re: #205 Political Atheist

My slight hyperbole, which I did in fact mean in the sense of a powerful word used to draw attention to the Page works just fine for me thx.

You shouldn’t misrepresent things just to get page clicks. The tactic will backfire on you, and is kind of insulting.

If I read you right you oppose the bill because people misunderstand it’s effect. Isn’t that easily fixed by anyone for themselves, and or by the government itself by way of announcing and updating compliance?

There is nothing easily fixed about informing the public about an extremely abstruse area of law where they don’t have a very good basis of knowledge in the first place, no.

That’s an interesting standard for bills to meet for passage-no one will think it does more than it should or the bill should fail. Despite it’s actual effects under law.

I didn’t say that the bill should fail because people will think it does more than it should despite its actual effects. The actual effects are the main thing I’m concerned about. To put it another way: the way that the bill is worded, it serves to further misinform the public. Congress does not avail itself of information already available to it, so increasing reporting is not going to do jack shit.

Adding a panel to oversee the FISA court is very significant, IMO. Details matter of course but I grant the benefit of the doubt given who all supports the bill. I doubt the ACLU and all those co sponsors would line up behind mere “window dressing”.

Can you please address the most substantive criticism, about 3rd party data? You alleged that this bill wasn’t about 3rd party data collection, but to me, that’s what the bulk data collection is. Can you clarify?