{"id":1123899,"date":"2024-04-12T05:52:07","date_gmt":"2024-04-12T09:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/uncategorized\/why-congress-must-reform-fisa-section-702and-how-it-can-brennancenter-org\/"},"modified":"2024-04-12T05:52:07","modified_gmt":"2024-04-12T09:52:07","slug":"why-congress-must-reform-fisa-section-702and-how-it-can-brennancenter-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/fourth-amendment\/why-congress-must-reform-fisa-section-702and-how-it-can-brennancenter-org\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Congress Must Reform FISA Section 702and How It Can &#8211; brennancenter.org"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    This article first appeared at     The Dispatch.  <\/p>\n<p>    Editors note:This article    is part of aDispatchdebate series. Kevin    Carrollmade the casefor    reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts    Section 702.  <\/p>\n<p>    This week, the House of Representatives is set to vote on    whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence    Surveillance Act, which will expire on April 19 unless renewed    by Congress. This controversial law is unique, but the ways    intelligence agencies have abused it to violate Americans    civil liberties are not. The solution to this problem is    familiar, too: Congress must not renew Section 702 without    protecting Americans Fourth Amendment rights by requiring the    government to get a warrant before reviewing Americans private    communications.  <\/p>\n<p>    How section 702 is abused to spy on Americans.  <\/p>\n<p>    Enacted shortly after 9\/11, Section 702 allows intelligence    agencies to collect the phone calls, emails, text messages, and    other communications of almost any non-American located outside    of the United States without a warrant. Agencies such as the    CIA and NSA must ensure that a significant purpose of the    collection is to acquire foreign intelligence, a term    FISAdefinesexpansively    to include any information that merely relates to the conduct    of foreign affairs. Otherwise, they face no substantive    restrictions. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court    (FISC)approves    the general rulesgoverning surveillance, but it has    no role in approving individual targets.  <\/p>\n<p>    Section 702 authorizes warrantless surveillance to be targeted    only at non-Americans abroad, but Americans communications are    inevitably    captured too. The reason is simple: We talk to family, friends,    and colleagues who are located abroad, generally for entirely    innocent reasons. Recognizing this reality,    Congressdirectedintelligence    agencies to minimize the retention and use of Americans    information collected under Section 702. Yet, despite this    clear mandate, officials from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and National    Counterterrorism Center perform more than 200,000 warrantless    backdoor searcheseveryyearto    find and review Americans private phone calls, text messages,    and emails.  <\/p>\n<p>        Lax rulesadopted by agencies allow intelligence    officials to perform backdoor searches whenever they have    reason to believe the query will return foreign intelligence    (or, for the FBI, evidence of a crime). Given FISAs capacious    definition of foreign intelligence, this low bar should be easy    to clear, but officials have repeatedly stumbled over it.    Government reports indicate that in 2022, the FBI performed    close to4,000backdoor    searches that violated even its own permissive rules. In    another recent one-year period, the FBIviolatedthe    rules governing searches of FISA databases 278,000 times.  <\/p>\n<p>    These violations include alarming abuses. Amongmanyother    examples, the government has performed baseless searches    for the communications ofmembers    of Congress,journalists,    and19,000    donors to a congressional campaign. The FBI has performed    tens of thousands ofunlawful    searchesrelated to civil unrest, including searches    targeting141    peopleprotesting the murder of George Floyd and more    than20,000    peopleaffiliated with a group suspected of    involvement in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Most    recentlyand despite procedural changes implemented by the FBI    to stem abusesFBI agents performedimproper    searchesfor the private communications of a U.S.    senator, a state senator, and a state court judge who reported    alleged civil rights violations by a police chief to the FBI.  <\/p>\n<p>    Outraged by these abuses, many lawmakers on both sides of the    aisle havevowednot    to reauthorize the law without significant reforms. The key    reform under consideration is to require the government to    obtain a warrant before examining Americans private    communications captured through Section 702 surveillance. After    all, under the Fourth Amendment, these communications can be    obtained without a warrant only because the government is    targeting foreigners abroad for surveillance. Backdoor    searches, though, are intended specifically to    findAmericanscommunications.    Recentpollingfrom    YouGov shows that more than 75 percent of Americans favor this    measure.  <\/p>\n<p>    The government argues that warrantless searches are necessary    for national security. But according to anexhaustive    reviewof Section 702 recently undertaken by the    independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the    government has provided little justification  on the relative    value of the close to 5 million [backdoor] searches conducted    by the FBI from 2019 to 2022. In the few instances in which    backdoor searches proved useful, Board Chair Sharon Bradford    Franklinobservedthat    the government either would have been able to get a warrant or    could have invoked one of the standard exceptions to the    warrant requirement. A warrant requirement would thus protect    Americans Fourth Amendment rights whileensuringthat    intelligence agencies retain the tools they need to obtain    critical foreign intelligence.  <\/p>\n<p>    History repeats itself.  <\/p>\n<p>    There is nothing novel or radical about this proposed reform.    To the contrary, warrantless searches for Americans    communications are flagrantly inconsistent with longstanding    constitutional values. Moreover, the abuses that backdoor    searches have enabled mirror those that have historically    occurred when those values are not honored.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Fourth Amendment recognizes the sanctity of Americans    private communications. Beginning in the 1960s, the Supreme    Court held that the government needed a warrant, not just to    seize a persons papers, but to surveil phone calls    incriminalanddomestic    national securityinvestigations. But the court did    not settle whether a warrant is needed to conduct foreign    intelligence surveillance, meaning surveillance of Americans    intended to uncover the activities of foreign powers or their    agents.  <\/p>\n<p>    A decade later, Congress answered that question. Congressional    investigations by the Church and Pike Committees revealed in    1976 that the FBI, CIA, and NSA had illegally spied on civil    rights and anti-war advocates for decades based on tenuous    claims of Soviet influence. Most notoriously, the FBI spied on    and attempted to blackmail theRev.    Martin Luther King Jr.But King was just one of    thousands of people targeted by federal agents, who employed a    wide variety ofillegal    tactics, including: attacks on speaking, teaching, writing    and meetings; interference with personal and economic rights;    abuse of government processes;  factionalization; [and]    propaganda. In response to these egregious abuses, Congress    implemented a series of reforms, one of which was the Foreign    Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  <\/p>\n<p>    FISA authorized and strictly regulated foreign intelligence    surveillance inside the United States. It was carefully    structured to ensure that intelligence agencies had the tools    they needed to counter foreign threats without violating    Americans Fourth Amendment rights. Under the law, if the    government wanted to engage in domestic collection of    Americans communicationsincluding their communications with    foreign targetsit would have to get a court order, similar to    a criminal warrant, from the newly created Foreign Intelligence    Surveillance Court.  <\/p>\n<p>    This system worked for a time. But after the September 11,    2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bushs    administration wanted to collect communications of suspected    foreign terrorists, including their communications with    Americans, and it did not want to wait for FISC approval before    doing so. So, it didnt. In violation of FISA, the NSA began a    massive, warrantless electronic surveillance program that    collected large numbers of Americans international    communications. It was not until this program wasrevealedby    theNew York Timesthat the Bush    administration went to Congress seeking legislative approval    for the spying.  <\/p>\n<p>    Ultimately, Congress acceded. The result was the FISA    Amendments Act of 2008, of which Section 702 was a key    component. As noted, Section 702 allows the government to    collect foreign targets communications without a warrant, even    if they may be communicating with Americans. But Congress never    intended or envisioned that this would lead to literally    millions of warrantless backdoor searches for Americans    communications collected for foreign intelligence purposes.    This undermines both the Fourth Amendment and the principle    underlying FISA itself. And it is no surprise that we are again    seeing the types of abuses that predatedand promptedFISAs    enactment.  <\/p>\n<p>    The need for safeguardsmoving    forward.  <\/p>\n<p>    With Section 702 set to expire on April 19, Speaker of the    House Mike Johnson has scheduled a vote this week in the House    on the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. Despite    its name, thebillis    not a serious reform proposal. Amongmany    other defects, the bill does not contain a warrant    requirement for backdoor searches. And the modifications it    does make, such as codifying the FBIs recent internal rule    changes, would do nothing to prevent the intelligence agencies    pervasive abuses of Americans Fourth Amendment rights under    Section 702. So it is critical that members amend this bill to    include the necessary safeguards for Americans rights.  <\/p>\n<p>    A warrant requirement for backdoor searches is not the    onlysurveillance    reformthat would improve the bill. Congress should    close other legal loopholes that intelligence agencies exploit    to gain warrantless access to Americans Fourth    Amendment-protected information, such as bypurchasing    itfrom commercial data brokers. But a warrant    requirement is a necessary part of ending the flagrant abuses    of Americans Fourth Amendment rights that are regularly    perpetrated in the name of foreign intelligence.  <\/p>\n<p>    When Congress learned in the 1970s that intelligence agencies    had repeatedly abused their authority by spying on Americans    without a warrant, it enacted FISA to close the gaps in the law    those agencies had exploited. Today, Congress knows that    intelligence agencies have repeatedly abused their authority by    spying on Americans without a warrant, exploiting legal    loopholes that allow them to do so. The solution now is the    same as it was then: If intelligence agencies want access    to Americans private communications, they must first get a    warrant.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read the original here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/analysis-opinion\/why-congress-must-reform-fisa-section-702-and-how-it-can\" title=\"Why Congress Must Reform FISA Section 702and How It Can - brennancenter.org\" rel=\"noopener\">Why Congress Must Reform FISA Section 702and How It Can - brennancenter.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> This article first appeared at The Dispatch.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/fourth-amendment\/why-congress-must-reform-fisa-section-702and-how-it-can-brennancenter-org\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94879],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1123899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fourth-amendment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1123899"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1123899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1123899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1123899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1123899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1123899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}