Please explain the silence??? “We did not file an application for reauthorization,”

[malaise]

an administration official confirmed to the Guardian on Saturday.

The administration decision ensures that beginning at 5pm ET on 1 June, for the first time since October 2001 the NSA will no longer collect en masse Americans’ phone records.

It represents a quiet, unceremonious end to the most domestically acrimonious NSA program revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, in a June 2013 exposé in the Guardian – effectively preempting a bid by GOP leader Mitch McConnell to retain it. But McConnell and other Senate Republicans intend to continue their fight to preserve both that program and other broad surveillance powers under the Patriot Act.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/23/nsa-bulk-phone-records-collection-usa-freedom-act-senate

--------------------------------------------
Isn't this a major win for privacy rights?

[djean111]

1. I am extremely hesitant to believe the NSA would just stop. I will just assume they will be

more sneaky and secretive about it. As a general rule, I don't think government agencies give up any power. Or funding.

[dballance]

2. ^^^^ This ^^^^

They'll just twist some other law to say it's legal.

[grasswire]

3. yeah, something is going on nt

[napi21]

4. I assume it was plann, but the Hpuse left or te weekend before

any continuing resolution was done. heard the Senators said they couldn't do anything because the House was already gone.

I hope this was their way of making it go way without having to vote on it.

[MohRokTah]

5. But but but, OBAMA DIDN'T GIVE ME MY PONY!!!!!

[djean111]

6. Obama got himself a whole herd of ponies. What are you referring to, anyway?

[Autumn]

7. I saw that but I'm not going to celebrate till I know it's really over and done.

But McConnell and other Senate Republicans intend to continue their fight to preserve both that program and other broad surveillance powers under the Patriot Act.

It seems anymore that if the republicans want something, they get it.

[sadoldgirl]

8. Sorry, I don't have an answer, but

elections are coming and the explanations to
keep it alive might have been a bit difficult?

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. Or private corporations will do it and sell the info highly priced to the nsa.

[Exilednight]

10. Here's the caveat, it doesn't end foreign spying, and in today's current

Technological age phone calls are routed around the globe. You might be talking to your friend in Ca while in Ny, but that call may be routed thru a Mexico exchange.

[LiberalArkie]

21. Usually not really. It does not cost the telcos must to transport on their own

fiber and networks any more. But when they cross an international border, they have to cough up real money to use a foreign network. Check and see how much a call to Canada or Bermuda or Mexico is. The ones who will be screaming are the Telcos. They are making REAL money supplying the data to the NSA and suppling the fiber to carry it.

[Exilednight]

25. In the old days that was true. But in today's

World, almost all phone calls over cell networks - once passed through a cell tower - move to VOIP and then back to a cell tower. Using Skype I can make a world wide video phone call for free.

[CharlotteVale]

11. I have no doubt they'll still do it anyway.

[nenagh]

12. malaise, I'm reading that the Senate is to reconvene Sun May 31st to try again...

I don't know if it is too soon to celebrate...as a Canadian, I'm not sure the relevant procedures

Good Luck, of course...

[EEO]

13. Neither are the vast majority of Americans.

[Cal Carpenter]

19. How does a bill become a law?

[Ford_Prefect]

14. When this kind of thing happened in the past they would re-name the program,

and then pay for it with money they had already gotten. Not sure that works at this price range but I doubt very strongly that the agency made no provision for this kind of situation. It will depend on who the customers were for the information. Army, Navy and Air Force Intel are very deep pockets indeed. Not to mention DOD research. The change in customer could mean a change in ownership of the data too, among other possible complications.

If it only ran out of money under the authorization in Patriot Act someone will fiddle a way to continue it. If the failure to re-authorize means the activity now becomes proscribed that is a very different matter. With the bills to prohibit or cancel the program there was a direct and specific order given as to the fate of the program, personnel, technology, and the existing files and data.

[NBachers]

15. We're waiting to see if it's the old shell game, or the Lucy football trick.

"Fool me 1ce, shame on yew. Foolme twice . . . . . . . . . . um . . uh . . . wontgitfooldaginn!"

[PosterChild]

16. The explination is..

....given in the memo mentioned in the op:

A Justice Department memo circulated among congressional offices Wednesday and obtained by National Journal said Congress needs to fully settle its differences over the expiring spy provisions this week in order to avoid an operational interruption to the NSA's mass-surveillance program, which was exposed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden two years ago.

"After May 22, 2015, the National Security Agency will need to begin taking steps to wind down the bulk-telephone-metadata program in anticipation of a possible sunset in order to ensure that it does not engage in any unauthorized collection or use of the metadata," the memo states.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-admin-nsa-spying-will-begin-shutting-down-this-week-20150520

[malaise]

17. Looks like the Executive branch is merely following the orders

of the Judicial branch - isn't that what they have to do?

[PosterChild]

20. If you are referring to the recent ruling . ..

.. on the legality of the program, not exactly. Since the the law itself is expiring and hasn't been reauthorized, that ruling isn't relevent.

My understanding is that they carry out the program under a blanket warrant issued by the FISL court that declares it to be relevent to ongoing investigations. That warrant expires every 90 days, so they have to reapply for it. In this case they are not because the law is expiring anyway, so the warrant would not be useful.

It also helps to put pressure on the legislature to take action on one of the alternatives

I'm not an expert, but I suspect that if the Patriot act does get a clean reauthorization with everyone knowing about the program , the ruling against it would not hold on appeal since it would indicate explicit authorization of it by Congress.

[malaise]

22. Good point given the sunset expiry

but doesn't the court's ruling have some bearing on how the Executive branch handles this?
Is the secrecy the major problem?

[PosterChild]

27. I'm speaking from memory and..

..I'm not an expert but my understanding is that after finding the program to be illegal, and issuing an injunction against it, the court stayed the injunction with the explination that the imminent experation and potential reauthorization and / or revision of the law would settle the issue legislatively before a series of appeals could settle it judicially.

That's probably what will happen. Any change to the law would , I think, require a do-over in the courts, and the argument that whatever program remaines goes beyond the intent of the law would be less compelling.

[maindawg]

18. Well its just silly

They dont need it it. Its obsolete. Just another idiot Bush/Cheney mess they can be though with. Those two morons left so many landmines in our Govt so many quagmires it will take a generation to clean them all out of the system. It was a bad idea. It was a Bushco idea. The Rethugs are full of bad ideas. We pay for them, Dems are always left to clean up their mess while the rethugs crow from the gallery and spread fear and lies and hate and scam and grift and get back in power and they do it again.
The idiots must not be permitted to continue this loop. This vicious circle.

I recall when it first came to light and was an issue in 2003. We allowed it to slide and the Bushco continued the crime wave they were conducting with their torture and then 12 billion cash was disappeared and W joked about the WWMDs so we all were supposed to think that was funny. But it was just sad. It was sickening. He was drunk in China, and disrespectful in dealings with the entire world. He was an embarrassment.

[47of74]

24. You mean this?

His daughter's like, "Oh God, he's been drinking again."

[truebrit71]

23. It sounds like a major win for privacy...

.... but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop....

[Man from Pickens]

26. nobody who cares buys it

Anyone believes that even if the law unambiguously says to shut it down, that these people will shut it down? Didn't a Director of National Intelligence lie under oath to Congress about this very program?

[PosterChild]

28. well yes and no...

... the question was asked in public and to answer it truthfully would have been to reveal classified information, which would have been against the law. To have refused to answer would have been as much to answer in the affermative.

The question was a deliberate set up. The congressman knew the answer and knew that it couldn't be answered publically. He also knew that he could ask and get an answer in a classified breifing. So to my mind, the director did the best he could under the circumstances.

[Man from Pickens]

30. As Ron Wyden explained

the questions were submitted in writing well before the hearing, and there is an informal process where if the DNI (or other person in national security position) does not wish to answer a question in an open hearing, they can object to it, and the question won't be asked. DNI did not make use of this process, which leads to two conclusions: 1) DNI intended to answer the question; and 2) DNI intended to lie to the public.

DNI was not ambushed in the hearing. He knew the question would be asked, weeks before, and had the opportunity to stop it from being asked.

[PosterChild]

33. Here's a chronology . ..

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/06/wyden_and_his_dispute_with_us.html

Wyden clearly knew about the program, based on secret briefings and the question was asked just before a closed session, in which it would have been appropriate to ask. The questions were submitted the day before, which doesn't mean there was a proper opportunity to vet them before hand.

And the question shouldn't have been asked at all. It was a set up - a stunt.

The fact is that Wyden was fully aware of the program when he asked the question and that he was asking a public servant to violate the law by disclosing classified information.

As a congressmen Wyden has the privilege to say anything on the floor without those repercussions. So why didn't Wyden disclose what he knew? Why did he put Clapper on the spot instead of doing it himself?

[BrotherIvan]

29. New and Improved!

They're working on the non-threatening asexual spokesthing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Good