Loonie, Peso Plunge On Report US Pulling Out Of NAFTA

The Canadian Loonie and Mexico Peso are plunging in kneejerk response to a series of Reuters headlines, according to which government sources report that the US will shortly announce it is pulling out of Nafta.

  • CANADA INCREASINGLY CONVINCED PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL SHORTLY ANNOUNCE U.S. IS PULLING OUT OF NAFTA -TWO GOVERNMENT SOURCES
  • CANADA PLANS TO STAY AT NEGOTIATING TABLE EVEN IF TRUMP SAYS HE IS PULLING U.S. OUT OF NAFTA AS SOME TALKS WOULD CONTINUE -GOVERNMENT SOURCES
  • TRUMP NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT BUT U.S.-CANADA TRADE WOULD CONTINUE -GOVERNMENT SOURCES

Predictably, both the USDCAD and USDMXN are surging in kneejerk reaction to the news that Nafta may soon be dead.

 

123

 

asd

To be sure, this could be simply a trial balloon, one launched the same day that China made its own threats about selling TSYs should the US launch trade war against Beijing. For now, however, algos are shooting first and not even bothering to ask questions for the time being.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2CXv27n Tyler Durden

Trump To Extend iran Nuclear Deal, Sanctions Relief

It’s unlikely that Congress will have a comprehensive plan to improve the Iran deal ready by Friday, when the waiver of US sanctions against the Iranian regime is set to expire, the Associated Press reported.

So it’s up to Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser HR McMaster to convince President Donald Trump that there’s enough momentum behind a bipartisan accord on addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for Hezbollah to justify extending the US waiver and keeping the Iran deal intact.

Trump

Per AP, any decision to waive broad sanctions would likely be accompanied by targeted sanctions against specific Iranian individuals and companies.

The old, central bank sanctions largely cut Iran out of the international financial system, and are considered to be the most powerful of the penalties imposed by the U.S. during the Obama era, along with global penalties for buying Iranian oil. Some Iran hawks want to see both sets of restrictions return, but the six people with knowledge of Trump’s plans say the president isn’t planning to reinstate either at this point.

The individuals said Trump’s top national security aides appear to have successfully made a different case to the president:

Waiving anew for 120 days the nuclear-linked sanctions while simultaneously imposing new measures to punish Iran’s ballistic missile testing, alleged terrorism support and human rights violations.

Such a balance could satisfy Trump’s demand to raise pressure on Iran, while not embarking on a frontal assault on the most central trade-offs of the nuclear agreement. While the U.S. and other world powers rolled back economic restrictions on Tehran, the Iranians severely curtailed their enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activity. Trump has complained that many of the Iranian restrictions expire next decade and has vacillated between talk of toughening the deal and pulling the U.S. out entirely.

A senior State Department official told reporters Wednesday that Tillerson and Mattis would be meeting with Trump on the matter before an announcement Friday. Trump, Tillerson and Vice President Mike Pence were scheduled to have lunch Wednesday at the White House after a formal Cabinet meeting.

 

* * *

Meanwhile, if Trump changes his mind in the next few days and decides to reimpose the sanctions, Iran would resume its enrichment of uranium – even seeking to make up for lost time – the country’s atomic energy agency has said, according to Russia Today.

“If the suspension (of sanctions) is not continued it’s a violation of the [Iran nuclear deal] and the Islamic Republic of Iran will, of course, take the necessary actions,” Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi told state TV, as quoted by Reuters.

Trump has called the nuclear agreement the “worst deal ever negotiated,” and has stressed that he could cancel US participation in it “at any time,” eve refusing to certify Tehran’s compliance with the deal in October. But Tillerson has been trying to work with Congress to resolve concerns about the INARA – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act – that cleared the way for the US to sign on to the deal.

That will be coupled with diplomacy with European government on addressing these concerns.

“The president said he is either going to fix it or cancel it,” Tillerson said of the overall deal. “We are in the process of trying to deliver on the promise he made to fix it.”

Still, the fate of the deal is far from certain. Trump is facing significant pushback from hardliners like Senators Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who want sanctions back if Iran launches any ballistic missiles capable of targeting territory outside of Iran, such as Israel or Saudi Arabia. Even intermediate and short-range missiles would fall under this designation.

For now, at least, the deal appears safe. Then again, Trump does have a tendency to change his mind.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Eu6pwd Tyler Durden

China, Schmina – Dow Goes Green

Fleshwound…

After China’s comments ‘swept the leg’ of the stock and bond markets overnight, dip-buyers have stormed back into stocks, sending The Dow green on the day (thanks mostly to Boeing and JPMorgan)…

 

http://ift.tt/2Eu58oV

Gold has given up its gains as stocks rallied but bonds remain lower in price…

 

http://ift.tt/2FmVO7n

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Ewj55H Tyler Durden

“It’s A Mystery” – Rigged VIX Settlement Chatter Ignited After Dec Flash-Crash

On the morning of December 20th, we noted that VIX crashed at the open of the cash market.

VIX crashed to 8.90 as cash markets opened…

In context of the prior and following days, it was an ‘odd’ gap down move that was immediately defended by most as “just a fat finger” except it wasn’t and it was critical to the settlement price as billions of VIX futures were set to expire.

 

http://ift.tt/2CNH5Ra

This was certainly not the first time that VIX had flash-crashed at an ‘opportune time’ for the near-record short speculative VIX futures positioning.

 

But, as Bloomberg reports, it reignited claims that VIX was yet another manipulated market that had been highlighted by a critical academic study we detailed here.

 

While the CBOE has seen nothing to alter its view that the claims are baseless, December’s events gave the conversation another stir.

“There couldn’t have been a more appropriate cherry on top of the 2017 cake,” said Patrick Hennessy, head trader at IPS Strategic Capital in Denver. “The VIX settlement in December was one for the books.”

However, criticism (or skepticism) of the settlement process left the realm of the acadmeic and theoretical last week when its futures exchange fined a Chicago-based trading firm following allegations it submitted improper bids to volatility auctions on emerging-market stocks and oil. 

*  *  *

We detailed the academic findings previously.

 CBOE gets an official settlement level of the VIX based on a special monthly settlement auction of S&P 500 options. The auction runs from 7:30 a.m to 8:30 a.m., Chicago time. Traders submit bids and offers for S&P 500 options, the auction matches buyers and sellers to find clearing prices, and the prices of those S&P 500 options are used to compute the official settlement level of the VIX.

Guess what?

At the settlement time of the VIX Volatility Index, volume spikes on S&P 500 Index (SPX) options, but only in out-of-the-money options that are used to calculate the VIX, and more so for options with a higher and discontinuous influence on VIX.

We investigate alternative explanations of hedging and coordinated liquidity trading. Tests including those utilizing differences in put and call options, open interest around the settlement, and a similar volatility contract with an entirely different settlement procedure in Europe are inconsistent with these explanations but consistent with market manipulation.

That’s from this paper by John Griffin and Amin Shams of the University of Texas, who find a lot of trading in the S&P 500 options underlying the VIX during these settlement auctions, trading that pushes the settlement price of the VIX up or down. So for instance in months where the trading pushes the VIX up, the prevailing price of the VIX-influencing options will jump during the auction, peak at around 8:15 a.m. (the deadline for VIX-related bids in the auction), and then drop seconds after the auction ends when the options start trading normally:

The blue line there is a measure of the indicative prices of VIX-influencing options, spiking at 8:00 a.m. and peaking near 8:15. (If you ignore the numbers on the axis, you can almost think of it as being a chart of the VIX price.) The red dot is the trading price of those options about 25 seconds after the auction finishes.

The average effect is something like 0.31 VIX points, sometimes up and sometimes down, depending on the month.

What is going on? Usually when you see patterns like this, the innocent explanation is hedging. But Griffin and Shams consider and reject that notion here, noting for instance that traders don’t seem to be closing out existing hedge positions but instead adding new ones. They argue that it’s more likely to be explained by attempts to move the VIX: If you are a dealer who is long (short) VIX futures, you can push up (down) the VIX at settlement by buying (selling) some deep-out-of-the-money S&P 500 options.

* * *

And that brings us back to the real-world.

As Bloomberg reports, exchange officials say nothing untoward is going on, that the VIX settlement repels tampering through a transparent auction process that is separate and distinct from its pricing the rest of the day. And conversations with a half dozen options professionals show that while the topic is hotly discussed, many reject claims of overt manipulation.

But the events of Dec. 20 are familiar enough that questions keep coming back. Why does the VIX, a reference value for futures whose final price is set in an auction by the Cboe, often settle so far away from its market price?

Bloomberg data show that of the 10 biggest gaps between the VIX settlement value and its closing level the night before, five came in 2017, including December’s, which was the biggest discount in 11 years.

 

http://ift.tt/2Dfx8wS

On monthly expirations, settlement occurred outside the VIX’s same-day trading range 42 percent of the time last year, the most since 2005. The average occurrence was 15 percent in the decade through 2016.

While a lot of innocent explanations exist, “really, it is a mystery,” said Pravit Chintawongvanich, the head of derivatives strategy for Macro Risk Advisors.

“Some people rightly get confused about why the settle is seemingly out of context with the market.”

As we concluded previously, there is a sort of hierarchy of manipulability in markets.

At the top is Libor manipulation: Trillions of dollars of derivatives settled based on Libor, but Libor was calculated by essentially asking banks “what should Libor be?” The banks didn’t even have to do any trading in order to push the number around; manipulation was, in effect, costless. (Later, with the fines, it was costly.)

At the bottom is, for instance, manipulating the price of a stock by trading that stock. There are cases of it! It’s a thing. But it is a dumb thing; it really shouldn’t work. If you buy a stock, you will push the price up, sure. But to make any money you then have to sell the stock, which should push the price right back down.

But if you are going to manipulate a tradable market — as opposed to a made-up one like Libor — then VIX looks pretty tempting.

The product that you trade (S&P 500 options) is different from the product where you make your money (VIX futures and options), and the trading market is in the relevant sense smaller than the derivative market: You can move a lot of value in VIX products by trading a small amount of value, in a confined period of time, in the underlying market. So you can cheerfully lose money executing the manipulation — trading the S&P options — and make back more in the derivative.

If Griffin and Shams are right that there’s manipulation – which the real-world data suggests – there’s no particular pattern to it: Sometimes VIX gets anomalously pushed up during the settlement, sometimes down.

That’s consistent with, for instance, a story of big dealers adding up their positions before each monthly settlement, realizing that they’re net long (short), and trying to push VIX up (down) to help out their positions. It would be like the kind of Libor manipulation that banks did to help out their trading books (which was up or down depending on their positions) — not the kind of Libor manipulation that banks also did to disguise their funding costs (which moved Libor systematically down).

Finally, The Wall Street Journal noted  that it is, of course, tough to rule out the possibility that something more benign is going on. For example, investors who had used the expiring derivatives to protect themselves could be seeking replacement protection when they participate in the auction, some say.

However, Messrs. Griffin and Shams believe it’s not hedging activity due to the trading patterns they observed.

Hennessy of IPS says in a market dominated by professionals, everyone plays at his own risk.

“Like any market it is susceptible to manipulation by large participants but I think that most VIX traders understand that,” he said.

“2017 saw many settlements that came in points away from the previous day’s close value, and at this point you have to understand the risk you are taking on if you choose to let your options/futures position go into settlement.”

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DisPB7 Tyler Durden

What Bond Boycott: Foreign Demand In 10Y Auction Soars

Earlier today, Bill Gross claimed that there is “recent evidence showing that China is liquidating treasuries.”  Well, we have yet to see where that evidence is – it certainly isn’t on the Fed’s custody holdings of Tsys which in December hit an all time high. And it certainly wasn’t in the just concluded reopening auction of 9Y-10Month, where foreign demand was nothing short of stellar.

With the When Issued trading at 2.584% ahead today’s 1pm auction, the sale of $20 billion in 10Y Notes stopped out at 2.579%, stopping through by 0.5 bps, confirming that today’s sharp revulsion was promptly met with a desire to load up on US paper by foreign purchasers. The strength of the auction was also confirmed by the surging Bid to Cover, which jumped from 2.37 to 2.69, the highest since June 2016.

Finally, looking at the internals showed a remarkable spike in the Indirect, or foreign, award, which surged from 57.2% to 71.4%, the highest since August 2016, as foreigners seemingly couldn’t get enough. Directs ended up with 6.5% of the final takedown while Dealers were left holdings a paltry 22%, the lowest Dealer award since March 2017.

Overall, if anyone wanted proof that foreign demand for US Treasurys is as strong as ever, then today’s auction was the place to find it.

 

asd

via RSS http://ift.tt/2CYsMwn Tyler Durden

CBO to Estimate That Repealing Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Will Have a Smaller Effect on Health Insurance Coverage

The individual mandate is less important to maintaining health insurance coverage levels than previously estimated, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The new report suggests that the GOP tax bill will have a smaller effect on insurance coverage, but a bigger effect on the deficit, than official figures have indicated so far.

The mandate, which imposes a penalty for failing to maintain health coverage, was repealed as part of the tax reform legislation that passed in December. But it proved a sticking point for congressional Republicans earlier in the year as they attempted to pass legislation overhauling Obamacare, the health law that included the insurance requirement.

CBO estimates showed that repealing the mandate as part of the overhaul would reduce health coverage by about 15 million people, a figure that was later reduced to 13 million as a result of a change in the CBO’s baseline. CBO also estimated that this would result in about $340 billion budgetary savings, as a result of reduced government spending on health insurance.

Critics argued that the coverage loss estimate was far too high, in part because it assumed a significant reduction in Medicaid coverage as a result of eliminating the mandate. In most cases, Medicaid does not charge premiums.

After the health care effort stalled, reports surfaced indicating that CBO was at work on a revised estimate of the mandate’s impact, one that would show a much smaller coverage effect. CBO confirmed in November that it was at work on revising its methodology.

A presentation published by CBO today indicates that the new estimate will show that repealing the mandate will result in fewer people losing coverage than previously estimated.

The report, which looks at how cost estimates are produced for legislative proposals affecting health insurance, says that CBO and its sister organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, have “undertaken considerable work to revise and update their methods” estimating the cost and coverage effects of the mandate. “The preliminary results of analysis using revised methods indicates that the estimated effects on health insurance coverage will be smaller” than previously estimated.

We don’t yet know what the new tally will be. It’s unlikely to be zero. It is possible and even likely that CBO will still estimate that repealing the mandate will result in millions fewer people with coverage. But it does strongly hint that the impact on health coverage will be smaller than official numbers have shown so far.

It also means that the GOP tax bill, which was estimated to increase the deficit by a little more than $1.4 trillion over a decade, will likely be shown to increase the deficit even more than previously estimated, because when the coverage loss figure shrinks, so do the budgetary savings.

In short: The tax law is shaping up to have a larger than estimated impact on the deficit, and a smaller impact on health care.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mlbJLK
via IFTTT

Second Developer Of WikiLeaks-Inspired “SecureDrop” Commits Suicide At 36

A second member of a three-man team who created a secure system for whistleblowers to submit information to news outlets has committed suicide at the age of 36, reports the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Software engineer James Dolan took his own life nearly five years to the day after the death of “SecureDrop” co-creator and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz.

asd
James Dolan

Dolan, a former Marine, helped create the system in 2012 along with Swartz and Wired editor Kevin Poulsen – who spearheaded the project first known as “StrongBox” and later “DeadDrop.” The trio’s secure submission system has been used by The New Yorker, the Washington Post, The New York Times, the Associated Press and Gizmodo – allowing “highly secure communication between journalists and sources in possession of sensitive information or documents,” per Gizmodo

Co-creator Kevin Poulsen described Dolan’s role in the project’s creation in the New Yorker in 2013:

In New York, a computer-security expert named James Dolan persuaded a trio of his industry colleagues to meet with Aaron to review the architecture and, later, the code. We wanted to be reasonably confident that the system wouldn’t be compromised, and that sources would be able to submit documents anonymously—so that even the media outlets receiving the materials wouldn’t be able to tell the government where they came from. James wrote an obsessively detailed step-by-step security guide for organizations implementing the code. “He goes a little overboard,” Aaron said in an e-mail, “but maybe that’s not a bad thing.”

Co-creator Aaron Swartz committed suicide on January 11, 2013 at the age of 26. Swartz left no suicide note in his New York apartment, however some have noted that he was depressed and was facing jail time under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for hacking into MIT’s computer network and stealing copies of 4.8 million academic papers

Swartz’s father believes the government “indirectly killed” Swartz, while his girlfriend at the time, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman think Swartz was driven to suicide by a two-year prosecution over the MIT hacking case which had “drained all of his financial resources”  – despite not fitting any of the signs of clinical depression and associated disorders.

asd
Aaron Swartz

After Swartz’s death, co-creator Kevin Poulsen donated the SecureDrop project to the Freedome of the Press Foundation, while James Dolan was “literally the only person in the world who knew all the ins and outs of the system, how to install it, and how to make it better” according to the FPF. 

He had a high-paying computer security job at a large company by then, but I asked him if he’d be willing to come work for us so we could try to get SecureDrop into more newsrooms. We had hardly any money at the time, yet he immediately agreed—even though it meant taking an 80% pay cut. (Later, he would even refuse to accept a raise, insisting that we use any new funding to hire additional people to work on the project instead.)

In a tribute post, the Freedom of the Press Foundation said that Dolan had “long suffered from PTSD from his time serving in the Marines during the Iraq war,” adding “It was an experience that affected him in multiple ways. He often cited the Iraq War as his inspiration for wanting to help journalists and whistleblowers; it made him realize governments needed to be much more transparent and accountable.”

Dolan’s friends and supporters were heartbroken over Twitter:

Timm, FPF’s Executive Director, wrote “It is impossible to overstate how fundamentally important James Dolan was to the development of both Freedom of the Press Foundation and SecureDrop.”

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ErPgTN Tyler Durden

D.C. Deregulates Birth Control… and Dooms It With Obamacare Add-Ons

The District of Columbia Council gave the green light Tuesday to a bill allowing birth control pills to be purchased with a pharmacist’s prescription.

The measure stops short of allowing over-the-counter contraceptive sales, which would run afoul of Food and Drug Administration policy. But it would allow for women to obtain birth control pills without regular visits to a doctor. The D.C. Board of Pharmacy would figure out how to implement the change.

The change would put D.C. in line with a rapidly increasing number of states allowing pharmacist-prescribed oral contraceptives. Following Oregon and California’s lead, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico and Ohio passed similar legislation last year. Several others (including Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee) considered it.

The D.C. bill isn’t all deregulatory goodness: it would also enshrine parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into local law, including the requirement that insurance companies cover contraception and other preventative health services at no out-of-pocket cost to the insured. The idea is to ensure their continued “free” coverage even if all or part of the ACA is repealed.

The bill now heads to D.C. Mayor Muriel Browser. If she signs it, the measure will then (like all D.C. legislation) be subject to congressional review—which could be tricky considering the current climate with regard to contraception mandates and Obamacare in general.

“No other state or local jurisdiction in the country has to worry that a random congressman is going to try and meddle with a locally-passed law,” lamented D.C. council member and author of the bill, Charles Allen, in a statement.

True—but decreasing the barriers to accessing contraception might have a better chance if not yoked to a currently pointless policy backing up an already existing (and controversial) federal law.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mgdg4E
via IFTTT

Bankruptcy Looms As Sears Warns “Will Consider All Options” If New Financing Process Fails

Sears Holdings, the one-time giant retailer that has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years now, announced this morning that, following yet another disappointing holiday season (shocking), they’ve initiated new discussions with lenders aimed at renegotiating terms on some $1 billion of “non-first lien debt.” 

According to a press release from the company, the debt concessions would be accompanied by another $200 million of cost cuts.

Sears Holdings Corporation announced today it has raised $100 million in new financing and is pursuing an additional $200 million from other counterparties. In addition, Sears Holdings has amended its existing second lien notes, maturing October 15, 2018, to increase their borrowing base advance rate for inventory and defer their collateral coverage test and restart it with the second quarter of 2018, and is in discussions with certain lenders regarding additional transactions to improve the terms on potentially more than $1 billion of its non-first lien debt.

The Company also outlined incremental actions to further streamline its operations to drive profitability, including cost reductions of $200 million on an annualized basis in 2018 unrelated to store closures.

Rob Riecker, Sears Holdings’ Chief Financial Officer, said: “As previously announced, we are actively pursuing transactions to adjust our capital structure in order to generate liquidity and increase our financial flexibility. The new capital we have secured represents meaningful progress towards those objectives and demonstrates that we continue to have options to finance our business.”

Of course, the most important part of this morning’s press release is the following statement which serves as a not so thinly-veiled threat to junior creditors that any failure to grant financial concessions could result in a bankruptcy filing.

However, should the Company’s efforts to complete these transactions not be fully successful, the Board will consider all other options to maximize the value of its assets.

Sears

The company also announced that November and December comp-store sales plunged 16%-17% year-over-year indicating that restructuring efforts implemented to date have done little to slow mounting losses. Sears’ disastrous holiday sales mark a sharp contrast to the solid gains enjoyed by many of its department store peers such as Kohl’s, J.C. Penney and Macy’s.

Meanwhile, Chairman and CEO Eddie Lampert reiterated in a blog post this morning that “many observers,” including “outside lenders and our vendor community” aren’t convinced that Sears can survive the “Retail Apocalypse.” 

While these actions have so far helped our Company survive the so-called “Retail Apocalypse”, many observers are not persuaded that Sears Holdings can be a viable competitor in the long term. It is obvious that to overcome such skepticism and obtain the support of outside lenders and our vendor community – which is crucial to the success of any retailer – we need to undertake further measures.

However, should our efforts to complete the refinancing not be fully successful, the Company’s Board will consider all other options to maximize the value of Sears Holdings’ assets.

Oh well…vendor support isn’t that big a deal for retailers anyway, right?

Of course, as Sears management continues with their futile efforts to effectuate a restructuring via store closings and cost cuts, the far easier and faster solution, as demonstrated by Kodak, is right in front of their eyes…

via RSS http://ift.tt/2mhJWLf Tyler Durden

Amash, Paul, and Others Trying to Stop Congress from Expanding Domestic Surveillance Powers

Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Rand PaulRep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and a bipartisan group of 42 lawmakers are going to try to stop Congress from expanding the feds’ ability to snoop on American citizens. If they fail, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is threatening a filibuster in the Senate.

This week the House is considering legislation to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments. This law grants intelligence agencies the authority to snoop on foreign targets on foreign soil without warrants, overseen by a secretive FISA court.

This is done in the name of stopping espionage and terrorism. But the surveillance powers have also been secretly used on Americans to track down evidence of other crimes, without a warrant, circumventing both the Fourth Amendment and the FISA Amendments’ stated intent.

“We think that is unconstitutional, hugely problematic, and we’re here to defend the rights of the American people,” Amash said this morning at a press conference attended by members of both parties in both houses of Congress.

Section 702 had been set to expire at the end of 2017 if it was not renewed. But several lawmakers refused to vote for its renewal unless it is reformed to protect Americans against warrantless surveillance. Unable to reach an agreement, lawmakers kicked the can down the road and just renewed Section 702 unchanged until January 19. Tomorrow, the House may take up one proposed renewal bill.

Unfortunately, the bill they’re considering is absolutely awful. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017—pushed by the intelligence committees of both the House and the Senate—explicitly authorizes the exact violations of citizens’ privacy that Amash and company are trying to stop. Rather than demanding that the FBI and NSA get warrants before they access Americans’ private data and communications, it does the opposite: It gives the feds formal permission to snoop on citizens for a list of federal crimes without getting a warrant first.

Amash has introduced a substitute amendment in the House that would replace the text with the contents of the USA RIGHTS Act. This is an alternative bill sponsored by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in the Senate and by Amash, Ted Poe (R-Texas), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) in the House.

The USA Rights Act would restrain the feds from using information collected in secret unwarranted FISA searches as evidence in court cases. It would also forbid “about” searches, where feds snoop on communications that are “about” a target as opposed to just communications to and from that target. And it would forbid “reverse targeting,” where the feds snoop on foreign targets for the purpose of accessing the communications of the Americans talking to them.

At today’s press conference, Paul said he would filibuster any plan to renew Section 702 without warrant protections for Americans. To judge from the turnout this morning, it looks like he won’t be alone if he does.

I’ve written extensively about the difference between these two bills under consideration and what they do. If you need a refresher, check out this primer. Or read what Paul himself had to say at Reason about FISA reauthorization here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mo05zM
via IFTTT