A NEW BILL IN THE SENATE THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT STATED SUPPORT
FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COULD THEORETICALLY MAKE
PERMANENT A CONTROVERSIAL SECTION OF THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT THAT HAS GOOD CAUSE TO BECOME A
VIRTUAL --
BASICALLY THIS IS A SECTION WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN'T SPY
UNDER THIS ON AN AMERICAN TALKING WITH AN AMERICAN, BUT IF
YOU ARE COMMUNICATING IN ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS WITH
SOMEONE LIVING ABROAD, A FOREIGN CITIZEN, THEY CAN SUCK THAT UP.
IT COULD BE PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, TEXTS, ALL SORTS OF THINGS, AND
WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEFENDED A
LOT OF SURVEILLANCE IN THE PAST SAYING IT'S JUST METADATA, DON'T
GET YOUR PANTIES IN A WAD OVER IT.
IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF
COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH MEANS THEORETICALLY IN MANY CASES
WITHOUT A WARRANT IF YOU ARE TALKING ON THE PHONE WITH
SOMEONE, SENDING AN EMAIL TO SOMEONE, LIVING ABROAD, THEY
CAN HAVE THE FULL CONTENT AND DETAILS OF THAT COMMUNICATIONS,
AND THEY COULD UNDER THIS BILL HAVE IT FOR THE REST OF TIME.
I WANT TO CLARIFY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT
A WARRANT.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
I HAVE A MASSIVE PROBLEM WITH MASS SURVEILLANCE.
THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE NSA, BY THE WAY, THAT IT CAN BE
CONDUCTED WARRANTLESS.
FIRST OF ALL I THINK MASS SURVEILLANCE IS INEFFECTIVE AND
IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HONE IN ON CONVERSATIONS OR EXCHANGES
WITH PEOPLE WHO DISPLAY SOME SORT OF PROBABLE CAUSE OR SOME
SORT OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR, WHICH OF COURSE IF YOU PROVE
THERE IS SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR YOU CAN EASILY GET A WARRANT FROM A
JUDGE AND HAVE AT IT, GO AHEAD AND SPY ON THEM.
BUT IT'S SUCH A
WASTE OF RESOURCES AND SO INEFFECTIVE TO JUST BE ABLE TO
WARRANTLESSLY -- CAN YOU SAY THAT?
WARRANTLESSLY?
I LIKE IT.
TO WITHOUT A WARRANT SPY ON THE CONVERSATION SIMPLY BECAUSE
SOMEONE IS SPEAKING TO SOMEONE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
I ALWAYS
GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE GIVEN UP SOME OF OUR RIGHTS
PERTAINING TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT -- WE HAVE WILLINGLY
ALLOWED THE TSA TO SEARCH US IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE, WE HAVE
MADE EXCUSES FOR THE NSA AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS
FOR SPYING ON US AND ALL THAT IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY,
BUT NOW MORE THAN EVER YOU HEAR THE SAME FEAR MONGERING FROM
POLITICIANS, THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT WE ARE UNDER SIEGE AND
THERE IS AN IMMINENT THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN THE
COUNTRY, HOW MUCH MORE DO WE HAVE TO GIVE UP FOR THEM TO
ACTUALLY EFFECTIVELY DO THEIR JOBS AND STOP FEAR MONGERING?
THEY WILL CONTINUE FEAR MONGERING BECAUSE THEY WANT YOU
TO WILLINGLY GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS.
SOME PEOPLE I GUESS IF YOU DON'T ROUTINELY CONDUCT OVERSEAS
COMMUNICATION YOU MIGHT THINK, I GUESS THAT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE
SUSPICIOUS OR THREATENING.
BUT THINK ABOUT IN PRACTICE HOW
BROAD THIS IS.
IF SOMEDAY, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKELY, BUT IF
SOMEDAY EMMA WATSON EVER RESPONDS TO ONE OF MY DMs -- THE
NSA COULD READ THAT, TRUST ME THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT THEY
COULD.
IF YOU ARE STUDYING ABROAD -- I TRAVELED TO EUROPE
RECENTLY, IF I WAS EMAILING BACK WITH TYT I GUESS THEORETICALLY
THE NSA COULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
I WANT TO READ ONE
QUOTE --
I JUST WANT WARRANTS INVOLVED, PROBABLE CAUSE, SOME INDICATION
THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE REASON TO SPY ON A CONVERSATION.
MAYBE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DON'T VALUE THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE IS NO BIG CONTROVERSY WHEN STORIES LIKE
THIS COME OUT.
BUT IF YOU GENUINELY VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT OR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, IT'S ABOUT ALL OF IT, RIGHT?
AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.
AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE
SUSPICION AND A WARRANT, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE NSA
TO JUST SPY IN ON THAT CONVERSATION.
I THINK THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I HAVE AT LEAST SOME HOPE.
WE
COVER A LOT OF TOPICS ON THE SHOW AND SOMETIMES YOU SLIP A
STORY LIKE THIS IN AND IT CAN BE OVERWHELMING, BECAUSE EVERY DAY
THERE ARE NEW THINGS TO BE WORRIED ABOUT A NEW THINGS TO
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT AND TO MARCH FOR, SO MANY THINGS
YOU HAVE TO SPLIT YOUR ATTENTION AND TIME AND PASSION AND ENERGY
TO.
THIS IS IMPORTANT, IT MIGHT SEEM EPHEMERAL AND VAGUE BUT
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT COULD BE PERMANENTLY TAKEN
AWAY.
IT WILL EXPIRE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AND I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON.
BECAUSE A FEW
YEARS BACK WE HAD A NATIONAL CONCERN ABOUT HOW MUCH PRIVACY
WE HAD GIVEN AWAY IN THE WAKE OF 9/11, AND WE GOT SOME THINGS
DONE.
A LOT OF THOSE RIGHTS ARE STILL NOT OURS AGAIN, BUT THERE
WAS SOME PROGRESS AND I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IF PEOPLE
ARE ORGANIZED ON, AND PEOPLE MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY CARE ABOUT
IT, IF THEY COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR LAWMAKERS, IT'S SOMETHING
WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS ON.
BECAUSE THIS IS AN AREA WHERE
THEORETICALLY FOR A LOT OF CONGRESSMEN THEY AREN'T MAKING A
LOT OF MONEY OFF OF THIS.
IT'S AN AREA WHERE THEORETICALLY
THERE DONORS DON'T HAVE AS MUCH TO SAY, THEY CAN BE MOVED ON,
IT'S IMPORTANT, I KNOW IT'S ANOTHER THING TO PUT ON YOU, BUT
HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL FIGHT THIS TO MAKE SURE THIS
REAUTHORIZATION DOESN'T HAPPEN.