Showing posts with label Justin Amash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justin Amash. Show all posts

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking


The United States Congress
File:Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg
File:Alternative Senate seal.svg


Lawmakers Seek Answers About How Government Would Use New Hacking Authority, One Month Before Rule 41 Amendments Would Take Effect

Washington, D.C. –A bipartisan coalition of Senate and House lawmakers today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to provide Congress with more information about a proposed expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., and senior Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, led a bipartisan group of 23 lawmakers asking for more information about the proposal, formally known as amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureUnless Congress acts, these new amendments are scheduled to go into effect on December 1.

“We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that Congress -- and the American public -- must better understand the Department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the Department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.”

 The lawmakers ask DOJ a number of questions about how Rule 41 will be used, including:
  • How the government intends to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into Americans' devices;
  • How the government will prevent collateral damage to innocent Americans' devices and electronic data when it remotely search devices such as smartphones or medical devices;
  • Whether the government intends to use this new authority to search and “clean” Americans' computers ;
  • How the government will maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device;
  • How the government will notify Americans who are the subjects of remote government searches.
The letter was also signed by: Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah., Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

CONYERS Working For A Better Michigan

University of Michigan Football Coach Jim Harbaugh dropped by Congress for the #LastSOTU with one message — working together for a better #Michigan — with Justin AmashJim Harbaugh,Fred Upton and Rep. Debbie Dingell at United States Capitol.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Lawmakers to oppose spending bill over cyber language

Lawmakers to oppose spending bill over cyber language

A small group of lawmakers will vote against the sweeping omnibus spending deal because of the inclusion of a cybersecurity bill.
“I just think it’s very troubling,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told The Hill. “The bill should not be in the omnibus. It’s a surveillance bill more than a cyber bill.”
“I’m going to vote against the omnibus as a consequence,” she added.
The cyber bill would encourage businesses to share more data on hackers with the government.
“There’s plenty wrong with this omnibus, but there's nothing more egregious than the cyber language they secretly slipped in,” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told The Hill by email.
Proponents of the bill say the the decision to attach was necessary to avoid further delays on much-needed legislation. A broad swath of lawmakers, many industry groups and the White House support the measure as a critical first step to help the country better respond to cyberattacks.
“This is the most protective of privacy of any cyber bill that we have advanced and we need to keep in mind the overriding interest all Americans have in protecting their privacy from these innumerable hacks,” Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a cosponsor of his panel’s cyber bill, told The Hill. “Our privacy is being violated every day. And the longer we delay on measures like this, the more we subject ourselves to those kind of intrusions into our privacy.”
But privacy groups and civil liberties advocates have warned the bill will could shuttle more of Americans’ personal data to the National Security Agency (NSA).
Lofgren and Amash were two of the four lawmakers who signed a letter Tuesday expressing frustration at how lawmakers had merged three bills to create the final version, which was released overnight as part of the $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill.
Lawmakers have been working on the cyber language the Senate passed its Intelligence Committee-originated bill in October. The House passed its two complementary bills in April: one from that chamber's Intelligence panel and another from Homeland Security.
But rather than conduct a more formal conference between the two chambers, lawmakers relied on unofficial discussions to produce the compromise text, due to some disagreements between the House and Senate over the conference process and the unusual need to combine three bills.
Lofgren and Amash joined Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) on the letter that denounced this process.
“Neither negotiations — nor even bill text — have been made public,” they said. “We cannot cast such a consequential vote with no input.”
A spokesman for Polis said the tactic heavily contributed to the lawmaker’s decision to vote against the omnibus.
“There are several provisions in the bill that concern him, but the last-minute addition of the cybersecurity bill is one of the most serious,” said the representative in an email.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the other cosponsor of his committee’s bill, told The Hill that several senators had threatened to permanently stall an official conference.
“Then you have a dead process,” he said. “And you have cyberattacks occurring.”
“You’ve got to attach it to something,” said House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who cosponsored his panel’s bill. “We were not able to get a conference on the bill itself, so this is a vehicle. That’s how I see it.”
Schiff acknowledged that the process wasn’t perfect. But it was the best path under the circumstances, he said.
“In an ideal world we wouldn’t have omnibuses, but I think after three years of working to move this issue forward we were fortunate to get on the train that’s moving,” he told The Hill.
Late Wednesday, Lofgren sent a follow-up letter to her colleagues detailing objections to the actual text.
“What was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the sharing of information between the private sector and government was instead drafted in such a way that it has effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows information shared by companies to be used by the government to prosecute unrelated crimes,” the letter reads.
Amash, Polis signed the letter, as did Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).
The bill's backers have aggressively pushed back against these claims, pointing to myriad privacy clauses and anti-surveillance language in the text.
But these protests are shared by a small and vocal contingent of privacy- and civil liberties-minded lawmakers on both the left and the right.
Whether the group unites under their cyber bill opposition to try to stall the omnibus is less clear.
“A number of members have talked to me about it,” Lofgren said. “They’re concerned about it, but they have to weigh the other elements of the [omnibus], which I understand.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, the upper chamber’s leading critic of its cyber bill, is a prime example.
The Oregon Democrat has vowed to fight or alter the cyber bill using every means possible. But as the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Wyden will be forced to consider his cyber opposition against numerous other provisions he may support.
Wyden’s office said the lawmaker had not yet decided how he would vote on the omnibus.
Amash encouraged his colleagues to stand with him.
“A vote for the omnibus is a vote to support unconstitutional surveillance on all Americans,” he said. “It's probably the worst anti-privacy vote in Congress since the Patriot Act.”
The bill’s backers don’t believe this cyber opposition is enough to derail the entire omnibus.
“I hear there are a lot of issues around the omnibus, but I have not heard that cyber is one of them,” Thompson said.
“I think there are much bigger fish to fry in the omnibus in terms of what people are concerned about,” Schiff agreed, citing controversial oil provisions.
Nunes thinks the cyber bill has given omnibus critics an easy out to explain their opposition.
“The appropriate question to ask people complaining about this is, ‘So let’s pull out cyber, you going to vote for the omnibus?’” he said.
“I think I know the answer.”
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, July 26, 2013

Conyers Floor Statement on Amendment Ending the NSA’s Mass Surveillance of Americans


(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 2397, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014.” Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) offered an amendment to this legislation that would curtail the blanket collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency (NSA). During the debate over this amendment Rep. Conyers delivered the following statement:

“I rise in support this amendment, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Michigan, Representative Justin Amash. This amendment will prevent mass collection of personal records, such as phone calling information, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.  When Congress passed and later revised this provision, we did not intend for it to authorize the bulk, indiscriminate collection of personal information of individuals not under investigation.

“However, we have learned that this law has been misused to allow the collection of call detail information on every phone call made in the United States under a bizarre interpretation of the statute’s authorization to collect “relevant” information.  As my colleague and author of the statute, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, has stated, ‘This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the legal standard.’

“This amendment will not stop the proper use of PATRIOT Act and FISA authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations.  All this amendment is intended to do is curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans.

“Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensuring that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by Congress.  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment to demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to protecting individual liberty.”


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 12, 2011

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash gathering support in fight against the National Defense Authorization Act

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash gathering support in fight against the National Defense Authorization Act


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Justin Amash announced today he has 10 fellow congressmen on his side as he carries his fight against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the floor of the U.S. House.
Amash, R-Cascade Township, has beenoutspoken in his opposition to language in the bill that allows the indefinite detention of Americans citizens without charge or trial. The bill passed in the U.S. Senate last week and has been sent to a conference committee in the U.S. House.
“As we learn more about the Senate’s detention provisions, we are increasingly concerned with their breadth and their potential to authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial,” the bipartisan group wrote to the House conferees who are negotiating a final version of the bill with the Senate. The House is expected to vote on the final version later this week.
The group, which included U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, asked the conferees to “insist the detention provisions be stripped from the bill or modified to protect Americans’ constitutional rights.”
Others signing the letter so far include: Rep. Michael Capuano. D-Mass.; Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va.; Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio,; Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.; Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.; Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo. and Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga.
Here is the full text of the letter:
Dear House Conferees:
The Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the President new authority to detain persons he suspects are associated with terrorism.  As we learn more about the Senate’s detention provisions, we are increasingly concerned with their breadth and their potential to authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.  When you begin negotiations with your Senate counterparts in the coming weeks, we ask that you insist the detention provisions be stripped from the bill or modified to protect Americans’ constitutional rights.
Section 1031 of the Senate’s NDAA authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.”  None of the quoted terms are defined.  We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners.  Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either.  Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention when they support any group.
We also are concerned that the Senate’s NDAA allows one past act of support for a group permanently to subject a person to detention.  The Senate’s NDAA states that a person who “substantially supported . . . associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” may be detained indefinitely.  The bill thus allows one act of support for a group that at the time was not hostile to the U.S. to endanger the person’s future liberty.
For example, a person makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group.  Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S.  Under the Senate’s NDAA, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.
The Senate’s NDAA does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad.  The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.
Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial.  We strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies.  But we cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate Americans’ constitutional rights.
House and Senate conferees will have the last chance to amend the bill.  We ask that you take this final opportunity to narrow the broad and dangerous scope of the Senate’s NDAA."


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©