Hacker News Reader

Comment by mariodiana | Hacker News Reader

This bill was completely watered down and subverted from the original, to the point where even many of its initial champions turned against it. Voting it down was the right choice. The worst thing would have been to have passed it and pretended that "reform" had been made.

View on HN

I think one of my favorite sayings applies:

'The Perfect' is the enemy of 'The Good'.

Google, MSFT, Apple, the EFF all supported this bill. Obviously there are further improvements that could be made, but instead of starting from a better platform, we're at ground zero with an incoming congress that has no interest in curbing the 'military' power of the US.

The EFF's case for supporting the bill that was just killed is very clear about this:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-...

This is (arguably) a lame excuse.

Half-measures are often incoherent and worse

than the status quo.

See: banking & healthcare

You just lock yourself into a disaster.

Obama can update the EO's for the NSA without congress[+].

[+] EFF: "Future reform must include significant changes to ... Executive Order 12333, and to the broken classification system that the executive branch counts on to hide unconstitutional surveillance from the public."

He just doesn't want to stick his neck out.

So this bill was a distant 3rd choice for the country.

1) pass a good law

2) administrate the NSA into compliance

3) pass muddled legislation in a lame duck session

Yet the EFF still supported it.. and given your false choices, why not do both #2 and #3?

False choices what?

Your comment is absurd.

Fixing the EOs is simple.

(That buys time. Time to get

coherent legislation

figured out.)

While you are correct that there's no such thing as perfection, this bill is so far from the changes that are needed that its arguably not worth passing. When you pass a watered-down bill, that buys a decade or more for the opposing side. When it gets voted through, all of a sudden they imagine themselves as champions of compromise and at the same time delude themselves into thinking that they gave their opposition a gift. If an inadequate bill passes, that's likely all we are going to get for the next 10-20 years.

Its a shitty situation no matter what.

That was the one from the spring. This was a new version that people supported.

Maybe. But by passing anything that politicians (and virtually no one else) currently cry 'terrorism' over, we'll get a chance to see that the sky did not fall after all, and an incrementally better bill could be plausibly considered with incrementally more reasonable debate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com