Summary: The bill was designed to curb NSA surveillance. But many groups have withdrawn their support after it was \"watered down.\" Next stop, the Senate.<\/p>\n
The U.S. House today voted to pass the Freedom Act, the decade-after follow-up to the Patriot Act, which first authorized massive global and domestic surveillance in the wake the September 11 terrorist attacks. <\/p>\n
With more than 152 co-sponsors, the bill passed by a wide majority of 303-121. <\/p>\n
However, the real fight is now in the Senate's hands, which according to congressional sources will aim to counter some of the lobbying effort by theObama administration by strengthening previously removed provisions. <\/p>\n
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the bill's author who also introduced the Patriot Act just weeks after the attacks on New York in 2001 previously said that the new bill was designed to counter the \"misuse\" of the original powers by the U.S. government, which \"overstepped its authority.\" <\/p>\n
It was passed by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month after months of stagnation. After the bill was jump-started, it was quickly seen as the most prominent and likely legislative effort to restrict government surveillance since the 2001 attacks. <\/p>\n
However, in prepared remarks on Thursday following the bill's passing, Sensenbrenner admitted that he wishes the bill \"closely resembled\" the bill he first introduced. <\/p>\n
\"The legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the governments surveillance authorities,\" he said. \"It bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions, and sends a clear message to the NSA: We are watching you.\" <\/p>\n
But the wider technology industry and privacy groups took a stronger stance in recent days by pulling their support for the bill. <\/p>\n
\"What is being considered is not the bill that was marked up by the House Judiciary Committee,\" Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said on the House floor on Wednesday. \"Certain key elements of this bill were changed. I think it's ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was secretly changed between the Committee markup and floor consideration,\" she added. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n