On April 1, the Department of the Treasury's blog touted improvements to USAspending.gov -- a Web site that helps the public figure out where their tax dollars are going. But some thought the refresh was a cruel April Fool's joke, lamenting a "clunky" design and reduced search options.

And now a bipartisan group of senators wants answers.

"Although the redesign does include some improvements, we have concerns that changes to the site's functionality have limited its usefulness to the Congress at the Public," reads a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, sent from a group of 11 senators led by Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Thursday night.

Among their chief complaints is that the advanced search function of the new site removed options available in the previous version, such as searching by keyword or for parent companies.

"The Treasury Department needs to answer some basic questions about this update," Johnson told the Post in an e-mailed statement. "Why did Treasury decide to alter the search capabilities in this way? Did anyone consider a beta version to test the update? Most of all, what is the department doing to correct the problems and bring the site back to an acceptable level of function?"

The idea behind USAspending.gov dates back to a 2006 transparency bill. The Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service​ took over responsibility for the site in January 2014. A Treasury spokesperson said the agency has received the letter and will respond to the senators.

The contractor responsible for the site went bankrupt last year and the government bought back the Web site and underlying data system in October. A major focus of the refresh that followed this spring was making the site more like Recovery.gov -- a move that focused on appealing to a broader user base, but left some open data advocates frustrated by reduced features.

USAspending.gov responded to the initial backlash about the redesign by opening a development forum on popular coding site GitHub where the public could  report bugs and suggest new features -- as well as keep track of its progress on implementing them.

According an update on the site, the agency was still working on adding back keyword search functionality as of April 15. A Treasury official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the matter said it expects the feature to return next week.

A federal appeals court ruling that the National Security Agency's collection of millions of Americans’ phone records is illegal could undercut more than just that program.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the phone records program violated the law used to authorize it, the USA Patriot Act. The program had been approved by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but it was not disclosed publicly until revealed by documents from former government contractor Edward Snowden.

[NSA program on phone records is illegal, court rules]

The government argued that the huge volume of  phone records were relevant to counterterrorism investigations because searching through them later might help discern links to terrorism suspects. But the court didn't buy it, ruling that such an interpretation of "relevance" was "unprecedented and unwarranted." The government's argument, the judges said, boiled down to "the proposition that essentially all telephone records are relevant to essentially all international terrorism investigations.”

Knocking down that interpretation could have consequences that go beyond the program and even the part of the USA Patriot Act used to authorized it, Section 215.

First, it could mean a blow to other programs relying on the same part of the USA Patriot Act, experts said -- for example, a potentially ongoing program tracking international money transfers that includes millions of Americans' financial and personal data that was revealed by the Wall Street Journal last year.

[The D.C. coffee shop where ‘Snowden’ is filming? It was an actual setting for the famed leaker’s dates.]

And because many laws rely on very similar relevance language, the decision should bring new scrutiny to other programs, experts said. "As I understand it, this ruling should have implications for several surveillance statutes," said Harley Geiger, advocacy director and senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Why? Basically that's due to a bit of congressional laziness, said Jonathan Mayer, a lawyer and computer scientist affiliated with Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "Most surveillance statutes are copy and paste," he said. "There's certain relevance language that is replicated everywhere."

The court itself noted as much, citing the example of two bills that use the same language to compel the production of information relevant to authorized terrorism investigations -- one about telephone toll‐billing and another about educational records. (Those bills did not appear to be used for or intended to authorize bulk surveillance.)

But other programs that collected massive amounts of data on Americans relied on similar relevance language. A program that collected information about e-mails until 2011, for example, was set up under a set of legal authorities known as "pen register/trap and trace." And a Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration program that harvested records of international calls by Americans to as many as 116 countries for more than two decades since 1992 relied on an administrative subpoena power that required that the information gathered be "relevant or material" to an investigation, USA Today reported.

[What the 2016 candidates have to say about the NSA court ruling]

The court's rejection of the broad interpretation of relevance in this case could make it nearly impossible for the government to argue in favor of domestic bulk collection programs such as these without it being explicitly spelled out in the law, according to Mayer.

That could have significant weight in the legislative debate over the phone records program. Section 215 is set to expire on June 1, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing for a bill that would renew it. But for the phone program to continue after passage, the government would have to convince the Supreme Court to reverse the 2nd Circuit's decision.

And a bill to modify the law so that, supporters argue, the NSA can get access to records while still protecting Americans’ data -- called the USA Freedom Acct -- has split privacy advocates. One coalition of privacy advocates argues that the bill essentially legalizes mass surveillance and could "eviscerate numerous court challenges" -- presumably, challenges like the one just won in the 2nd Circuit.

But one of the key arguments from privacy advocates who support the bill is that it reins in bulk collection by the government, which may have continued under other authorities even if Section 215 is sunset. That argument may be less compelling to some now. "The 2nd Circuit just did a big piece of USA Freedom," Mayer said.

[Deadline looming, dozens of groups urge Congress to reform bulk surveillance]

Some members of Congress are already citing the decision as a reason to reject the current version of the USA Freedom Act, including Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who led a campaign to defund the phone records program in 2013.

In light of today's Second Circuit ruling, Congress must NOT proceed with the latest version of the #USAFreedomAct. https://t.co/MIzExi7q7C

But supporters of the bill say that other aspects of the legislation, including transparency provisions, still make it worthwhile. "The problem is without the transparency requirements in USA Freedom, we won't know how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court responds to the ruling," said Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez.

And USA Freedom would not undermine the relevance restrictions included in the 2nd Circuit decision, Geiger argues. Rather, he said, it would build on them by giving more specific parameters for what is relevant and "provide the certainty that both the intelligence community and the Americans concerned about civil liberties deserve."

The 2nd Circuit also declined to place a preliminary injunction on the case due to the current debate and could still be overturned, Sanchez said.

It's no secret that the Internet has a problem with harassment. It's also no secret that no one has come up with a good way to deal with it.

Enter HeartMob, a project currently raising funds on Kickstarter, which aims to be the place where those facing harassment can easily report abuse across social networks and find support from others who know what they're going through.

With a week left to go in its campaign, the group has passed its $10,000 funding goal, but is still raising funds to improve the project. The crowdfunding site Catapult has pledge to match funds if the campaign raises another $2,500; the Knight Foundation has also promised to pledge funds of up to $10,000 if the group can get 1000 contributors.

HeartMob is a project by Hollaback, a decade-old organization that fights street harassment. Emily May, the group's co-founder and chief executive, said that she sees many similarities between real-world and online harassment.

"Street harassment is sexual harassment in a public space," she said. "Online harassment is sexual harassment in a public space." The group has taken its expertise in combating real-world abuse to the digital world, and spent 18 months developing the project. As part of that process, it interviewed dozens of people who've faced harassment online to find the best tools to support victims.

Dealing with the online world does, after all, present unique challenges. Right now, the process of reporting online abuse is arduous -- message by message, comment by comment, day after day.

It's also fractured. If you're being bothered on multiple networks, you report only part of what you face to each company. But there's no easy way to show how the parts add up to a whole, horrible picture.

Having a tool that lets victims do that will be invaluable -- and gives them a more compelling case if they want to compile a report to bring to companies of law enforcement officials.

"It will capture cross-platform harassment," said Soraya Chemaly, a writer and activist who's spoken out strongly against the harassment of women online."That's really important context for understanding that you can’t get right now," Chemaly said.

Both Chemaly and May would like to see social networks do more to fight this kind of behavior on their own sites. But, May said, she also realizes that the companies can't do it all by themselves.

"There’s a lot of pressure on the social media companies to do more, and I think that pressure is well-placed," she said. "But to say that the social media companies alone are going to be able to solve this problem is short-sighted. That's like saying the NYPD is going to be able to solve the problem of rape."

So, using HeartMob, users can also choose to make their record public to find support from others who want to stop abusive behavior online.

Making it easy to find allies is a huge part of fighting harassment, May said. And, she added, it's actually one thing that's easier about combating abuse online as its often done so publicly. "With street harassment, maybe half the time there are people around," May said. "With online harassment, it's 100 percent of the time."

That's of particular importance when looking for ways to fill in the support gaps around gray areas of harassment. There are many  things people can say online that is abusive but don't rise to the level of violating a network's terms of service.

For example, if Joe -- or 500 Joes -- were to tell Jane that she's worthless and should jump off a bridge five times per hour, that wouldn't trip network standards in most cases because there's no threat of actual harm. But it would still be a bruising and traumatic experience, and one that would be difficult to deal with alone.

May hopes that this sort of education could, down the line, help effect a change in the overall social media culture. HeartMob doesn't encourage the harassment of harassers, she said -- that doesn't help anything. Instead, the system will try and work to break the cycle of abuse by focusing more on education than revenge.

"We hope to engage people who may be nice in real life, but haven’t thought about the fact that the person they’re harassing [online] is actually a person," she said. "It's also about educating the harasser on what’s okay. When you say 'I’m gonna rape you,' you may think you're saying, 'I don’t like your ideas.' But what I hear is that I can’t leave my house."

She realizes, however, that trying to change the culture of the entire Internet is an enormous task. So she's staying focused. "I don’t want to be overly Pollyanna about it," she said. "I think ultimately our first and most important job is to reduce trauma."

Coming soon to a theme park near you: Mario, in all of his glory.

Nintendo and Universal Studios announced Thursday that they are partnering to put Nintendo-themed rides and characters into Universal theme parks. The companies didn't give a lot of detail, saying only that they will create "dedicated experiences" to Nintendo characters.

There are plenty of Nintendo titles that would transfer pretty easily into rides, however. Can't you just imagine playing Mario Kart with real go-karts? And, of course, there are plenty of virtual reality options as well; Nintendo's games have very distinctive worlds that haven't been diluted in the marketplace with licensing deals, meaning they have a deep well of unique characters and scenarios to pull from.

The deal falls in line with a recent Nintendo trend toward being more open to partnerships, rather than going it alone all of the time. That's encouraging to Nintendo fans, who have watched the company lose its footing a bit as it struggled to compete with Sony's PlayStation, Microsoft's Xbox and the rise of mobile games that ate into its portable gaming market.

Earlier this year, Nintendo also announced that it would work with DeNA gaming to develop smartphone titles, something the company had resisted in the past. And Nintendo has also evolved its relationships with outside game developers to put a wider variety of games on its consoles and handheld gaming devices.

It's also explored some new areas of late. Last year, it launched a line of figurines  -- called amiibo -- that interact with its video games but double as old-fashioned toys. Meanwhile, the firm continues to look at extending its success with fitness games into a full-fledged "quality of life" initiative that could tap into a growing interest in wearable devices that track your health.

There are some faint signs of a recovery. The company also announced Thursday that it's turned its first annual profit since 2011 -- reporting a profit margin of approximately $207 million.

Something very weird is happening in the tech world: Microsoft looks cool again.

The guileless, style-less suburban dad of digital America — maker of Clippy, Vista and the Zune — is suddenly intriguing developers, exciting customers and building things people actually want to use.

Now piloted by Satya Nadella, Microsoft's 47-year-old dealmaker, the $390 billion tech giant is making friends with an army of developers, administrators and former antagonists now helping strengthen its software and spread the word.

Just a year into the job, Nadella, Microsoft's third chief executive in 40 years, has pushed the tech titan into surprising territory, unveiling a free version of Windows 10 that pledges to fix the sins of its predecessors while also playing nice with start-ups and studios who once left it behind.

[The new Microsoft doesn’t need to dominate. It’s just happy to be here.]

But the Redmond, Wash.-based giant is also using its gargantuan budget, including $11 billion spent last year on research and development, in hopes of forging the next generation of tech. One of its biggest, riskiest bets in years: the HoloLens, its sci-fi-style "augmented reality" goggles that project virtual objects in plain sight.

"What things like HoloLens show is this is a company that is still fighting very hard to produce innovative ideas," said Brad Reback, a managing director and analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. "Some will work. Some won't ... but everyone's paying attention."

Within the last year, Microsoft cleaned house in its highest ranks, invested heavily in its Xbox One gaming console and spent $2.5 billion to buy Minecraft, one of the world's best-selling video games. It also unveiled some long-awaited software, like Office for the iPad, which helped send its stock to a 14-year high.

Just within the last week, the company went viral with a photo analyzer that guessed (with varying success) how old someone looked, as well as with news that Windows 10 will be the first with its own middle-finger emoji, shareable in six skin tones.

Windows 10 emoji, including a certain single-finger salute. (Courtesy of )

Even Wall Street is finding something to love. Microsoft's shares have climbed about 15 percent since its earnings call last month, and more than 40 percent since 2013. Investors who once sought to cozy up to smaller tech start-ups are suddenly praising the new leadership of one of the world's biggest computing juggernauts.

"Microsoft has been the butt of every tech ad joke during the new millennium," said Mala Gaonkar, a money manager at hedge fund Lone Pine Capital, which owns 5 million Microsoft shares, at a high-profile investment conference Monday in New York. But “we've had a regime change. ... Legacy tech remains misunderstood and undervalued."

Microsoft has never had a heavily hyped, style-oozing release like Apple's iPod or iPhone. But in the Bill Gates era, the company showed a certain verve and excitement that proved, in the early tech industry, hard to match. Twenty years ago, thousands waited in line to pay $90 for their fresh copy of Windows 95.

[Microsoft’s HoloLens may be the least stupid pair of smartglasses yet]

Yet in the years after Gates stepped down as chief executive, in 2000, the company began to bungle releases and lose out on basically every big market mover in tech, ceding ground to Google, Apple, Amazon and many others on smartphones, search and social networks, as well as online music, books and ads.

Many blamed Microsoft's lost decade on chief executive Steve Ballmer, who, when he wasn't serving as the sweaty punchline of some of the Internet's earliest viral videos, was ridiculing the technologies that would leave Microsoft looking outmatched. Ballmer famously laughed at the iPhone, which he said had "no chance." ("$500?" he said. "That is the most expensive phone in the world.")

Under the watch of the younger, more charismatic Nadella, who said last year at a developers' conference the company would "innovate with a challenger mindset," analysts say Microsoft has radically changed even its most bread-and-butter tech.

Bill Gates, Satya Nadella and Steve Ballmer address employees on Microsoft's campus in Redmond last year. (REUTERS/Microsoft/Handout)

It has revamped one of its dustiest offerings, Internet Explorer, and plans to unveil a new streamlined browser, Edge, to compete with Google Chrome. And Windows 10, set for a summer release, is designed to run on nearly every device on the market, including laptops, tablets and smartphones.

The debut, which Wells Fargo Securities analysts said in a note to investors last week was "one of the most important Windows releases to date," is said to have buffed over some of previous Windows' annoyances, including a hidden Start menu and clunky box-of-boxes interface.

Most notably, Windows 10 will be offered for free to the millions now working on Windows 7 and 8, transitioning what was once one of the company's fastest-growing moneymakers into a new way to win customer loyalty.

[Microsoft doesn’t just want you to use Windows 10. It wants you to love it.]

Nadella has pivoted the company away from selling discs loaded with software to users every few years to selling subscriptions to cloud-based services, like Office 365, that let users run Outlook, Word and Excel from the Web. He has also led the company to drop its defensive stance against increasingly important open-source software, like Linux, that Ballmer once derided as a "cancer."

Microsoft is optimistic about what kind of results these changes will bring. Nadella expects Microsoft's yearly corporate-cloud earnings will more than triple within three years, to $20 billion, and the company wants 1 billion users to be using Windows 10 by 2018.

Microsoft is still one of the world's most colossal tech firms: A billion and a half devices worldwide run Windows, and 300 million Windows-loaded personal computers are sold every year. The company made $22 billion in profit last year, nearly enough to buy Twitter, and still has $95 billion in cash on hand.

A rendering of HoloLens. (Courtesy of Microsoft.)

But with its 118,000 employees and worldwide tech empire, Microsoft will never be as new or nimble as Silicon Valley's glitziest start-ups. The company also still lacks the moonshot projects of Google or the fashionable mojo of Apple. Campaigns like the Windows Phone have been costly disappointments, while innovative computers like the Surface still sit deep below (literally) the hype and sales of Apple's iPad.

The HoloLens, analysts said, will mark the biggest test yet for whether the new Microsoft can restore some former glory. Though some reviewers have praised it as "one of the most amazing pieces of tech I've seen," others have said it falls flat on the basics, like having a field of view that is too constrained.

[Minecraft is finally fixing its huge gender problem]

The risks are huge. The HoloLens is a new and untested gadget in a new and untested industry. Even if it beats out rivals like Facebook's Oculus Rift, there's no guarantee people will want to strap bulky computers to their heads.

The HoloLens could easily go the way of the product on which its motion-sensing cameras were designed: the Kinect, a heavily marketed Xbox add-on that Microsoft now increasingly avoids mentioning.

Yet the company once dinged as a modern tech monopoly, analysts said, is doing well to not show any sweat. In other words, it's playing it cool. As Microsoft executive Dave O'Hara said at a Goldman Sachs technology conference in February, "For us it is more about ... what the customers wanted and less about the competition."