On one hand, the pro-surveillance folks think it goes too far in reducing the ability of the NSA to collect intelligence data. On the other hand, the anti-surveillance folks think that it doesn't go far enough, and would have much preferred the USA Freedom Act to not make it through the Senate (along with the existing lack of the Patriot Act's renewal). There aren't very many folks in the middle on this.
The compelling part is that the existing surveillance programs have yet to have a significant impact on fighting terrorism; while the pro-surveillance folks flail about on "well that's taken out of context blah blah blah", I think that alone is starting to make lawmakers wonder "well, if it's not actually preventing terrorism, then why does it exist?".
The compelling part is that the existing surveillance programs have yet to have a significant impact on fighting terrorism; while the pro-surveillance folks flail about on "well that's taken out of context blah blah blah", I think that alone is starting to make lawmakers wonder "well, if it's not actually preventing terrorism, then why does it exist?".