Thread: Privacy Alert! Big Brother is watching and listening, UPDATED

Interesting comment under above article.

John_Rintala
12/5/2013 11:36 AM MST



Hah! You people are all Johnny come-latelys to all of this.

Back in the 70s and 80s when I was in the Communist Party, the real one, we NEVER talked on the phone about anything but the weather. It was assumed all phones were tapped. The Democrats supported this program. They have NEVER been on the side of the people. They were all in bed with Jedgar Hoover because they agreed with his program AND he knew who all of them were screwing....See More

Ready For Another Snowden Revelation? NSA Collects 5 Billion Cell Phone Location Records Each Day

December 4, 2013 by Ben Bullard

The latest leak in the ongoing trickle of information Edward Snowden supplied to newspapers about the National Security Agency (NSA) is a whopper: worldwide, the NSA gathers close to 5 billion records on the whereabouts and digital “relationships” of cell phone users each day.
According to The Washington Post, whichbroke the story Wednesday, the NSA taps directly into the physical backbone of the global telecommunications infrastructure, “enabling the agency to track the movements of individuals — and map their relationships — in ways that would have been previously unimaginable.”
Here’s more:

The NSA does not target Americans’ location data by design, but the agency acquires a substantial amount of information on the whereabouts of domestic cellphones “incidentally,” a legal term that connotes a foreseeable but not deliberate result.
One senior collection manager, speaking on condition of anonymity but with permission from the NSA, said “we are getting vast volumes” of location data from around the world by tapping into the cables that connect mobile networks globally and that serve U.S. cellphones as well as foreign ones. Additionally, data is often collected from the tens of millions of Americans who travel abroad with their cellphones every year.
In scale, scope and potential impact on privacy, the efforts to collect and analyze location data may be unsurpassed among the NSA surveillance programs that have been disclosed since June. Analysts can find cellphones anywhere in the world, retrace their movements and expose hidden relationships among individuals using them.

The government, of course, says the surveillance is perfectly legal, since learning things about people’s personal lives – such as whom they’re contacting and what their daily habits are – isn’t a goal, but rather a side effect, of the terror-oriented spying.
“[L]ocation data, especially when aggregated over time, is widely regarded among privacy advocates as uniquely sensitive,” the Post story interjects. “Sophisticated mathematical techniques enable NSA analysts to map cellphone owners’ relationships by correlating their patterns of movement over time with thousands or millions of other phone users who cross their paths. Cellphones broadcast their locations even when they are not being used to place a call or send a text.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was among the first of what’s certain to be many civil liberty groups to respond to the news Wednesday afternoon, releasing this statement:

It is staggering that a location-tracking program on this scale could be implemented without any public debate, particularly given the substantial number of Americans having their movements recorded by the government. The paths that we travel every day can reveal an extraordinary amount about our political, professional, and intimate relationships. The dragnet surveillance of hundreds of millions of cell phones flouts our international obligation to respect the privacy of foreigners and Americans alike. The government should be targeting its surveillance at those suspected of wrongdoing, not assembling massive associational databases that by their very nature record the movements of a huge number of innocent people.

Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports


http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/0...ords-each-day/

Intelligence Agency Reminds Americans With In Your Face Logo: NOTHING IS BEYOND OUR REACH

December 6, 2013 by Sam Rolley

Given that Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about the Federal government’s surveillance efforts in the wake of leaks providing evidence that the National Security Agency has abused its powers and routinely disregarded privacy protections, officials at the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office appear oblivious of current events or are simply unconcerned about the image they present to the American people.

A spy satellite named NROL-39, launched by the office Thursday night, features a new logo portraying a sinister-looking octopus wrapping its tentacles around the globe. A tagline at the bottom of the logo informs: “NOTHING IS BEYOND OUR REACH.”

After questions about the logo intended message arose, an agency spokesperson told Forbes that the logo was not meant to have a sinister connotation.

“NROL-39 is represented by the octopus, a versatile, adaptable, and highly intelligent creature.

Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide,” said Karen Furgerson. “‘Nothing is beyond our reach’ defines this mission and the value it brings to our nation and the warfighters it supports, who serve valiantly all over the globe, protecting our nation.”

If you were hoping to find out for yourself if the NROL-39 mission comes with any privacy concerns rather than taking NRO’s word, however, you are out of luck. The mission, like most all of the agency’s undertakings, is classified.

Nasaspaceflight.com reports that launch trajectory suggests NROL-39 is likely carrying a secretive payload that includes satellite for the agency’s radar reconnaissance fleet and a number of “nanosatellites” for scientific missions.

American Civil Liberties Union chief technologist Chris Soghoian offered the agency a bit of unsolicited advice via Twitter Thursday:




Christopher Soghoian @csoghoian
Follow

Advice to @ODNIgov: You may want to downplay the massive dragnet spying thing right now. This logo isn't helping.

6:02 PM - 5 Dec 2013

Conversely, such in-your-face reminders of the government’s surveillance-state mentality may be just what the American public needs to maintain vigorous opposition to the government’s abrogation of privacy.


Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports

http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/0...ond-our-reach/

PATRIOT Act Author: Jail Intelligence Directors Who Lied About Surveillance On Americans

December 6, 2013 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary, believes that Intelligence officials who lied to Congress about government spying during Congressional inquiry in March should be prosecuted.
Sensenbrenner was the original author of the PATRIOT Act, which opened the door for many of the surveillance abuses that the government carries out today. But recently the lawmaker has spent a great deal of time speaking out against the government’s surveillance efforts.
In an interview with The Hill this week, the lawmaker referenced Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s “not wittingly” answer to lawmakers when asked in the NSA spies on Americans. Clapper later described his response as the “least untruthful” answer he could give.
“Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview.
The lawmaker went on to note that Congress depends on accurate testimony in order to legislate. Furthermore, Sensenbrenner noted, Clappers position in government doesn’t give him the right to break the law.
“The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced,” Sensenbrenner said. “If it’s a criminal offense — and I believe Mr. Clapper has committed a criminal offense — then the Justice Department ought to do its job.”
The lawmaker suggested that intelligence agencies with more concern for public privacy would exist under civilian leadership.
“The successor of both Clapper and [NSA Director Keith] Alexander ought to be civilians,” Sensenbrenner said.
“I think that civilians would be able to have a better balance in seeing the distinction between security and civil liberties.”
The lawmaker is currently backing the USA Freedom Act, which would place major limitations on government surveillance power.

Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports

http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/0...-on-americans/

NSA FILES DECODED:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/int...oded#section/1

You, me and Edward Snowden – we've all been let down by the EU


Edward Snowden. 'On the biggest recent challenge to free speech, the EU has been left wanting. No member state seriously considered granting Snowden asylum.' Photograph: AFP/Getty Images/The Guardian

A colleague was in Maidan in Kiev last week and saw for himself Ukrainians, young and old, wrapped in the flag of the European Union in the freezing cold. As a Belarusian, he told me just how powerful the lure of the values we take for granted is. Ukrainians know that joining the EU means signing up to strong protections for human rights, including the right to free expression. Yet, as the Index on Censorship report released today demonstrates, within the EU the right to free speech is under sustained siege.
Europe has seen no co-ordinated action to stop the mass state surveillance of the US and Britain. Journalists face prison for libel. Media monopolies go unopposed. This continent's history forged the desire to build a new set of European values which actively protected human rights and a club to do so: the European Union. It's time for the EU to step up, otherwise this siege is likely to become a crisis.
One problem the EU has faced is how to deal with countries that meet the membership criteria, are able to join the union, but then begin to clamp down on their citizens' right to free speech. While he was prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi owned the country's largest private television and advertising companies, and also had a role for him and his party in the state broadcaster. Italians were subjected to a media diet of parading models and Berlusconi crooning, with his political opponents sidelined in comparison. In Hungary, under Viktor Orbán, the media came under assault through a new media law that handed over media regulation to his party's cronies, introduced million-euro fines for breaches of a highly restrictive code of practice and clamped down on whistleblowers.
It's not only Hungary and Italy that have threatened free speech. In 24 of the 28 EU member states, journalists face prison due to criminal defamation laws. Just yesterday, Romania's parliament voted to reintroduce prison sentences for libel and insult, to the despair of the country's civil rights groups. The European Commission hasn't helped. In January it suggested that Romania should protect reputation better, to the bewilderment of Romanian NGOs.
On the biggest recent challenge to free speech, the EU has been left wanting. No EU member state seriously considered granting Edward Snowden asylum. The commission has been notably silent after the Guardian found the police in its offices with orders to destroy its computers. While Claude Moraes MEP's committee on surveillance is admirably pursuing this agenda, member states remain unresponsive.
Our report finds that while the EU has worked on various digital freedom projects, it is yet to develop a comprehensive strategy that would protect Europeans from breaches of their rights such as the US and UK government's Prism and Tempora programmes. Mass population surveillance is a breach of the rights of all Europeans which can't be left to single states to decide upon. The commission is developing a new data protection regulation; it should act on excessive state surveillance.
The EU also has a considerable role in defending the right to free expression globally. While it thinks of itself as weak, the EU has considerable leverage as the world's largest trading block that accounts for about a quarter of total global economic output. It is one of the world's largest "values block" with a collective commitment to the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and perhaps more significantly, the European convention on human rights. Significantly too, Europe accounts for two of the five seats on the UN Security Council (Britain and France), so has a crucial place in the global security framework. All of this amounts to a lot of soft power that can and has been used effectively to protect free speech, but only where the member states act collectively.
The EU's targeted sanctions on Belarus have been effective in isolating the regime and securing the release of political prisoners. Enlargement has been incredibly effective at promoting free speech in countries that for years fell under the curse of Soviet totalitarianism. It's easy to forget that not even 25 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin wall. Yet, the EU's member states often act in their own selfish short-term interests. The lack of unity of member states particularly towards Russia and China has hampered any leverage the club may have with these global giants.
The EU today contains some of the world's best places for free expression, namely Finland, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, but also laggards, such as Italy, Hungary, Greece and Romania, who sit behind new and emerging global democracies. The EU's member states and institutions have all made a concrete commitment to protect free speech, for the sake of those in the freezing cold in Maidan who are struggling for this right; it's time for the EU to step up and honour this commitment.

It "LOOKS" Like Your Legislators Are Being Bribed So You Can Be Spied On...

Posted by Van Guard on December 13, 2013 at 7:40pm
View Blog

MAPLIGHT, the non-profit government watchdog that reveals the influence of money on politics in

the U.S. Congress and in the California and Wisconsin state legislatures, has released a report that details financial contributions by "intelligence services contractors" to members of Congress that oversee their activities.

Maplight asserts that "...We provide journalists and citizens with transparency tools that connect data on campaign contributions, politicians, legislative votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence never before possible to see. These tools allow users to gain unique insights into how campaign contributions affect policy so they can draw their own conclusions about how money influences our political system..."

The report, submitted by Donny Shaw, explains that in the wake of document leaks by formerNational Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, "...the congressional committees in charge of overseeing the government's intelligence operations have come to the defense of the surveillance and data collection programs, and the agencies that administer them. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have rejected attempts to reform the programs while advancing legislation to bolster their legal status and providing a funding boost to the National Security Agency (NSA) to protect their secrecy..."

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (United States House of Representatives) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The report states that several of the companies"...receiving intelligence contracts are major donors to members of the intelligence committees, including L-3 Communications, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell International..."

Specifically:

• "...In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005.
• Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from Maryland -- home of NSA headquarters -- led the committees in money received from top intelligence contractors. Representative C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., is the largest recipient, having received $363,600 since January 1, 2005. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., is the second largest recipient, having received $210,150.
• Republican members of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.86 million since January 1, 2005, while Democrat members have received $1.82 million over the same time period.
• Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have received $2.2 million since January 1, 2005 from top intelligence services contractors, while members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.5 million.
• Lockheed Martin has given $798,910 to members the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence since January 1, 2005, more than any of the other top 20 intelligence service contractors. Northrop Grumman has given $753,101, the second highest amount, and Honeywell has given $714,913, the third highest amount..."

English: Dianne Feinsteinhttp://bioguide.congress.gov/bioguid.../F/F000062.jpg(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Additionally Shaw reports that California (Dem) Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Vermont (Dem) Senator Patrick Leahy,"...are in a showdown over legislation related to the National Security Agency's bulk data collection programs...Last week, Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation that would put an end to many of the NSA's bulk surveillance and data collection activities that have come to light from the release of classified documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Groups like the ACLU and Public Knowledge are hailing the bill as an effective measure that would enact core reforms to protect civil liberties..."

However, Shaw says:

"...on October 30, Feinstein, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, pushed legislation through her committee that would provide legal authority for many of the NSA's current records collection policies, while making changes to the agency's reporting requirements and requiring Senate confirmation of the NSA director. Feinstein has continually defended the legality of the phone records program and at a hearing earlier this month said, 'I will do everything I can to keep this program from being cancelled out...to destroy it is to make this nation more vulnerable.'..."

Are these legislators breaking any laws by receiving campaign contributions from the very vested interests they are supposedly regulating?

While the answer is "no," does anyone not wonder why they do not have the integrity, the ethics, the "internal compass" that tells them that it is wrong to do so, even for the sake of the appearance of propriety.

How can money they receive from the agencies these elected officials are supposed to "check" not be more than a bribe, so that they vote in favor of the interests of the contractors?

One can argue that there is no law that prohibits Legislators from receiving the big bucks from the agencies they are supposed to be regulating. But why does there need to be an "external deterrent," i.e., a law that punishes them for doing so? Why can they not ethically or morally control themselves? Why must there be the force of law and a penalty at the point of a gun to regulate them?

Was not their being elected to Congress a trust that they would uphold the ethics of their office?

It appears not.

In fact, it appears that they believe their being sent to represent "We, the People" is a license to lie, sneak, steal, and violate the trust of the very people, whose interests they were sent there to protect.

If this seems like an isolated case to you, consider this little gem. Back in 2011 CBS 60 Minutes broke a story about Congress being exempt from insider trading rule penalties. Legislators, due to the nature of their office may or may not have access to inside stock market information. They, in fact, may have such knowledge because in some cases they make the rules, or at least have knowledge of how the rules are going to be changed, and how that will affect some markets. This could possibly give them an "edge" to know which way to invest, and therefore have an unfair advantage over others who are not privy to that information.

There are, as a matter of fact, laws that penalize for "insider trading," but Congress was exempt from those laws. After the CBS expose, there was a clamor for change; there was outrage that Congress men and women might be lining their pockets with "insider" knowledge of market information, and so a law was passed. Congress was "eager" to restore the trust and confidence that their constituents no longer had and so, essentially they were shamed into passing a law to regulate themselves.

Cumbaya?

Nope.

Just when you thought the sociopaths had turned over a new leaf, last April your Congress, when you were no longer looking, rolled back a major portion of that law. They specifically undid the portion of the law that required congressional staffers to disclose financial transactions, so that their dealings could be seen by the public to ensure that no insider trading was occurring.

And of when they sent the new law that undid the new restrictions over to the President, did Obama stand up for you, veto it and say "No, I am going to protect the good citizens of this nation from corruption?"

No sir.

The questions here are being asked rhetorically. There is no pretense of innocence. There is a point to be made, and that point is that outrage must translate into action.

We have the good people of Maplight politically extending themselves out on a limb so that we can have this information. But their actions will be in vain unless "We the People" take that information and act on it to make the required changes to impose restrictions, and our wrath, if necessary, to ensure the ethical and moral administration of our government.

It is not enough to be cynical or to laugh and sneer because our government is infested with corruption. We must act to disinfect, and then act to maintain the required hygiene.

http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...-so-you-can-be

Is anyone really surprised.....these traitors sell us out at every turn.....

Obama Doubles Down On NSA Dragnet, Preserves Centralized Administrative Structure Linking Military With NSA

December 13, 2013 by Ben Bullard

Despite urging from intelligence officials who sought to institute a measure of face-saving accountability before a public angry over illegal government spying, the Administration of President Barack Obama has decided to keep the one-man administrative umbrella that oversees both the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, the military’s digital intelligence arm.
That decision serves as a strong declaration of intent for Obama, even as new revelations exposing the extent of the NSA’s extra-Constitutional powers come to light almost daily. As in the past, both the NSA and Cyber Command will continue to operate under the stewardship of Gen. Keith Alexander and whomever may succeed him when he retires in March.
Even Director of National Intelligence and infamous truth obfuscator James Clapper has suggested that NSA and Cyber Command should be reorganized under separate leaders, since their missions are fundamentally very different.
An Obama-appointed review panel even recommended the same thing, further suggesting that a civilian would provide more appropriate leadership for the NSA.
From The Washington Post, which reported Friday on the fallout from the decision:

The decision by President Obama comes amid signs that the White House is not inclined to impose significant new restraints on the NSA’s activities and favors maintaining an agency program that collects data on virtually every phone call that Americans make, although it is likely to impose additional privacy protection measures.
… Some officials familiar with the decision to keep on person in charge of both the NSA and Cyber command expressed disappointment. They say that the missions of the two organizations are fundamentally different: spying and conducting military attacks. “It’s a mistake,” said another U.S. official. “Cyber Command and NSA each needs its own full-time head, and [Obama] could have continued the coordination and close working relationship between the two organizations without them being led by the same individual.”

In so many words, the Obama Administration intends to pay lip service to demands for government accountability by allegedly imposing “additional privacy protection measures” – an imposition that necessarily must stake its validity on the will of the American people to trust the government to keep its word – while doubling down on government’s inherent prerogative to monitor the private, lawful activities of American citizens.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/1...tary-with-nsa/

Congressional NSA critics: review panel report gives 'momentum' for reform

Though critics concerned that panel did not adequately address how long telecoms ought to hold NSA’s desired call data

• The Guardian, Thursday 19 December 2013 15.20 EST

Sensenbrenner is wary of panel's recommendation that phone companies should store communications data for the NSA to search. Photo: Chip Somodevilla /Getty

The chief congressional critics of the US National Security Agency said Thursday that a White House review panel report gave them momentum to end bulk domestic surveillance, but expressed reservations about one of the panel’s central proposals.
In an indication of the changing political landscape for the NSA, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the chief House sponsor of a bill preventing the agency from collecting US domestic phone data, said Thursday that “President Obama’s hand-picked panel” highlighted “the need to enact the USA Freedom Act.
But Sensenbrenner, in an interview with the Guardian, was wary of its recommendation that phone companies or other private parties should store communications data for the NSA to search.
"The administration has not yet made the case that increased data retention is necessary, but I welcome any proposals that serve our national security interests without undermining constitutional rights” Sensenbrenner said.
The report by the review group, released Wednesday afternoon, has been greeted warmly by skeptics of mass surveillance, particularly for its recommendations to add privacy advocates at the secret Fisa Court and for endorsing greater use of data encryption.
But as the review group’s recommendations help reshape the debate over bulk surveillance, all sides are girding for a fight over the extent to which any entity ought to hold Americans’ data – a fight likely to determine whether bulk domestic surveillance ends, or continues in a new form.
In line with the USA Freedom Act, the review group rejected a need for the government to hold citizens’ data in bulk, and held out as a solution the ability of the government “to obtain specific information relating to specific individuals or specific terrorist threats” when it can demonstrate to the secret surveillance court “that it has reasonable grounds to access such information.”
But the review group had less to say about a crucial detail: how long the telecoms ought to hold the NSA’s desired call data. It urged the government and the companies to “agree on a voluntary system” and relegated to a footnote a suggestion that two years would be the maximum appropriate period of time to hold the data.
Civil liberties groups who back the USA Freedom Act’s flat prohibition on bulk domestic phone data collection flatly rejected having the phone companies or other “private parties” hold the data for NSA to query.
Alexander Abdo of the ACLU said it would “simply repackage the bulk collection under private control.” Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was “still heinous, even if private company servers are holding the data instead of government data centers.” Kevin Bankston of the Open Technology Institute said it would amount to “bulk collection by proxy.”
For its part, the NSA has been publicly hinting for months that as long as the surveillance agency maintains access to a comprehensive database of domestic phone call information going back three to five years, it can live with that database existing outside of the NSA’s Fort Meade campus.
"I would love to give this hornet’s nest to someone else, to say ‘You get stung by this,’” General Keith Alexander, the outgoing director of the NSA, said in October. “But don’t drop it, because that’s our country, and if you do drop it, the chance that a terrorist attack gets through increases.”
On Capitol Hill, where fallout from the review group is unsettled as aides slogged through a lengthy report, pro-reform officials noted that the review group did not endorse the NSA’s call for years.
Now that both a federal judge, Richard Leon, and the review group have both doubted the necessity of bulk collection for stopping terrorist attacks, they argued that the NSA will have difficulty arguing that the companies ought to be required to store the data for as long as the agency wants, especially since the phone companies have not shown enthusiasm for the proposal.
Reform advocates, who have embraced the review group as a political success, were cautious about embracing the telecom-based proposal as a solution for bulk surveillance.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Sensenbrenner’s chief partner in the upper legislative chamber, said that he would hold a hearing in January with the review group to further assess its recommendations.
Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee who said the report in general provided “substantial, meaningful reforms,” indicated on Wednesday that he had concerns about having the companies hold the phone data for the NSA.
“Obviously, there’s going to be a lot of technical issues associated with telecoms having the information,” Wyden told the Guardian in an interview. “That’s going to take some time to work through.”
What the telecoms, NSA and privacy advocates agree on is that requiring the phone companies to hold the data is a complicated process, technologically and otherwise.
Currently, the phone companies typically store customer data for 18 months. The NSA wants the information kept for at least three years and ideally five, ostensibly to detect domestic communications pattern to known terrorist groups. Legislation would be necessary to compel the companies to store the data longer – which is both expensive and raises concerns about keeping the data secure.
The telecoms “would fight tooth and nail” against such a requirement, said a congressional aide, “unless there’s compensations.”
Companies as well keep their data in different file formats, complicating the ability for comprehensive and rapid searches. So far, the telecos have not embraced the proposal.
“A practical concern is that when you start saying you have to keep all this data, you open it up for access to divorce cases and down the line, everyone’s going to want a bite at the apple,” said Ross Schulman, a lobbyist with the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
At the same time, a powerful opponent of the USA Freedom Act, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, worried on Thursday that the review group might weaken US intelligence efforts.
“Though I am still studying the details, I have serious concerns with some of the report’s 46 recommendations,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, former FBI agent and staunch advocate of the NSA’s bulk collection.
"Any intelligence collection reforms must be careful to preserve important national security capabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to enact meaningful reforms in the near future.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Rogers’ counterpart in the Senate, has yet to respond to the review group’s proposals. Feinstein, a California Democrat, is backing an alternative to the USA Freedom Act that would bolster the NSA’s powers to store communications data. Its prospects are less clear in the Senate now that the White House’s surveillance review panel rejected its major rationale.
The USA Freedom Act claims 132 co-sponsors in the House and Senate combined, a quarter of the Congress. Obama has yet to commit to either supporting or opposing it.
“The report sent over by the White House reaffirms what many of my colleagues and I have been saying since June – the NSA has gone too far,” Sensenbrenner said.
“All three branches of government have now said it is time to stop indiscriminately vacuuming up the data of innocent Americans. The report also agrees that the NSA’s bulk collection has come at a high cost to privacy without improving national security.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...omentum-reform