Congress Now Getting Involved in the Xbone

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bloodfrenzy187**

I hope Microsoft tries to watch me through the new kinect. Because I can guarantee the first time they catch me naked in my room they will never look again.

**Manchu**

Lynata wrote:
What I find interesting about this is how the US Congress would seem to fight another part of the government (and one that may well have more influence) on the subject, given that the XB1 is from Microsoft, who is a PRISM partner, with the government likely having a certain interest in keeping them onboard for the purpose of gathering information.

Just ... stop. The US government is not some monolithic institution. That's what's really scary about stuff like PRISM. We don't really know how much of what organizations like the NSA do with authorization from which of our elected officials. It's a problem facing all representative democracies that rely on bureaucracy with technocratic characteristics. Accoridng to this article, the Bush administration swept the 2007 Protect America Act through Congress as a "a technical fix designed to close a gap in America’s surveillance capabilities." The article says "few members of Congress realized the breadth of the surveillance powers they were effectively approving." Walter Jones was one of only two Republicans to vote against the Act that has given us PRISM.

Similarly, here's Capuano on Verizon and PRISM:

I am sure you are aware that Verizon has reportedly been ordered by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) to turn over, “on an ongoing daily basis”, information about every customer telephone number, including landline, cell and business numbers. That information reportedly includes all numbers dialed and all calls received within the United States as well as between the United States and other countries.

As I write this newsletter, the news is filled with reports that a similar program called PRISM is in place for every major internet and email provider. The government claims they have not accessed the content of phone calls, but it seems they ARE accessing the content of emails such as videos, websites visited and more. According to reports, the PRISM program is not at this time being used on U.S. citizens.

Even if you can accept the government collecting the number and length of every call you make, are you really comfortable with them having the ability to catalogue all the YouTube videos you watch, the Netflix movies you download, or the web pages you visit? It seems that our own government has access to every phone call, email and internet search for all Americans at every minute of every day.

Like most Americans, I am absolutely outraged. But, if you’re a long time subscriber to these newsletters, you probably already knew that. You also probably know that I voted against passage of the so-called “Patriot Act” and every reauthorization since it first passed in 2001.

Before I go any further, I feel compelled to remind you that I was an early and strong supporter of President Obama. I am still amongst the strongest Obama supporters in the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, I cannot remain silent out of some sort of misplaced loyalty to President or party when I believe that basic American rights have been intentionally trampled.

I know we live in a dangerous world and there is work to do to prevent terrorists from harming us. But we must find a balance between giving law enforcement the tools they need to track and indentify terrorists and protecting the very liberties upon which our great country was founded.

This data collection has reportedly been going on for 7 years. The length of time that this has been going on and the staggering amount of data collected on every Verizon customer amounts to an incredible overreach. Even if you’re not a Verizon customer, there is clearly reason for concern. Who really believes that Verizon is the only telecommunications company required to turn over this data?

I have always believed that we must give law enforcement the tools they need to pursue criminals. However, we can do that and still protect civil liberties.

It is time for those of us who support President Obama to speak up. I believe he is a good man and has been a good President. However, I think his Administration has allowed their concern for our safety to lead them down the wrong path. If we remain silent, those who have always wished him to fail on every point stand a better chance of winning the hearts and minds of America and we will all be worse off for it. It is possible to support President Obama and yet disagree with him on certain issues – this is one of those times.

http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/06/the-patriot-act-and-verizon/

**Lynata**

Why do you assume I would think otherwise? That is why I specifically referred to parts of the government fighting each other.

**Manchu**

Uhhh ... because that's not novel in the slightest. That's how our government is supposed to work according to the blueprint.

**Lynata**

And I have pointed out that I'm expecting this to happen here, now that the Congress may get involved, for it seems that not every poster is realising this.

I don't really see why you're criticising me for this prediction.

**Manchu**

Lynata wrote:
I don't really see why you're criticising me for this prediction.

First off, what prediction? That government actors will disagree? ... ok ... Also, it's already happening so I don't get what you mean by saying "I'm expecting this to happen."

Second, you posted this:

Lynata wrote:
Seems kind of counter-productive @ PRISM

Counterproductive as to what? The congressmen in question do not want stuff like PRISM so their efforts cannot properly be called counterproductive. But with the orkmoticon, I figured it was just a lame joke.

But then you went on to post:

Lynata wrote:
What I find interesting about this is how the US Congress would seem to fight another part of the government

Why is that interesting or in any respect notable? They do it all the time. Indeed, it's about all that Republican congressmen do these days. And what do you mean by "seem to fight"? As in, just pretending? As in, the motives of these congressmen are in doubt vis-a-vis PRISM?

**Lynata**

I find it interesting because the backstory of PRISM involves a whole lot of backroom deals and shadowy institutions rather than just two public institutions duking it out. The latter would probably constitute daily business in most governments, whereas the former does not.

And I said "seem" because it's not a "done deal" yet. It's not Congress, but individual Congressmen trying to get Congress involved. Since it could go either way, I thought it safer to post in hypothetical wording rather than the absolute "will".

[edit] Just to be extra-clear and to prevent even further miscommunication, I am referring to a public part of the government potentially stomping onto the feet of a not-so-public and possibly more influential part, not merely the existence of the latter (which I would deem likely for most modern nations nowadays, before you accuse me of singling out the US for this).

**Manchu**

Lynata wrote:
The latter would probably constitute daily business in most governments, whereas the former does not.

We'll have to disagree on that.

Lynata wrote:
And I said "seem" because it's not a "done deal" yet. It's not Congress, but individual Congressmen trying to get Congress involved.

Stuff like this, and other stuff that I've already pointed out, gives me the sense that you have a shaky grasp of how politics works in the US. Congress does not act unanimously. It's not an office, like the NSA. It doesn't have a policy toward PRISM. Some congress(wo)men are on board and no doubt very well briefed. Others have been fighting against it and things like it for a long time now. We're not going to see a match called "Congress versus NSA" here. We're going to see some of the legislators bending the public's ear to criticize the agencies, which is what a law targeting a video game console is all about.

**Lynata**

Manchu wrote:Stuff like this, and other stuff that I've already pointed out, gives me the sense that you have a shaky grasp of how politics works in the US. Congress does not act unanimously.

Which is why I have just said that I see a possibility but not a guarantee, which again was explanation for as to why I used "seems" instead of "does" - like OP did with the misleading topic, for example. It's interesting how instead it is me who is being singled out for supposed mistakes.
Honestly, it appears as if you deliberately attempt to make me look bad.

Manchu wrote:It's not an office, like the NSA. It doesn't have a policy toward PRISM.

Well, that's the point of the thread, isn't it? The bill calls for the implementation of such policies, probably as part of this institution's oversight mandate.

**Manchu**

Lynata wrote:
I used "seems" instead of "does" - like OP did with the misleading topic, for example

What? OP posted an article and a link ... and the thread title is not misleading.

Lynata wrote:
Manchu wrote:It's not an office, like the NSA. It doesn't have a policy toward PRISM.
Well, that's the point of the thread, isn't it? The bill calls for the implementation of such policies, probably as part of this institution's oversight mandate.

You've lost me. What I'm trying to clarify is that an agency has a unified outlook on a given issue and that's called a policy. Congress is not a government agency.

**Lynata**

Manchu wrote:What? OP posted an article and a link ... and the thread title is not misleading.

So you're saying that "Congress is getting involved in the Xbone" is completely fine - but then, out of the blue, you feel the need to criticise me for supposedly not understanding the difference between "Congress" as an institution and "two congressmen" as individuals trying to get said institution to do something? Even though I clarified that the latter is the reason for my choice of the word "seem" as opposed to "will"?

Manchu wrote:You've lost me. What I'm trying to clarify is that an agency has a unified outlook on a given issue and that's called a policy. Congress is not a government agency.

Then let me explain: Once a bill is passed this organisation should have a unified outlook, should it not? Otherwise I don't see how this Congressional Oversight is supposed to work out if everybody just keeps doing what they want.

**Manchu**

Lynata wrote:
So you're saying that "Congress is ...

Yeah, the article is using the term correctly because the editor understands what it means for Congress to get involved; namely when its members are involved in the act of legislation. Drafting, proposing, and promoting legislation is how Congress does things. If a congressman does these things, it is appropriate to say that Congress is getting involved. It's not the same thing as saying "Congress takes X position."

Lynata wrote:
Once a bill is passed this organisation should have a unified outlook, should it not?

No, which is why I posted above about Capuano and Jones's stances on laws like the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act (despite these being laws that Congress has passed). When Congress passes an act that empowers or directs an agency to do something, the agency then creates regulations by which that thing is enacted. There is a space between the law and the regulations and oversight committees monitor that space. So you might be able to imagine the difference between how Capuano would like to exercise oversight over the NSA in contrast to someone like Mitch McConnell.

**Lynata**

Manchu wrote:If a congressman does these things, it is appropriate to say that Congress is getting involved.

I see. I suppose we're applying different standards here - I'd never say that the German Bundestag is getting involved just because one or two politicians are promoting something, for example, but at least I can see where you are coming from now.

Manchu wrote:No, which is why I posted above about Capuano and Jones's stances on laws like the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act (despite these being laws that Congress has passed). When Congress passes an act that empowers or directs an agency to do something, the agency then creates regulations by which that thing is enacted. There is a space between the law and the regulations and oversight committees monitor that space. So you might be able to imagine the difference between how Capuano would like to exercise oversight over the NSA in contrast to someone like Mitch McConnell.

Now you've lost me. I don't care at all about how individual congressmen think about this or that - deviating opinions are (or should be) the norm amongst individual politicians. What I find interesting is when and how the institution as a whole would act. Which would happen if this bill actually gets confirmed, would it not? As you said, in that case these oversight committees would "monitor that space".

**Manchu**

TBH, I don't know anything about how the Bundestag operates or how Germans talk about it. I have to admit not reading anything about German government since taking German in high school (and as you can imagine, we didn't talk much about the Bundestag). As to the other part, committee appointments are so important because its how individual congress(wo)men get to exert their agenda on the executive branch. So if Capuano was in charge of overseeing the NSA, he'd likely rein them in very tightly on the PRISM issue. Yes, he'd have to justify it within the terms of the PAA but he's a politician, that's their expertise. The main point being that Capuano would not default to some institutional policy of Congress in overseeing the NSA in that example. The PAA is not a policy in that sense.

But you won't find Capuano or Jones heading up those committees today for the very reason that they have been opposed to domestic espionage measures for years. This "We Are Watching You" bill is a sledgehammer compared to the instrument of the congressional oversight committee. But if you can't get on the committee then you have to use a sledgehammer.

**Lynata**

So, are oversight committees like small factions themselves that may not necessarily following the consensus of Congress as a whole once they've been set up? Okay, that's an aspect I did not consider - thanks for the explanation.