/lw/ - Legislative Watch

>>3
Thank you. Glad to sign anything that prevents more 1984 bullshit.

Bump for support. You are doing God's work.

bump, good idea for a board

You know what MIGHT be a good call for use in this new board? Regular cross threads with /pol/ are a start but also perhaps drives after discussion on this board.

By drives, I mean that our cross threads to /pol/ could become special "call your congressman" editions for particularly troubling pieces of legislation.

>>9
I completely agree. Anything to build awareness of what's actually going on in our government, policywise. Sure, our elected officials do nothing to represent American citizens, but the legislative process itself has become some flagrantly corrupt, nay un-American,
that it turns my stomach.

>>9
>>12
Yes. Really anything that keeps citizens informed. Possibly with enough attention brought to the subject we can force a course correction.

>>>/pol/543568
The efforts over there. Good links and images

Start contacting businesses that have clout, like google, ms, turbotax, and shit like that. Ask them to take a stand, because it will cause a loss to their bottom line. Easiest way to bring attention to the cause.

postan to increase this board rank.

if this board got an active community, it could help prevent this shit slipping through.

(Sec. 309) Directs the heads of the DNI, CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA to ensure that there is a full financial audit of their respective entities each year and that each audit contains an unqualified opinion of the entity's financial statements. Requires the chief financial officer of each entity to provide an annual audit report to Congress.

The scariest exceptions to the 5 year rule in my opinion.
(ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency;
(iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning;

>>2
link to HR 4681?
excerpts that are troubling?
analysis of troubling bits of the bill with a tl/dr that gets to the meat of the matter?
history of the bill?

none of these are answered in this thread so far. i don't mind that they're not addressed directly in the OP, but we should have a process for scrutinizing legislation if we want this board to succeed. i don't mind digging into the legislative shit if i have a hint at what i might find… but c'mon…

>>26SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED
COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) Definitions.–In this section:
(1) Covered communication.–The term ``covered communication''
means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired
without the consent of a person who is a party to the
communication, including communications in electronic storage.
(2) Head of an element of the intelligence community.–The term
``head of an element of the intelligence community'' means, as
appropriate–
(A) the head of an element of the intelligence community;
or
(B) the head of the department or agency containing such
element.
(3) United states person.–The term ``United States person''
has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

>>27
(b) Procedures for Covered Communications.–
(1) Requirement to adopt.–Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the
intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the
Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (3).
(2) Coordination and approval.–The procedures required by
paragraph (1) shall be–
(A) prepared in coordination with the Director of National
Intelligence; and
(B) approved by the Attorney General prior to issuance.
(3) Procedures.–
(A) Application.–The procedures required by paragraph (1)
shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not
otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or
certification issued by a court established under subsection
(a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or
similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result
in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a
United States person and shall permit the acquisition,
retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject
to the limitation in subparagraph (B).
(B) Limitation on retention.–A covered communication shall
not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless–
(i) the communication has been affirmatively
determined, in whole or in part, to constitute foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence or is necessary to
understand or assess foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence;
(ii) the communication is reasonably believed to
constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law
enforcement agency;
(iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably
believed to have a secret meaning;
(iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably
believed to be non-United States persons;
(v) retention is necessary to protect against an
imminent threat to human life, in which case both the
nature of the threat and the information to be retained
shall be reported to the congressional intelligence
committees not later than 30 days after the date such
retention is extended under this clause;
(vi) retention is necessary for technical assurance or
compliance purposes, including a court order or discovery
obligation, in which case access to information retained
for technical assurance or compliance purposes shall be
reported to the congressional intelligence committees on an
annual basis; or
(vii) retention for a period in excess of 5 years is
approved by the head of the element of the intelligence
community responsible for such retention, based on a
determination that retention is necessary to protect the
national security of the United States, in which case the
head of such element shall provide to the congressional
intelligence committees a written certification
describing–

(I) the reasons extended retention is necessary to
protect the national security of the United States;
(II) the duration for which the head of the element
is authorizing retention;
(III) the particular information to be retained;
and
(IV) the measures the element of the intelligence
community is taking to protect the privacy interests of
United States persons or persons located inside the
United States.

>>26
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text
SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS.
see >>21
It is in reference to:
(B) Limitation on retention.–A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless–

>>21
i agree… but what sort of intelligence collection activity does this apply to?

(A) Application.–The procedures required by paragraph (1)shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or certification issued by a court established under subsection (a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B).

>>30
my limited interpretation of this is that NSA now has a directive to engage in domestic surveillance in order to identify domestic criminal activity and disseminate that intelligence to the agency responsible for enforcement…

Issues with HR4681
It legitimizes the government spying on it's citizens, making the already unconstitutional warrant-less search seem like it's perfectly acceptable.
Beyond this it created vague language as to what lets them go past these "limits" on the unconstitutional power. Including reasonable encryption being an indicator. With how vague it is I wouldn't put it past the government to say that you have a password, it's a secret, we must know it.
Even if our current government didn't/couldn't use that part of it, future generations would have it there as a potential exploit.

History of the bill:
passed through with a sneaky amendment.
Amash had staffers quickcheck it for bullshit
Found it, called for a reconsideration of the bill.
Not many cared, still passed.
Reps can still abstain from signing before it goes to Obama. (I believe.)

>>30
>any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order
This is a BIG problem, this means it applies to information collection without a warrant. Legitimizing warrant free search and seizure of data.
That's how I read it.

>>32
more history detail: It was amended in the senate on 12/9 with SA 3995. Proposed by Mr. SCHATZ (for Mrs. FEINSTEIN)

Stickied now. I'll edit with info that we need about this. Just let me know.

The bill was introduced by Rep Mike Rogers from Michigan. Is there any way to tell who added the Sec 309?

>>36
Does >>33 answer my question? Mr. Schatz?

>>37
I know that he amended the bill on the 10th. Trying to figure out what the fuck was done that day is eluding me though.

>>38
Rogers has some plans that we could throw a wrench into, he's retiring this year and want a radio show on clearchannel. Anyways, I'm not sure he's responsible for the amended part and I want to learn more about how you can determine who is responsible (if even possible).

BTW I don't know how this site works 100% but I couldn't find this board. I mean, searching tag "law" turned up nothing. If you can tag your board consider adding some to make finding it easier

>>38
Law, Privacy, congress, government, united states, etc etc etc

BTW I will be back to cover at least one bill in my own thread, this board is a good idea

>>45
I don't know how the board search works but if you can't add multiple tags that should be on the to-do list on /meta/ or something

>>45
>>46
>>48
I will add these board tags tonight. Running late for work though. (maybe add them at work but who knows how easy it is to edit shit on a phone.)

>>49
Politics, activism, legislation, law, government.
I'm only allowed 5 and these seem the best to me.

So we made a fucking difference

HR 4681 was amended once again to require a warrant for data collection. We fucking did it 8chan.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681

>>51
Retracted. Drunken blindness and reading disinfo. The shit we hate is still there.

>>54
I was browsing the pol thread and was up a little late with the scotch reading other bullshit bills, and they claimed it, i browsed the summary, changed, and not the text. The sneaky niggers didn't change a word of the text to STILL try and slide it by. It's sad.