Nsa negative

USA Freedom Act Solved

(___)

(__) The affirmative is unnecessary, the USA freedom act solved the abusive parts of NSA surveillance.

Kaplan, American author and Pulitzer Prize-winner, PhD in Political Science from MIT, 2015,
(Fred, 6-1-2015, "The USA Freedom Act Won’t Harm National Security," Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/06/don_t_worry_about_the_patriot_act_expiring_the_usa_freedom_act_won_t_hurt.2.html)

So does the new law have any significance whatever? Can it properly be called a reform law? Yes, for three main reasons. First, it adopts another of the Obama commission’s recommendations: requiring the appointment of a privacy advocate on the FISA Court. This may make the court hearings—which are held in secret—less of a rubber-stamp exercise. Second, it requires periodic declassification review of the court’s rulings (another commission recommendation), which may lead to greater accountability.Third, and most significant, the very removal of metadata from NSA headquarters substantially reduces the potential for abuse. The Obama commission found no evidence that the NSA has used metadata analysis to go after political opponents—or, for that matter, any target other than suspected members or associates of three specific terrorist organizations. It is worth noting that Snowden’s documents have revealed no such evidence, either. However, one can imagine what Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover might have done with the technology that the NSA has at its disposal—and it’s hardly a farfetched notion that the likes of Nixon or Hoover could again ascend to national power. The NSA has set its metadata-search algorithms to trace terrorists, but there’s no physical reason why they couldn’t be set to search for domestic drug traffickers, criminals, political enemies, or troublemakers of whatever category some rogue director might choose. (Currently the NSA is crawling with lawyers, who assiduously follow reporting requirements, but one can imagine a climate in which a director might tear down this whole apparatus.) Removing the metadata from the NSA removes the temptation, or opportunity, for abuse. Given the fears tapped by Snowden’s disclosures, and some harrowing chapters of 20th-century American history, this is a very good thing. And it’s been accomplished with no compromise of national security.

USA Freedom Act Solves Violations

(__) USA Freedom increases transparency and limits the NSA’s worst programs.

Nakashima, National Security Reporter for the Washington Post, 2015,
(Ellen, 6-1-2015, "Congressional action on NSA is a milestone in the post-9/11 world," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/congressional-action-on-nsa-is-a-milestone-in-the-post-911-world/2015/06/02/f46330a2-0944-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html)

The USA Freedom Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday, marks the first piece of legislation to rein in surveillance powers in the wake of disclosures two years ago by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden and the national debate he catalyzed. It comes as Obama is winding down the nation’s wars overseas and as fears of another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, no longer galvanize and unify lawmakers in the same way they once did. Today, Congress and the nation are much more divided about the proper balance between liberty and security. The inability of the Senate for weeks to resolve the issue, forcing the lapse of three surveillance powers at midnight Sunday, reflected the fissures between those who think that the terrorist threat is as potent as ever and those who believe that the government has overreached in its goal to keep Americans safe. With the passage of the USA Freedom Act, though, Congress has answered Obama’s call to end the National Security Agency’s bulk storage of Americans’ phone data while preserving a way for the agency to obtain the records of terrorism suspects. “The Senate’s passage of the USA Freedom Act today is a huge win for national security and the Fourth Amendment,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a lead sponsor of the bill. At the same time, the legislation doesn’t end the surveillance debate or go as far as some members of the president’s liberal base or the libertarian right would like. Some lawmakers have vowed to press for further changes to protect citizens’ privacy and enhance transparency. “The fight to protect Americans’ constitutional rights against government overreach is not over,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has long called for an end to secret surveillance law, said in a statement. He added: “Everybody who has supported our fight for surveillance reform over the last two years is responsible for our victory today and I’m looking forward to working with a bipartisan coalition to push for greater reforms in the future.” The bill’s passage is a milestone in the post-9/11 world. “For the first time since 9/11, Congress has placed significant limits on the government’s ability to spy on Americans,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security expert at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice. But the bill’s significance, some analysts say, will become apparent only with time. “Is it the beginning of a recalibration of intelligence policy, or is it the most that Congress can accomplish and the end of the reform process?” said Steven Aftergood, a national security and transparency expert at the Federation of American Scientists. “We won’t really know that until we get further down the line.” Stewart Baker, a former NSA general counsel, said the law is a landmark — but not a good one. “It is going to make the National Security Agency risk-averse in ways that the CIA has occasionally been risk-averse,” he said. “They followed the rules. They believed they were following the rules, and they got punished nonetheless.” The USA Freedom Act not only ends NSA bulk collection but also narrows the collection of other types of records under the USA Patriot Act and other intelligence authorities. It increases transparency in surveillance court decisions and provides the opportunity for a public advocate in normally closed court hearings. It also reinstates the three lapsed authorities, while amending one of them.