<commit_before>---
layout: page
permalink: methodology/index.html
---
    <section id="methodology">
      <h2>Our Methodology</h2>
      <div id="generic-box">
        <p>Our methodology is designed to recognize those members of Congress who have taken objective, measurable steps to enact meaningful surveillance reform in the past year, while also surfacing for the public those members of Congress who have not been engaged in the fight or who have promoted bills that would entrench mass surveillance. </p>
        
        <p><strong><i>What we considered</i></strong></p>
        <p>We only considered sponsorship or voting for a few key bills (and amendments in the House) that have been introduced since the Snowden revelations.  These two factors--sponsorship or voting--represent where a member of Congress stands when it comes to surveillance reform. Voting history and co-sponsorships are objective, verifiable, and they are where the rubber meets the road for protecting privacy. </p>
        
        <p><strong>House:</strong> We focused on the two broadest, strongest bills: the Surveillance State Repeal Act and the original version of the USA FREEDOM Act. Both bills attempt to address multiple facets of the surveillance problem, including mass data collection, oversight, and transparency. While imperfect, both bills would be strong steps forward for civil liberties. </p>
        <p>We also gave points to members of the House who voted for certain privacy-preserving amendments to the defense appropriations bills. Two highly publicized votes--the Conyers-Amash amendment of 2013 and the Massie-Lofgren amendment of 2014--each sought to tackle major issues with mass spying. The Conyers-Amash amendment, in particular, would curtail funding for mass surveillance.</p>
        <p>We awarded negative points for co-sponsorships of the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act, which was introduced by the House Intelligence Committee and offers modest transparency benefits while attempting to codify mass surveillance into law. </p>
        <p>In addition, we award negative points for voting for the USA FREEDOM Act that passed out of the House of Representatives. This bill was so altered by the time it went to the House floor for a vote that the overwhelming majority of civil liberties groups that had previously praised the bill withdrew their support, and many of its original co-sponsors also chose to vote against the bill. This version of the USA FREEDOM Act not only failed to address the problems with mass spying, it extended the sunsets on key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act until 2017 (instead of 2015).</p>
        
        <p><strong>Senate:</strong>  We considered whether a senator has co-sponsored the original USA Freedom Act for positive points. We awarded negative points for co-sponsorship of the FISA Improvements Act of 2013, which offers only modest transparency benefits while attempting to codifying mass surveillance into law. </p>
        <p>Senators who have done neither receive a question mark. These senators can improve their grades if they co-sponsor the USA FREEDOM Act.</p>
        <p><i>What we didn’t consider</i></p>
        <p>We did not grade every surveillance reform bill introduced. There have been a variety of bills introduced since the Snowden revelations, and many takes good steps toward promoting meaningful reform. However, we focus on two bills of particular importance to this debate: the original USA Freedom Act (before it was undermined in the House) because it had a solid chance of passing due to the co-sponsorship of Sen. <NAME> and Rep. <NAME>, and Surveillance State Repeal Act sponsored by Rep. <NAME> because it goes the furthest substantively.</p>
        <p>We did not consider any statements made by any members of Congress. We did not look at position papers. We did not look at sign-on letters. While these are all positive actions, we graded only the most important actions: co-sponsorships and voting history.
        
        <p><i>Congressmembers who have not participated</i></p>
        <p>Finally, we have given significant consideration to those members of Congress who have not been significantly involved in this debate, who have not co-sponsored the specific legislation we’re tracking or voted on any of these pieces of legislation. This is often the case with senators, who have not yet had the opportunity to vote on a bill. Ultimately, we decided that these individuals should get a question mark, but as various bills progress, we may award (or remove) points.   </p>
        <p>Now is the time for members of Congress to be representing their constituents and working to stop the mass surveillance.  Sitting the debate out is not acceptable. </p><commit_msg>adding bold to text for emphasis<commit_after>---
layout: page
permalink: methodology/index.html
---
    <section id="methodology">
      <h2>Our Methodology</h2>
      <div id="generic-box">
        <p>Our methodology is designed to recognize those members of Congress who have taken objective, measurable steps to enact meaningful surveillance reform in the past year, while also surfacing for the public those members of Congress who have not been engaged in the fight or who have promoted bills that would entrench mass surveillance. </p>
        
        <p><strong><i>What we considered</i></strong></p>
        <p>We only considered sponsorship or voting for a few key bills (and amendments in the House) that have been introduced since the Snowden revelations.  These two factors--sponsorship or voting--represent where a member of Congress stands when it comes to surveillance reform. Voting history and co-sponsorships are objective, verifiable, and they are where the rubber meets the road for protecting privacy. </p>
        
        <p><strong>House:</strong> We focused on the two broadest, strongest bills: the Surveillance State Repeal Act and the original version of the USA FREEDOM Act. Both bills attempt to address multiple facets of the surveillance problem, including mass data collection, oversight, and transparency. While imperfect, both bills would be strong steps forward for civil liberties. </p>
        <p>We also gave points to members of the House who voted for certain privacy-preserving amendments to the defense appropriations bills. Two highly publicized votes--the Conyers-Amash amendment of 2013 and the Massie-Lofgren amendment of 2014--each sought to tackle major issues with mass spying. The Conyers-Amash amendment, in particular, would curtail funding for mass surveillance.</p>
        <p>We awarded negative points for co-sponsorships of the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act, which was introduced by the House Intelligence Committee and offers modest transparency benefits while attempting to codify mass surveillance into law. </p>
        <p>In addition, we award negative points for voting for the USA FREEDOM Act that passed out of the House of Representatives. This bill was so altered by the time it went to the House floor for a vote that the overwhelming majority of civil liberties groups that had previously praised the bill withdrew their support, and many of its original co-sponsors also chose to vote against the bill. This version of the USA FREEDOM Act not only failed to address the problems with mass spying, it extended the sunsets on key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act until 2017 (instead of 2015).</p>
        
        <p><strong>Senate:</strong>  We considered whether a senator has co-sponsored the original USA Freedom Act for positive points. We awarded negative points for co-sponsorship of the FISA Improvements Act of 2013, which offers only modest transparency benefits while attempting to codifying mass surveillance into law. </p>
        <p>Senators who have done neither receive a question mark. <strong>These senators can improve their grades if they co-sponsor the USA FREEDOM Act.</strong></p>
        <p><i>What we didn’t consider</i></p>
        <p>We did not grade every surveillance reform bill introduced. There have been a variety of bills introduced since the Snowden revelations, and many takes good steps toward promoting meaningful reform. However, we focus on two bills of particular importance to this debate: the original USA Freedom Act (before it was undermined in the House) because it had a solid chance of passing due to the co-sponsorship of Sen. <NAME> and Rep. <NAME>, and Surveillance State Repeal Act sponsored by Rep. <NAME> because it goes the furthest substantively.</p>
        <p>We did not consider any statements made by any members of Congress. We did not look at position papers. We did not look at sign-on letters. While these are all positive actions, we graded only the most important actions: co-sponsorships and voting history.
        
        <p><i>Congressmembers who have not participated</i></p>
        <p>Finally, we have given significant consideration to those members of Congress who have not been significantly involved in this debate, who have not co-sponsored the specific legislation we’re tracking or voted on any of these pieces of legislation. This is often the case with senators, who have not yet had the opportunity to vote on a bill. Ultimately, we decided that these individuals should get a question mark, but as various bills progress, we may award (or remove) points.   </p>
        <p>Now is the time for members of Congress to be representing their constituents and working to stop the mass surveillance.  Sitting the debate out is not acceptable. </p>
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.049164926931106474, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004592901878914405, 'mean_word_length': 4.034682080924855, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 101, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 101, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '2251008', 'n_tokens_mistral': 2282, 'n_tokens_neox': 2115, 'n_words': 1376}