This page, content-wise, doesn't appear to have a clear message.
EFF -- if you're listening -- it would be great to stake a very clear position on this bill at the very top of your statement.
Something like "We urge you to support the USA Freedom Act."
Since neither the name of the bill itself, nor anything on the page, makes it clear that the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens, someone who had never heard of the Act, or someone skimming the page, would not gain a meaningful conclusion.
I was unsure at first whether to support or decry the bill, and heck, the name even sounds like "Patriot Act." The title of the page itself does no help: it paints an ominous message in a severe tone.
Marketing: it's important. Be clear.
"The signals we give—yes, or no, or maybe—
should be clear; the darkness around us is deep."
> the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens
This was a revelation to me, so I would have to agree. I'm ignorant of the subject and my initial reaction to a thing called the USA Freedom Act was "great, how are my rights about to be curtailed now?"
"The USA Freedom Act, the leading contender for NSA reform, is set for a vote this week. The bill has some problems, but is a major step forward for surveillance reform. That's why we're asking you to call your Senator and urge them to support the USA Freedom Act."
The point is to catch the eye of people who are just scanning the page. The first thing they'll see is the "TAKE ACTION NOW, Oppose NSA spying!" picture, which sort of leads you to believe this is another PATRIOT act or something. I can imagine someone seeing that, thinking "Not again, this stuff is endless, my senator never responds to my calls anyway", and closing the page.
Obviously ideally people will read past the biggest font on the page, but that doesn't always happen.
I actually agree w/ OP, the message seemed totally unclear to me, and I never saw that initial sentence.
I revisited the page and realized my eye was immediately drawn to the huge propaganda eagle, after which I jumped to the middle of the article and started skimming. Once again I missed the initial sentence. Had to intentionally look for it.
The HN title, which is all I've read so far, leads me to believe this is another Patriot Act. Clicking through, it appears this is also the title of the article, so it's hardly HN trying to editorialize.
Since I have enough information to determine that I don't want the Freedom Act to pass, why would I click through to the article?
So you didn't read the article, which was the original complaint of the root comment. If you can't take 30 seconds to read about legislation that could significantly impact the power of the security state to spy on the American public, you're not doing your duty as a citizen.
Nothing in the title indicated that it was about legislation that could significantly impact the power of the security state to spy on the American public. I thought Obama was legalizing torture.
The bill isn't all it's cracked up to be. It creates new legal basis for some surveillance activities that are arguably illegal, immunizes companies who participate in mass surveillance, and (most problematically), reauthorizes the Patriot Act. See: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-ellsb...
I've noticed this quite a bit recently.. Maybe I'm just older and it has being going on forever. Bills on the surface that look like they are accomplishing what you want, but when you read between the lines they actually give the nod to stuff you don't want to be happening at all.
Secret courts? Advocate. Now secret courts are more OK because apparently we reviewed them and decided they are fine with an advocate. This just cements the status quo into our system.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Legislation is a series of compromises. Think of it more as moving down the field towards your goal against the opposite team, instead of just teleporting there. Specifically, this bill makes phone spying much more onerous, and critically increases transparency which will immediately curtail abuses and fuel further debate. This isn't the last word on the topic.
Wait, why is a bill even needed? Aren't current laws and the constitution itself already enough? If they are breaking the law now, why should we believe they won't disregard the Freedom Act?
Because there are people of good faith who work at the NSA. They have been told by their losses that the programs they are implementing have been reviewed and are perfectly legal. If Congress makes a clear statement on the matter then that fig leaf will no longer apply.
The bill isn't perfect, but it'll mean that the government collects less information on innocent people, there'll be greater transparency, and an advocate for citizen privacy in the FISA court. Beyond that, it's the most likely vehicle for NSA reform. We're unlikely to see anything stronger if this doesn't pass. And it seems like a better bet than trying to push for Section 215 to sunset next year.
As per the article I linked, it also likely nullifies the Klayman case, a case which could very likely turn out to have an even bigger effect than this bill.
Some background to those not familiar from Wikipedia[0]:
~Filing~
"In Klayman I, the plaintiffs, subscribers of Verizon Wireless, brought suit against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, and General Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency.[5] The plaintiffs alleged that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications" and that the program violates First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and exceeds statutory authority granted by Section 215.[5] In Klayman II, the plaintiffs sued the same government defendants and in addition, Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, Apple again alleging the bulk metadata collection violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and constitutes divulgence of communication records in violation of Section 2702 of Stored Communications Act.[4]"
~Current Status~
"On January 3, 2014 the government filed notice of appeal. On February 21, 2014 government filed a motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions in wake of the President's changes to Section 215 metadata program on January 17, 2014.[17][18] The parties argued the case before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 4, 2014.[19]"
I don't have a lot of faith in the chances of success of a Larry Klayman suit. If he actually does manage to pull it off, it'll be the world's best evidence of the old adage about the stopped clock being right twice a day.
(In the last month, Klayman has filed suit accusing Obama of intentionally allowing Ebola-infected ISIS suicide troops into the US to kill Christians, Jews, and whites; the complaint ended with a demand that Obama be deported since he isn't a citizen. He is not the kind of standard-bearer any cause wants.)
Names of bills nowadays have little to do with their content. Maybe we should just get rid of names altogether and refer to them by SHA hashes of their content...
"Some moron amended bill f7eed03, now it's bill f5ba821. Do you know how much I had to tweak the language in order to generate a hash that looks like 'freedom'?"
"Under the bill, Internet and telecommunications companies are allowed to report publicly an estimate of: (1) the number of FISA orders and NSLs received; (2) the number of such orders and NSLs complied with; and (3) the number of users or accounts on whom information was demanded under the orders and letters."
Is it just me, or the last one is a pretty big deal? Since before, "number of NSLs" could include a single letter asking for all the data on all users or really large sets of accounts. Of course, there is still always the typical loophole of "oh, it wasn't an NSL, it was data collected under a different program...", but otherwise this bill does seem to address a lot of the issues with NSA collection happening at completely secret rates, based on secret law interpreted by secret courts. Am I being too optimistic about it?
I don't feel obligated to spend time defending my position.
If you're interested, I recommend you check out the EFF's press releases about CISPA, and then compare it to what's on Wikipedia. They just make a number of legal leaps that aren't founded in any kind of law, amounting to a fearmongering argument no more valid than screaming, "BUT FREEDOM!!!!" too loudly for anyone else to object.
I guess you are expecting the EFF to be neutral with regard to NSA snooping and data collection, versus NSA not doing any of those things. That's not a reasonable ask, though.
I'm just expecting honesty, is all. I don't feel the EFF is honest in its approach to its stances, and that makes me worry that their positions aren't defensible.
EFF -- if you're listening -- it would be great to stake a very clear position on this bill at the very top of your statement.
Something like "We urge you to support the USA Freedom Act."
Since neither the name of the bill itself, nor anything on the page, makes it clear that the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens, someone who had never heard of the Act, or someone skimming the page, would not gain a meaningful conclusion.
I was unsure at first whether to support or decry the bill, and heck, the name even sounds like "Patriot Act." The title of the page itself does no help: it paints an ominous message in a severe tone.
Marketing: it's important. Be clear.
"The signals we give—yes, or no, or maybe— should be clear; the darkness around us is deep."
William Stafford -- http://williamstafford.org/spoems/pages/ritual.html