I'm not clear how the Patriot Act (if that's the "something" you mention) has anything to do with a state-sponsored advanced persistent threat. Can you explain?
> The federal personnel office learned of the data breach after it began to toughen its cybersecurity defense system. When it discovered malicious activity, authorities used a detection system called EINSTEIN to unearth the information breach in April, the Department of Homeland Security said.
They knew in April, they waited until right after Section 215 of the Patriot Act expired June 1st. Section 215 is the piece of legislation the NSA used as justification for its carte blanche collection of data in the US.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it furthers their goal.
It isn't like some terrorist act occurred which would've been uncovered with Section 215 still active. This happened on their watch and under the so-called protection of the Patriot Act. To me, it seems like just another example of the Patriot Act not protecting people.
The vote does not significantly affect their technical or legal capabilities. There are plenty of other laws they can invoke - or just relay the raw data feed to the UK and get the UK to do the dirty work. I think that it is principle of voting against surveillance that they want to quash before it becomes a habit.
