Circle Feb. 11 on your calendar. You’re going to notice something a little different when browsing the Internet that day.
Thousands of civil-liberty and online-freedom groups and websites will take to the digital streets next week to wage a coordinated war against the National Security Agency’s spying powers, a battle strike reminiscent of a virtual protest that two years ago killed an online piracy bill.
Billing the protest as “The Day We Fight Back,” organizers are promising banners will be prominently displayed on websites across the Internet urging users to engage in viral activity expressing their opposition to the NSA. Additionally, those banners will ask readers to flood the telephone lines and email in-boxes of congressional offices to voice their support of the Freedom Act, a bill in Congress that aims to restrict the government’s surveillance authority.
The roster of participating groups, which organizers say now tops 4,000, includes the American Civil Liberties Union, Reddit, Tumblr, Mozilla, DailyKos, and Amnesty International.
“The ultimate goal is to provide more esteem for the USA Freedom Act and other measures and to ensure that [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein’s so-called FISA Improvements Act never sees the light of day,” said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a leftist group forged in the crucible of an earlier wave of Internet activism that famously killed the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act in 2012.
Segal likens next week’s digital day of action to the anti-SOPA blackout that found Google, Wikipedia, and thousands of other popular sites deliberately shutting down for a day to protest the legislation. There won’t be a blackout this time, but Segal didn’t rule out the possibility of that down the road.
“To get to the [SOPA] blackout it required three, four, five pushes to allow allies to coalesce and express enough concerns about the legislation,” Segal said.
The protest’s organizers want to vocalize their disdain for Feinstein’s bill, which critics deride as a measure to codify existing NSA programs, but they say their main interest in supporting a separate measure is a show of support for the Freedom Act.
The Freedom Act — introduced late last year by Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a former Patriot Act author — would limit the government’s bulk collection of telephone metadata, install a privacy advocate in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and demand additional transparency from the NSA. It currently has 130 cosponsors in the House, and there is a mirror bill in the Senate being pushed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy.
The bill currently awaits judgment in the House Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing earlier this week to examine potential avenues for NSA reform.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."