
Palin had mulled over the idea of getting in the last Presidential race, but ended up saying that she and her husband had decided that it was not the best thing to do for their family at the time. When asked whether that consideration wold still be there, Palin said, “I think any American with a heart for service has to always have in the back of their mind that they would do anything, everything that they could to help the cause even if purpose if it’s something that doesn’t look necessarily appealing or necessarily fitting in with a conventional plan that they would try to orchestrate for themselves and their family.”
Hannity also queried Palin about statements she had made to the effect that the Republican Party had forsaken its conservative roots, and that she would support a third-party candidate if the Grand Old Party did not return to those roots.
“It’s certainly not my first choice,” she said. “The Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, and the planks in the platform are right for this country. I stand strong on those planks. I just wish that more of our leadership, the movers and shakers within the Party, would stand strong on those planks with the rest of us…It tempts one to believe that if they in the Party abandon us, we have no other choice.”
The Hill reports that 26 senators led by Sen. Ron Wyden have demanded in a letter that the NSA publicly reveal information about its spy programs. The senators argue that making this information public will lead to a better debate over the necessity of these programs:
“We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the PATRIOT Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law. [Misleading statements] have prevented our constituents from evaluating the decisions that their government was making, and will unfortunately undermine trust in government more broadly. The debate that the President has now welcomed is an important first step toward restoring that trust.”
To help create a more transparent NSA, the senators are requesting the agency answer the following questions:
How long has the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans’ records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?
Has the NSA used USA PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records?
Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans’ cell-site location data in bulk?
Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.
Please identify any specific examples of instances in which intelligence gained by reviewing phone records obtained through Section 215 bulk collection proved useful in thwarting a particular terrorist plot.
Please provide specific examples of instances in which useful intelligence was gained by reviewing phone records that could not have been obtained without the bulk collection authority, if such examples exist.
Please describe the employment status of all persons with conceivable access to this data, including IT professionals, and detail whether they are federal employees, civilian or military, or contractors.
If the NSA is truthful (which is unlikely), we might get some solid answers for once. The senators pretty much covered every cause for concern that popped up when the surveillance programs were revealed.
Personally, I’m interested in the second to last question. Every terrorist threat thus revealed could have been stopped with traditional investigation methods, and didn’t require the collection of Americans’ data. The NSA will likely spin it to sound like they are the only agency standing in the way between you and the terrorists though.
The NSA has been on the defensive ever since Edward Snowden revealed its massive spying programs in a series of leaks earlier this month. The agency has been called into Congress for multiple hearings to defend the programs and to reassure Americans that they’re not being spied on. Even after multiple assurances, some senators still aren’t buying it.
Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have sent a letter to NSA Director Keith Alexander asking him to come clean. In particular, they point out that the NSA has sent conflicting messages to Congress over the years and they want to know the real story once and for all.
The letter opens by referencing a fact sheet that the NSA sent to Congress that “contains information about both section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and section 215 of the USA Patriot Act.” These two laws are what permits the NSA to collect phone and Internet records.
The senators point out that the fact sheet contains a glaring inaccuracy:
“We were disappointed to see that this fact sheet contains an inaccurate statement about how the section 702 authority has been interpreted by the US government. In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans’ privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are. …
We urge you to correct this statement as soon as possible. As you have seen, when the NSA makes inaccurate statements about government surveillance and fails to correct the public record, it can decrease public confidence in the NSA’s openness and its commitment to protecting Americans’ constitutional rights. Rebuilding this confidence will require a willingness to correct misstatements and a willingness to make reforms where appropriate.
Separately, we note that this same fact sheet states that under 702, “Any inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a US person must be promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the authorized purpose nor evidence of a crime.” We believe that this is somewhat misleading, in that it implies the NSA has the ability to determine how may American communications it has collected under section 702, or that the law does not allow the NSA to deliberately search for the records of particular Americans. In fact, the intelligence community has told us repeatedly that it is “not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority” of the FISA Amendments Act.”
The last paragraph is the real kicker as Wyden and Udall have essentially caught the NSA with its pants down. As TechDirt points out, the agency told Wyden two years ago that it couldn’t see how many Americans were accidentally spied upon, but its latest statement says that it totally can.
“We believe that the US government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well.”
There’s no time listed by which Gen. Alexander must respond, but the NSA is usually pretty good about responding to Congress in a timely manner. Just don’t expect a complete answer.
One of the worst things about the recently leaked NSA spy programs is what the agency calls “incidental data.” In short, it’s data on innocent Americans that gets picked up alongside data on non-Americans. The agency claims it can’t look at it, but the mere fact that they have this information has Americans and lawmakers concerned.
The bill doesn’t just rewrite the PATRIOT Act though. It requires the Attorney General to brief all of Congress on the government’s data collection programs. As of now, the Attorney General only has to answer to the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
The Attorney General would also be required to hand over unclassified summaries of FISA court opinions and orders to Congress for review after 180 days. As of now, FISA court orders are kept secret from everybody not on the Intelligence Committees.
Don’t get me wrong – stopping the collection of incidental data is a good thing, but it would be all for naught without more transparency. That’s why the bill’s call for increased transparency is by far the most important part about this bill. It would be better if the bill called for the kind of transparency that would reveal NSA information to the American public, but starting with Congress is a good baby step. Besides, there’s something seriously wrong with our system if we have to keep FISA court orders secret from the majority of our lawmakers.
Oh, and if you were wondering, a few Senators are pushing for a similar bill that would introduce transparency into the FISA courts. Unlike the above House bill, however, the Senate bill, penned by Sen. Jeff Merkley, would require the FISA courts to declassify its “significant opinions” for all.
Unfortunately, neither bill has much chance of being signed into law. Most lawmakers on the Intelligence Committees are hardline supporters of the secret FISA courts, and President Obama, despite saying he wants to be more transparent, seems like he’s still in favor of keeping everything hush hush as well.
Driverless cars have some people spooked, but most are incredibly supportive of anything that makes the roads safer. Congress wants to make sure of that with a hearing scheduled for this week.
The Hill reports that the Senate Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing on driverless cars on Wednesday to take a look at all of the issues currently surrounding the technology. The hearing will touch upon safety benefits, the risks associated with driverless cars, and what impact, if any, legalizing driverless cars will have on current policies.
Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller told the Hill that the hearing will focus on making sure driverless cares are safe:
“It’s vital that Congress understand the safety benefits, but we must make sure that these systems are reliable and secure, and don’t add to the numerous distractions already in cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also must have the capabilities to oversee the safety of new vehicle technology.”
Driverless cars won’t be the only technology brought up either. The Committee will take a look at the recent trend of smartphone integration into vehicles. Some are concerned that having access to Pandora and other smartphone apps in cars will lead to more distracted driving – an already dangerous habit of many American drivers.
There’s no word yet on who’s going to be represented at the hearing, but it’s a good bet that somebody from Google’s driverless car program will be present. The company has been investing quite a bit into the technology over the past few years, and has even managed to legalize the cars in California, Nevada, Florida and Texas. It would appear that Congress wants to ascertain the safety of the vehicles before they become legal in more states.
We can only hope that somebody will bring up Google’s almost spotless track record during the hearing. The cars have driven over a collective 300,000 miles, and have only been involved in two accidents. Furthermore, those two accidents were caused when human control was introduced.
The Marketplace Fairness Act – a piece of legislation that will force online businesses to collect state sales tax regardless of their physical location – was set to go before the Senate for a final vote last night. It was expected to pass, and the Senate did not disappoint.
The Hill reports that the Senate approved the Marketplace Fairness Act by a wide margin (69-27) with plenty of bi-partisan support. The passage was met with applause from retail organizations, including the National Retail Federation. The organization’s president and CEO Matthew Shay said that passage in the Senate is a “significant step for sales tax fairness.”
Now the bill must go before the House where it is expected to meet far more resistance from representatives opposed to any new tax legislation. Anti-taxation groups and small online businesses will also be doubling their efforts in the House to ensure that the bill doesn’t pass, or that it at least contains some protective measures to ensure small businesses aren’t hurt by it.
Despite these challenges, the NRF says it’s not worried. In a statement, Shay said that he’s looking forward to working with the House to ensure the bill’s passage:
“This bill and its companion in the House will level the playing field for all retailers – both online and off – while safeguarding states’ rights. And the bill does it all without raising taxes, new government mandates or adding to the deficit. NRF and our broad cross-section of members will work closely with our bipartisan sponsors in the House, Reps. Womack and Speier, and Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that efairness is debated honestly and on its merits. When brought to a vote, we believe the House will pass the bill and it will be signed into law.”
The NRF might have its way as well considering that the Marketplace Fairness Act has the support of the President, and more importantly, the support of many prominent Republican governors around the country. Their support may go a long way in convincing those currently opposed to the bill that it might not be such a bad idea after all.
Either way, the debate over online sales tax is going to get a lot more interesting in the coming months. The House is noisier than the Senate, and there’s going to be a lot of political grandstanding on both sides of the issue. You might as well break out the popcorn now.
One of the most controversial pieces of legislation currently making its way through the Senate is the Marketplace Fairness Act. In essence, it would allow states to collect taxes from online purchases even if the online store doesn’t have a physical presence in the state. Brick-and-mortar stores claim the bill levels the playing field with online retailers while opponents say it would put undue regulations on online businesses while making the tax code even more cumbersome. Guess which side the White House agrees with.
Do you support an online sales tax? Do you think small online businesses have anything to fear?Let us know in the comments.
The idea of an online sales tax is nothing new. Retail stores, represented by the National Retail Federation, have been pushing for an online sales tax bill for years after the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corp v. North Dakota that a state could not levy sales tax against a company if it had no physical presence in the state. Numerous online retailers use this to get around sales tax, and retail stores say this gives them an unfair advantage.
The White House completely agrees. In a statement to the press on Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers:
“This administration has carefully considered the legislation, and our team has met with a broad array of people on the issue. And we have heard overwhelmingly from governors, mayors and the business community on the need for federal legislation to level the playing field for our businesses and address sales tax fairness.”
The Nation Retail Federation isn’t the only group pushing for the Senate to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act. Governors around the country, including Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Snyder of Michigan, have voiced their support for the bill. States are hurting for revenue, and they feel that a national mandate on sales tax will bring billions of revenue back to the states. Carney echoed the governors by saying that the potential tax revenue would help states fund “K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges.”
Even if the bill is able to pass the Senate during a final vote later this week, it faces plenty of opposition. The Republican-controlled House is just one of the many challenges the Marketplace Fairness Act faces as it progresses through the legislature. Obviously online businesses are coming out against it. Ebay has been especially hostile towards the legislation, and has even started recruiting its sellers to protest the bill.
The common complaint from Ebay and other businesses opposed is that the bill would put undue burdens on online retailers. The current tax system has created a symbiotic relationship between online companies and the states. The states attract online companies to set up a physical presence in a state through a number of perks while the company brings tax revenue and jobs to the state in question. A universal online sales tax destroys that relationship by making online companies collect sales taxes for states that they receive no benefit from.
The current legislation offers sales exemptions to online businesses that make less than $1 million annually. Ebay is currently lobbying Senators to add an amendment that would up this exemption to $10 million.
One company that’s already benefiting from that symbiotic relationship has come out strongly in favor of the bill though. Amazon, which has a number of distribution centers across the country, says that it favors the bill because it creates a unified national framework for tax collection.
Despite the Senate’s overwhelming support of the bill, TechDirt points out that Sen. Ron Wyden has come out strongly against it saying that it negatively impacts innovation.
Another group standing in the bill’s way is Wall Street as it argues that the legislation, as it stands, could negatively affect financial transactions. One group in particular, the Financial Services Roundtable, says that a sales tax on financial transactions would hurt just about everyone:
“A transaction tax on financial services products will hurt retail investors, retired Americans, and small businesses, effectively making it more expensive for them to invest and plan for the long-term. Without hearings, these implications and others will not be properly addressed.”
It should be noted that the Marketplace Fairness Act isn’t a done deal in the Senate. Monday’s vote was only procedural. Now the Senate will get to work on adding amendments to the bill with a final vote scheduled for Thursday or Friday.
Unless something disastrous happens, the bill will probably pass the Senate without much of a fight. A glowing endorsement from the White House has made sure of that.
During the debate in the Senate and the House, you’re likely to see the following argument – Do we even need an online sales tax bill? Is there any real reason to throw a bone to the retail businesses that implement stupid strategies like a $5 window shopping fee.
One compelling argument is that retail stores should find ways to better compete with online businesses. The retail store still has a few advantages over online businesses, but are they really capitalizing on those advantages?
At this point, it’s too early to tell exactly what kind of damage, if any, the Marketplace Fairness Act would cause. It could possibly do nothing, but some are right to fear that it would legitimately hurt the operations of online retailers.
Do you think that retail stores need a level playing field? Will the Marketplace Fairness Act negatively affect small online businesses?Let us know in the comments.
The Senate really wants the public to know that it’s completely behind the Marketplace Fairness Act, a bill that would require online businesses to collect sales tax from every state regardless of its location.
After twoprevious votes that saw the legislation move forward, the Senate voted one final time in favor of ending the debate on the bill. The 63-30 vote ensures that the bill will finally move to a final vote on the Senate floor. That vote won’t come for another week, however, as the Senate also agreed to delay the vote until after they return from a weeklong recess on May 6.
The Hill notes that support for the bill has dropped considerably as the Senate has rejected an open amendment process. Many senators who would be in favor of an online sales tax bill are now opposed for this very reason. That doesn’t mean that the bill will suddenly be stopped in its tracks, however, as a number of influential Senators and the White House both stand in favor of the bill’s passage.
The Marketplace Fairness Act will most likely pass a floor vote in the Senate on May 6, but the bill still has a very uncertain future. The House is hostile to any legislation that would increase taxes. The bill’s supporters will likely have to make a few compromises in the House to see it passed.
One of those compromises, suggested by Sen. Ron Wyden, may very well show up in the House. Wyden argued that states should be able to opt out of collecting online sales tax from retailers. The argument is that states sales tax should be decided by the states, and that the federal government has no right to force states into collecting sales tax.
That being said, states seem to have no problem with the legislation as many governors have voiced support for the bill. States feel that they are losing out on billions of dollars in tax revenue ever year in untaxed online revenue.
We’ll continue to follow the Marketplace Fairness Act as it heads for a final floor vote on May 6. Don’t expect any major surprises out of the Senate, but we’ll keep an eye on it just in case.
Last week, a cry rang out from privacy advocates everywhere as the House overwhelmingly passed CISPA. Those same advocates soon gathered up their forces for a fight in the Senate, but it looks like the Senate got to killing CISPA before they could.
US News reports that the Senate has decided not to take up CISPA. In short, CISPA is dead. The bill that would have given companies full legal immunity when sharing your personal information with the government will have its remains scattered on the winds of history yet again.
It seems that CISPA’s death can be largely attributed to two factors. For one, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, came out against CISPA saying it lacked privacy protections. Rockefeller holds considerable sway in the Senate, and his committee would have had a lot of say over CISPA. Secondly, President Obama’s veto threat most likely played a major role in the Senate’s rejection of CISPA.
We can relax now that CISPA is dead, right? Unfortunately, the answer is a little unclear at this point. An unnamed representative on Rockefeller’s committee says that “issues and key provisions” of CISPA will be divvied up and made into separate bills. In other words, CISPA will be broken up into smaller, separate bills in the Senate. The problem with this approach is that some of the less vile, but still damaging, provisions of CISPA can make it through as they won’t be attached to the really bad stuff.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that the Senate will craft a handful of bills that narrowly target the areas not covered by President Obama’s cybersecurity executive order without sacrificing civil liberties. It would certainly be nice, but the Senate’s past attempts at writing cybersecurity legislation certainly don’t inspire confidence.
Either way, we won’t be seeing any cybersecurity legislation out of the Senate for a while. The unnamed representative says the Senate currently has its hands full with a number of other bills that take priority over cybersecurity, including the controversial Marketplace Fairness Act.
