General FISA: Title VII Section 702

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
Trump administration is currently lobbying hard for permanent reauthorization of section 702, allowing warrantless surveillance of Americans in contact with foreign subjects considered a threat.

It was used on Flynn earlier this year during the Russia investigation & set to expire at year’s end. The Trump administration is pushing HARD for its renewal & their lawyer has mentioned continuing 702 with or without approval.

A small, bipartisan group (led by Rand Paul & Ron Wyden) in the senate has been fighting 702 for some time now; introducing The USA rights act and/or refusing to approve further spending without a serious debate on unconstitutional, mass surveillance.

Another (small) group in the house is pushing for 702 to be pulled from the spending bill & debated/voted on separately. Calling bullshit on its inclusion. SOP.

All this said, it probably passes with little, to no, problem.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
Rand Paul threatens to filibuster extension of warrantless surveillance


View: https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/943524240581709824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Frare.us%2Frare-politics%2Frare-liberty%2Fthe-right-to-privacy%2Frand-paul-threatens-to-filibuster-extension-of-warrantless-surveillance%2F

On Tuesday, the senator was joined in his opposition to long-term reauthorization by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). The senators hosted a bipartisan press conference denouncing FISA with Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.).

Paul and Lee both promised to vote “no” on any spending bill that reauthorizes warrantless government surveillance.

“I absolutely oppose permanent reauthorization,” Paul said. “Any reauthorization has to be paired with more oversight, not less.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks also attended the press conference, both calling for an end to backdoor governmental spying.

Paul and Lee instead argue that Congress should have more time to debate the law, slamming any attempt by Congressional leadership to add long-term reauthorization to an end of year spending bill.

On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee released a draft bill of the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. On Wednesday, Rep. Justin Amash introduced an amendment to the bill that would replace the standalone reauthorization with the USA Rights Act, a reform bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that Amash and 9 of his colleagues had previously co-sponsored.

“This bill is an eleventh-hour attempt to sneak an unchecked warrantless surveillance program through Congress,” Wydensaidon Wednesday morning, calling the legislation a “step backward".

Congressional funding for the government ends on Dec. 22.

 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944

One of the most potent and controversial tools in the American intelligence community’s arsenal is set to lapse at the end of this year. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets as they cross U.S. soil—including conversations with American citizens. Spy agencies claim it’s a vital weapon against terrorists and should not only be reauthorized but also made permanent. Civil libertarians, however, worry that the law’s incredible scope—targeting some 100,000 people and hauling in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of communications each year—makes it ripe for abuse without significant reform.

Among the law’s most vocal critics have been two senators from opposite sides of the political spectrum: Ron Wyden and Rand Paul. At this Cato forum, they’ll explore how section 702 works and whether it needs stronger safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy. Should a warrant be required to search for citizens’ communications in the vast 702 database? Is it feasible to demand an estimate of how many Americans have been “incidentally” caught up in 702 surveillance—a number that the intelligence community has said it’s unable to provide? And does the foreign backlash against 702 surveillance threaten global Internet commerce? We’ll delve into these questions in a wide-ranging discussion.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
Congress Backs Down From Terrible Surveillance Bill; Running Out Of Time

Just this morning we wrote about a last minute plan by surveillance hawks in Congress to rush through a really bad bill to extend Section 702, which enables widespread domestic surveillance by the NSA. We recommended letting your elected officials know what a bad bill it was (leading at least one of our commenters to mock us, saying contacting your elected officials is useless). Turns out: it worked (for now). The bill has been taken off the table and won't be voted on today. Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden had promised to filibuster such a bill on the Senate side to stop it, and it appears that widespread criticism caused the House to kill the bill for now.


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/RonWyden/status/943544012224581632ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Finstant-articles%2F

Of course, Congress is now running out of time if it wants to extend the program. It technically expires at the end of the year (though large parts of the program can continue beyond that for at least some period of time). Devin Nunes, who was the main sponsor of the bill, appears frustrated, as he should for pushing so hard on such a bad bill:

But by midafternoon Wednesday, Nunes told reporters that the reauthorization effort was dead “for now” and that decisions about how to proceed were being made “above my pay grade.” The House Rules Committee also canceled plans to review the proposed legislation Wednesday afternoon.
It's still possible that Congress may try to shove a 702 extension into the "must-pass" spending bill next week -- though a whole bunch of folks in Congress have warned leadership that they will not accept this. Of course, we've gone through things kind of like this before. If you don't recall, the other controversial program, Section 215, expired before Congress was able to agree on a reform package, and that helped get Congress to finally agree to significant reform to the program after a few weeks of it technically no longer existing. A more likely solution would be a short term (30 or 60 day?) renewal, forcing the debate into January.

 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
House Approves FISA Reauthorization 256 164, Jan 11 2018 | Video | C-SPAN.org



Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawai‘i 02), a founding member of the Fourth Amendment Caucus, voted today, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2018, against legislation to reauthorize the warrantless collection of Americans’ calls, emails, texts and other communications.

Authorized in 2008, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), has allowed for the massive government exploitation of personal privacy through the collection and retention of American citizens’ communications that are swept up under a program designed to spy on foreign targets, S.139, which passed by a vote of 256-164 today, reauthorizes this program for six years, Rep. Gabbard’s press release said.

Prior to the vote, Rep. Gabbard spoke on the House floor urging Congress to adopt a bipartisan amendment to the bill that she helped introduce that would reform Section 702, allowing foreign intelligence collection to continue, while protecting Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties by requiring due process and warrants.

"unfortunately, opponents of this USA Rights amendment are pushing fear tactics & misinformation"

 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
Senate Votes to Shut Down Rand Paul Filibuster Against Surveillance Act Renewal
The Senate joined the House today in rejecting reforms to federal surveillance laws to make sure that the private communications of Americans are not snooped on by officials without warrants.

The Senate voted 60-38 this afternoon in favor of cloture to end debate and to prevent any amendments prior to a formal up-down vote on the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. (Small clarification: Debate will be limited to 30 hours prior to the vote. So Paul and Wyden and others will be able to speak at length, but they won't be able to stop the vote.)

This bill, should it pass, will renew and expand the snooping powers of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments for another six years. Though the law has the world "foreign" in its name, the reality is that it has been used to collect and access communications from Americans, often without warrants and without our knowledge.

------------------

So what did the Senate actually vote for in the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017? This bill doesn't just renew Section 702 for six years; it also codifies permission for the FBI to access and use data secretly collected from Americans for a host of domestic federal crimes that have nothing to do with protecting America from foreign threats. It has added some unusually worded warrant requirements that will protect some people—but only when they're actually suspected and are being investigated for criminal activities.

Furthermore the bill will give the NSA permission to attempt to restart what are known as "about" searches, access to communications that merely reference a foreign target, not just communications to and from that target. The NSA voluntarily ended these types of searches once it became clear they were gaining access communications that they had no authority to be viewing. This bill will allow them to attempt to restart it unless Congress acts separately to stop it.

View: https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/953392043300216832




 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
How many of the Nay votes were just cast as a smokescreen because they knew it would pass?
good point. though it looks like a principled list (for the most part), I'm never quite sure about Ted Cruz.

watching (above) people like Paul Ryan & Nancy Pelosi come together (with support from the WH) to oppose people like Amash & Gabbard, it's not left vs. right, never has been. it's the people vs. the establishment.

& the establishment is winning BIGLY this year.
 

HEATH VON DOOM

Remember the 5th of November
Oct 21, 2015
17,281
24,721
good point. though it looks like a principled list (for the most part), I'm never quite sure about Ted Cruz.

watching (above) people like Paul Ryan & Nancy Pelosi come together (with support from the WH) to oppose people like Amash & Gabbard, it's not left vs. right, never has been. it's the people vs. the establishment.

& the establishment is winning BIGLY this year.
Shumer voted against it and against the party leadership. No way does that happen without prior approval.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
Shumer voted against it and against the party leadership. No way does that happen without prior approval.
good catch. Schumer has been all over the board re: mass surveillance. an insincere vote would be a wise move to build political capital with (real) progressives.

what amazes me is how something like 702 (& the empowering of the CIA, fight over the AUMF, remilitarization of police, etc) go unnoticed while "the resistance" & MSM focus on "shitholes", "I or I'd", ice cream scoops, twitter typos, etc.

& that people still think Trump is "fighting the deep state" o_O
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
702 even stronger than before.

In addition to now only needing to have "mentioned" a POI to become a POI yourself, evidence can now be used under a general warrant issued in secrecy?



Judge Andrew Napolitano: Congress plotting to cut a hole in the Fourth Amendment, again
Hidden beneath the controversy stirred up last week by the publication of a book called “Fire and Fury,” a highly critical insider’s view of the Trump White House that the president has not only denounced on national television but also tried to prevent from being published and distributed, are the efforts of the Trump administration and congressional leadership to bypass the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Here is the back story.

After the excesses of the Watergate era, during which the Nixon administration used the FBI and the CIA unlawfully to spy without warrants on the president’s real and imagined domestic political opponents, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA prohibited all domestic surveillance except that which is pursuant to warrants signed by federal judges.

The Fourth Amendment -- which guarantees privacy in our persons, houses, papers and effects -- permits the government to invade that privacy only when a judge has signed a warrant that authorizes surveillance, a search or a seizure. And judges may only issue warrants when they have found probable cause to believe that the government surveillance or invasion of the target’s privacy will produce evidence of criminal behavior. The Fourth Amendment further requires that the judicial warrant describe specifically the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

All these requirements are in the amendment so as to prevent any court from issuing general warrants. Before the Constitution, general warrants were issued by British courts that met in secret in London. They were not issued based on probable cause of crime but issued based on the government’s wish to invade the privacy of all Americans living in the Colonies to find the more rebellious among them. This was the king and Parliament’s version of protecting national security.

General warrants did not describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. They authorized the bearer -- usually a British soldier physically located in the Colonies -- to search where he wished and seize whatever he found.

FISA did not interfere with the standard understanding or use of the Fourth Amendment by the government and the courts. But it did add another way for the government to invade privacy when its wish is to surveil people for national security purposes -- a return to general warrants -- as opposed to solely gathering evidence of crimes.

The FISA-created procedure, enacted in defiance of the Fourth Amendment -- which makes no distinction between government evidence gathering and government intelligence gathering -- permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.

Since 1977, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has issued well over 99 percent of the warrants that the government has requested. And these warrants do not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. A typical FISC-issued warrant authorizes government surveillance on all landlines, mobile devices and desktop computers in a given area or ZIP code. One infamous FISC-issued search warrant permitted the feds to surveil all Verizon customers in the U.S. -- in excess of 115 million people -- without any evidence of crime or even suspicion about any of them.

Now back to the Trump administration’s work below the radar. Even in the fresh aftermath of 9/11, when the government’s respect for constitutional norms was at a lamentably low point, the government interpreted the Fourth Amendment as requiring the government to separate its intelligence functions from its law enforcement work. The government recognized that its trigger for mass surveillance -- namely, looking for a foreign agent among the populace -- was a far lower standard than probable cause of crime, which is what the Fourth Amendment requires.

Today, the federal government’s computers are permanently connected to the mainframes of all telecoms and computer service providers in America, so the spying is in real time. Today, the federal government employs more than 60,000 domestic spies -- one spy for every 5,500 Americans. Today, if any of them come across evidence of crimes while listening to your telephone calls or reading your texts or emails ostensibly for intelligence purposes, there is little they can do about it.

Until now.

Now, hidden beneath the “Fire and Fury” controversy is the muffled sound of the Trump administration and Republican congressional leaders plotting the enactment of an addition to FISA that would permit the use of evidence of crimes in federal court even when it is discovered during mass surveillance authorized by general warrants.

If enacted, this radical, unconstitutional hole in the Fourth Amendment would bring the country full circle back to the government’s use of general warrants to harass and prosecute -- general warrants so odious to our forebears that they took up arms against the king’s soldiers to be rid of them.

I am surprised that President Donald Trump supports this. He has himself been the target of unlawful foreign surveillance and unconstitutional FISC-authorized domestic surveillance. “Fire and Fury” even quotes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair warning a newly elected Trump about this. And now he wants to unleash upon us all the voracious appetite for surveillance that was unleashed upon him and prosecute us for what is found, the Constitution be damned.

Whatever happened to the public promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as it is written? That’s in the oath all in government have taken. That is the oath that the president and his Republican allies reject.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
"The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance"

 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
When Will Trump Supporters in the Freedom Movement Realize They Were Duped?



What will it take for Trump supporters to admit they were duped like Obama supporters before them?
One of the most surprising (and disappointing) effects of the Trump presidency has been the shift of certain “independent” and ” alternative” media outlets from truth seekers to establishment supporters.

We have seen several once great outlets become part of the divide and conquer put forth by the powers-that-wish-they-were. It’s been one year of the Trump administration and I think it’s quite clear that any perceived benefits are vastly outweighed by the negative actions of the administration. Some indy and alt outlets saw that Trump was a deceiver from the get go, but others somehow fell prey to the deception. Some have since abandoned the Trump train, picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and rejoined the fight for liberty.

Now, of course, there are the diehards who will inevitably stick with Trump through his entire presidential career no matter what policy he takes, even when in contradiction with not only his own words, but with the principles previously espoused by these die hard followers. Just as with Obama (and Bush, Clinton, etc. before him) some of the supporters have such a level of cognitive dissonance that they are literally incapable of having a rational discussion without a flood of emotion and panic which shuts down all reason and critical thinking. It’s best to walk away when you recognize this stage.

However, if you are a Trump supporter and you’re still reading this, I’d like to offer four pieces of evidence showing where Trump has displayed authoritarian behavior. Let me preface this by stating that attempts at defending Trump by claiming “he is only carrying on what Obama did”, or, “it’s not his fault”, etc. will be dismissed outright. However, if you have something substantial – a legitimate reason you can put forth for supporting him – I will consider it. I won’t support him by any means (he needs some serious help), but perhaps I’ll have a more full understanding of my fellow human. So here you go…

The Border is Turning Into a Surveillance and Police State
Under the guise of “border security” and “fighting illegal immigration” the Trump administration has granted the Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement wide ranging powers which violate constitutionally guaranteed protections (and rights that all people should have). The expansion is not about catching illegal immigrants, but establishing a “biometric wall” with facial and retinal scanning for ALL people leaving and entering, armed surveillance towers, automatic license plate readers, and other forms of surveillance.

The Trump administration is already facing lawsuits over their use of secretive handheld devices which gather biometric data from immigrants. In addition, the authorities have already been stealing people’s phones and laptops. This is only going to increase under the rest of Trump’s presidency and it will expand further and further into the mainland United States. Activist Post has previously reported on efforts to monitor social media and establish a “threat assessment” for all visa applicants.

Trump Administration Supports the Deep State
For all the raving about Trump “draining the swamp” and removing the “Deep State” elements from the CIA, FBI, and federal government at large, the Trump administration is actually fighting to save these elements.

For one, Trump was never an anti-establishment candidate. That’s the same BS the media sells every four years. Second, Trump is fighting to save the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts and controversial section 702. According the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Section 702 of FISA “allows the NSA to collect emails, browser history and chat logs of Americans. Section 702 also allows other agencies, like the FBI, to search through that data without a warrant. Those searches are called ‘backdoor searches.’”

Check this article for full details, but suffice to say, the FISA Court is a glaring example of The Deep State. A secret court run by secret judges who interpret the law behind closed doors and who refuse to publicly release their findings or their interpretation. The court is only one of many tools at the hands of The Deep State and the Trump administration is doing its best to allow the program to continue.

Detaining an American Citizen Without Trial/Lawyer for Over 3 Months
For the last three months the Trump administration has been holding an American citizen who is “suspected” of fighting with ISIS in a secret prison in Iraq. Now, I know many Trump supporters will have no sympathy for this man, but that’s my point. He is an American citizen and he has only been accused of fighting with ISIS, not charged because there is a lack of evidence.

Despite the Trump admin’s best efforts, a federal judge recently ruled that the man must be given access to a lawyer. If we let them do this to this man it is only a matter of time before it spreads to other Americans in different situations that might be even less black and white. If we truly value liberty for all people, we must be consistent when standing up for rights of all people or you are a hypocrite.

Trump Administration is Continuing and Expanding Drone Kill List
This is an area where Trump is actually extending a secret program started by the Obama administration. Specifically, the secret kill list and rules which allow for the assassination of American citizens. It may sound like fantasy or “fake news”, but the Obama administration created a secret list of potential targets, including American citizens.

Recent reports allude to the fact that the Trump administration is loosening the already flimsy protections established by the Obama admin. These protections were reportedly put in place to minimize injury and deaths of civilians. Not to mention that Trump has increased the amount of airstrikes in his first year, leading to more civilian deaths than during the Obama administration. I am no fan of Obama, but Trump is definitely the new Drone King.

If you made it this far, please ask yourself what differentiates this man from the last warmonger? Surveillance, police state, war, loss of civil liberties, divisive rhetoric, friends with Goldman Sachs and other banksters, and a defender of the Deep State.

Is this the Trump you voted for? It’s time for the free hearts and critically thinking minds of the world to reject the “independent” and “alternative” media who continue to support the Trump administration. Remember, the enemy of my enemy (or in this case, the perceived enemy of my enemy) is not always a friend. We can defeat the new world order, the deep state, the elite, the ruling class, etc., but we will not do it by believing narratives pushed by the deadstream corporate media and the co-opted alt-media.

We must continue to seek truth and accountability while remaining consistent with our principles and values.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
It Wasn’t Just Republicans — Democrats Also Voted to Shut Down Debate on Trump Administration’s Surveillance Powers



A critical mass of Senate Democrats voted with Republicans on Tuesday to shut down any further debate on a bill that strengthens the government’s spying powers. The bill would renew a key surveillance authority for the National Security Agency until 2023 and consolidate the FBI’s power to search Americans’ digital communications without a warrant.

The motion, which passed 60-38, virtually guarantees that the final bill will pass likely later this week and quashes any opportunity to debate whether protections should be added. Eighteen Democrats — including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had previously proposed an amendment to restrict the FBI’s surveillance authority — voted in support of the motion. They were joined by 41 Republicans and one independent, Angus King, giving the pro-surveillance bloc the supermajority needed to push the bill forward. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Dan Sullivan, R-Ala., did not vote.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, lobbied for the bill’s passage on the Senate floor alongside his Republican counterpart from North Carolina, Richard Burr, and Republican leader Mitch McConnell. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stood outside the Senate chamber; he had come in person to convince any skeptics of the bill’s merits, Burr said.

Just after 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill cast the decisive vote in favor of the motion. Thirty Democrats opposed it, including minority leader Chuck Schumer, along with eight Republicans, led by libertarian Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee R-Utah.

Tuesday’s vote was a major blow to privacy activists, who saw the sunset of NSA authority as a strategic opportunity for Congress to rein in NSA surveillance and restrict how the government can use the information it collects. “The American people deserve to have an opportunity for some real amendments to make sure, at the end of the day, we have policies that keep our people safe and protect our liberties,” said Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden. “What we’re debating is whether the Senate will be the Senate.”

The bill, which passed in the House last week with backing from Democratic leadership, reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The decade-old law allows the NSA to sweep up communications between Americans and foreign “targets” without a warrant. The result is that the NSA collects massive amounts of Americans’ communications — including wholly domestic ones — under the pretext that it is “targeting” foreigners.

Documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the law serves as the basis for two of the NSA’s largest surveillance programs: PRISM, which collects communications from U.S.-based internet companies, and Upstream, which scans the data passing through internet junctions as it enters and exits the U.S.

Tuesday’s vote left privacy activists questioning why Democrats would willingly hand such massive powers to the Trump presidency. “The few Democrats who voted against allowing even the opportunity for amendments or open debate are giving President Trump dangerous and unchecked domestic surveillance powers,” said Daniel Schuman, policy director for the digital rights group Demand Progress. “They’ll now have to join the rest of Americans in looking over their shoulders at a government whose tremendous powers could be aimed at them.”

Warner was able to persuade enough of his colleagues to break with the Democratic leader by pointing out an obvious fact: that the intelligence community has used Section 702 authorities to track down terrorists abroad. He cited the case of Haji Iman, the Islamic State’s former finance minister, who was killed in 2016 in a U.S.-backed military operation in Syria.

“Between 702 and other intelligence that was developed, the [intelligence community] was able to track down the movements of Mr. Iman, [which] ultimately [resulted] in taking him off the battlefield,” Warner said on the floor before the vote.

But critics of the bill contended that Warner was making a deeply disingenuous argument. Senators who spoke against the motion pointed out that they weren’t trying to restrict targeting of terrorists overseas; they were trying to set limits on how the government could use the information “incidentally” collected on Americans.

For years, privacy activists have warned that a loophole in the law allows the FBI to conduct “backdoor searches” on Americans’ communications. That happens because the NSA shares certain types of 702 data with the FBI, which can search the data to access Americans’ communications, circumventing the normal process, which would require a warrant. The FBI’s use of these searches is so extensive that Justice Department lawyers have compared the process to searching Google.

Speaking against the motion Tuesday, Paul argued that the entire premise of backdoor searches is unconstitutional. “Should the government be allowed to search this database to prosecute you for not paying your taxes or for a minor marijuana violation? Absolutely not,” said Paul. “Why? Because this information is gathered without a warrant.”

Republican leadership in the House of Representatives put a minor restriction on backdoor searches in the bill to get a buy-in from Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. It would require the FBI to get a warrant before conducting searches related to an established criminal investigation.

But the bill carves out large exceptions to that rule, including for national security cases and whenever the FBI determines there is a “threat to life or serious bodily harm.” And it still allows the FBI to sift through the data before opening a criminal case. Restriction aside, critics have said the bill does more harm than good because it codifies a legally questionable practice into law.

Most importantly, privacy activists saw the Senate vote as a monumental defeat, which not only gives vast surveillance powers to Donald Trump, it helps consolidate them for future presidencies.

“A truly remarkable historical moment,” tweeted Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “If Dems had held firm, they could have blocked a bill to give the Trump administration unprecedented powers to spy on Americans. But they didn’t. So now, this president — and future ones — will almost certainly be handed that power.”

we still have the PCLOB though right? (9/18)

resident Donald J. Trump today announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key positions in his Administration:

Adam I. Klein of the District of Columbia to be a Member and Chairman of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Mr. Klein is the Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where his research centers on the intersection of national security policy and law. He previously served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has also worked on national security policy at the RAND Corporation, at the 9/11 Public Discourse Project (the nonprofit successor to the 9/11 Commission), and as a legislative assistant in the office of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Northwestern University.

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Personnel to Key Administration Posts


Adam Klein's Op-Ed in the WSJ, arguing to strike down Congress' resistance to section 702. once again, invoking 9/11 as an intelligence failure & arguing more surveillance/less restrictions is the only answer.

Connect the Dots to Stop Terror Plots
Congressional barriers to information sharing would heighten the risk of another 9/11.

Why didn’t intelligence agencies prevent 9/11? According to the 9/11 Commission, before the attacks, information from intelligence agencies “often failed to make its way to criminal investigators” at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

By the summer of 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency already knew that two future hijackers were associates of known terrorists, that both men held visas to enter the U.S., and that one had in fact flown to Los Angeles in March 2000. Unfortunately, the FBI learned of this in August 2001—at which point the men had already made their last, fateful entry into the U.S. With better information-sharing, the FBI might have arrested the terrorists and prevented the 9/11 attacks.

Some members of Congress now propose to erect new barriers against information-sharing within the intelligence community that could make it even more difficult for officials to spot future terrorists before they strike.

The proposal would affect Section 702, a 2008 law that allows the intelligence community to collect the communications of foreign intelligence targets when the communications travel across U.S. internet cables or are stored on U.S. servers. This has been an effective counterterrorism tool because foreign targets’ messages often touch the U.S. internet infrastructure.

Foreign targets are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, so the government has the authority to collect their messages under Section 702 without a warrant. But when foreign targets communicate with Americans, those messages are collected as well, raising privacy concerns.

Another key aspect of the privacy debate around Section 702 is what intelligence agencies should be allowed to do with that data. Courts have allowed agencies to search their 702 records for foreign intelligence purposes and, in the FBI’s case, for evidence of crime, which sometimes includes searches for information about Americans.

Privacy-minded House members from both parties are now reportedly considering amending Section 702 to bar government officials from searching 702 data for information about an American unless they get a warrant, based on probable cause, from a federal judge. Reformers have leverage this year because Congress must pass a 702 reauthorization bill before the law sunsets on Dec. 31.

But keeping officials from searching this data would make it more difficult to prevent homegrown terrorist attacks. In 2009 the National Security Agency used 702 to collect emails in which an unknown person in the U.S. asked an al Qaeda member in Pakistan for advice on making explosives. Those emails led the FBI to Najibullah Zazi, a Colorado man with imminent plans to bomb the New York subway system. Catching him saved dozens if not hundreds of lives. If an American appears to be radicalizing, the first thing the FBI should do is check the information already in its database to see whether that person has been in contact with known ISIS or al Qaeda operatives.

Privacy advocates argue that agencies could continue to run these searches as long as they obtain a warrant. The problem is that database checks are most useful at the early stages of an inquiry, when officials are seeking to determine whether a person of interest has connections to terrorists. At that point, investigators rarely have gathered enough evidence to demonstrate probable cause. For that reason, requiring a warrant will make these queries effectively impossible.

Courts have found that this practice comports with the Constitution. In November 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the FBI to get a warrant before conducting routine database checks, which include some 702 data. The scale of the potential privacy concern also appears small: In 2016 only one FBI search for information about an American in a non-national-security criminal investigation led the FBI to review messages collected under 702.

Congress is right to examine the privacy implications of Section 702; powerful tools require powerful constraints. But members concerned about 702 should focus on bolstering the program’s oversight and transparency—by strengthening judicial review and requiring more transparency about how prosecutors use 702 information—rather than creating barriers to information-sharing within the intelligence community.

The 9/11 Commission report taught that “connecting the dots” using the intelligence government agencies already possess is the key to disrupting terrorist plots. With the threat of terrorism still high, let us not forget this lesson now.
 

Daglord

Posting Machine
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,944
from our new CIA Director Mike Pompeo himself:

Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance


America is in a long war against a resilient enemy capable of striking the homeland, but U.S. intelligence capabilities are falling short of meeting the threat. The San Bernardino attackers were not flagged, despite their repeated visits to jihadist websites, alarming posts on social media, and suspicious financial transactions. The Boston Marathon bombers evaded timely detection, as did the would-be shooters in Garland, Texas, who had exchanged dozens of messages with a known terrorist overseas.

Paris and San Bernardino exemplify the two types of threats: overseas-trained terrorists, and online-radicalized lone wolves. Both exhibit distinctive behavioral and communications patterns that can be detected—but only if intelligence agencies have the right data and tools to analyze it.

Yet Washington is blunting its surveillance powers. Collection of phone metadata under the Patriot Act was banned by Congress and finally ceased at the end of November. Collection of the contents of specific targets’ communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been dumbed down, with onerous requirements to secure the authorizing court order. The intelligence community feels beleaguered and bereft of political support. What’s needed is a fundamental upgrade to America’s surveillance capabilities.

Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. That includes Presidential Policy Directive-28, which bestows privacy rights on foreigners and imposes burdensome requirements to justify data collection.

There has been much debate about whether providers of communications hardware and software in the U.S. should be obliged to give the government backdoor access. Such a mandate would do little good, since terrorists would simply switch to foreign or home-built encryption. New technologies can cloak messages in background noise, rendering them difficult to detect.

Forcing terrorists into encrypted channels, however, impedes their operational effectiveness by constraining the amount of data they can send and complicating transmission protocols, a phenomenon known in military parlance as virtual attrition. Moreover, the use of strong encryption in personal communications may itself be a red flag.

Still, the U.S. must recognize that encryption is bringing the golden age of technology-driven surveillance to a close, which necessitates robust human intelligence. Pursuing every lead on terrorist activity would require a substantial increase in FBI funding and personnel—perhaps double or triple the number of field agents capable of tracking suspects. The Paris attacks, whose perpetrators exchanged numerous unencrypted text messages, were a grim reminder that capable but overstretched security services cannot thwart every terrorist plot.

Congress and the administration should also reassure the intelligence community by reiterating their full support for current surveillance programs. Revitalizing cooperation with foreign intelligence partners, which greatly decreased in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures, is essential. This would require serious dialogue between world leaders and assurances that security has been tightened to prevent similar leaks.

Enhanced congressional oversight—a true partnership between the executive and Congress—is needed. Each month the intelligence community should provide classified briefings to the House and Senate intelligence committees on how surveillance programs are working, what actionable information has been developed, and whether mistakes or abuses have occurred. These briefings should be recorded, and lawmakers should sign an acknowledgment of their attendance. This would bolster accountability and ensure that nobody suffers a memory lapse, such as Nancy Pelosi’s failure to remember that she was extensively briefed on the CIA’s enhanced-interrogation program.

None of this can happen without a rigorous national debate about surveillance, launched by congressional hearings. A review of the post-9/11 surveillance successes and failures needs to be a prominent part of this discourse. Most disagreements on surveillance are about policy, not law: Reasonable warrantless searches are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. So are searches of data shared with third parties, such as social-media posts—a highly valuable surveillance window, since people undergoing radicalization are prone to showcase their zealotry online.

In the wake of 9/11, surveillance reforms were adopted virtually overnight, with little discussion; they did not last. Hence the importance of building enduring public support. Surveillance should feature prominently in the 2016 presidential campaign, giving the next commander in chief a mandate and sense of obligation to implement reforms. Opposition to surveillance has been bipartisan, and the strategy for overcoming it must be bipartisan too.

Assertive efforts to defeat Islamic State will diminish, but not eliminate, the threat. Quick response by law enforcement is vital to limiting casualties and neutralizing attackers but cannot entirely prevent terrorism. Even the best 21st-century surveillance system won’t have a 100% success rate. But robust surveillance, drawing on a variety of technical and human intelligence and backed up by rigorous investigation of all leads, is the best way to mitigate the threat.

Washington is blunting its surveillance powers...
Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed...
The intelligence community feels beleaguered and bereft of political support...
Congress & the administration should reassure the intelligence community by reiterating their full support for current surveillance programs...



& our new Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert:

Opinion | Congress Must Reauthorize Foreign Surveillance

WASHINGTON — Congress will hear testimony on Wednesday on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, part of which is set to expire at the end of the year. It will be debating the fate of an authority — the FISA Amendments Act — that has helped thwart terrorist attacks around the world.

The most important section under consideration, Section 702, allows a federal court to approve and supervise, under specific conditions, the collection of information on foreign persons, in foreign countries, who happen to use American communications services and internet technology. The authority has existed and Congress has reauthorized it under two administrations.

Congress created Section 702 authority to address an intelligence-collection gap that resulted from the evolution of technology in the years after FISA became law in 1978. This gap allowed foreign terrorists to benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by American citizens. On Tuesday, Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, proposed a bill to permanently reauthorize Section 702 without modification. The Trump administration supports his bill, without condition.

While there are many examples of the value of this tool, they are likely to remain classified for years to preserve our national security. But in one instance that is public, intelligence collected under Section 702 helped prevent Al Qaeda’s Najibullah Zazi from conducting a suicide bombing on the New York City subway. Simply put, the use of this authority has helped save lives.

Yet there are two serious misconceptions about what Section 702 permits the government to do that threaten the reauthorization.
Continue reading the main story

First, it does not permit the targeting of Americans. The authority expressly forbids intentional targeting of a United States person for surveillance. Electronic surveillance of Americans, or even foreigners inside the United States, requires an individual court order supported by probable cause.

Second, it does not permit backdoor targeting of Americans, whose communications with foreign persons can be incidentally captured in the process. National security officials may use search terms or identifiers associated with Americans, such as an email address, to query the information lawfully acquired using Section 702 authority.

But this does not entail the collection or search of any new information, and the practice has been upheld by the FISA court and all other federal courts that have considered this issue. It is also consistent with the long history of our legal system. Imposing a warrant requirement to conduct such data queries, as some in Congress have proposed, would be legally unnecessary and a step toward re-erecting pre-9/11 barriers to our ability to identify foreign terrorists and their contacts.

Over nearly a decade of rigorous oversight, no intentional abuse of the Section 702 authority has ever been identified, and the government has quickly taken action to rectify unintentional mistakes. The Section 702 authority has enabled actionable warnings of violent attacks and the collection of information about weapons proliferators and cyberhackers. And it has revealed other threats to our nation’s security.

Nevertheless, any surveillance authority is powerful and must be exercised with prudence and care. Congress engineered Section 702 with substantial constraints, and it is implemented with rigorous oversight by all three branches of our government. The government’s internal training, oversight, technology and inspector-general regime, along with oversight by the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board — which deserves special praise — and Congress, all ensure that the government uses these important authorities properly.

Safeguarding our nation consists of not only protecting us from threats abroad, but also ensuring we have the appropriate balance of security and privacy in the tools the government uses. There are indeed legitimate privacy concerns with any surveillance, but the significant statutory and oversight protocols address those concerns.

Under President Barack Obama, the National Security Agency used the authority more broadly to acquire internet communications about foreign intelligence targets. Under President Trump’s leadership, we have refined the application of this authority to target only those internet communications sent directly to or from a lawful foreign intelligence target. This smart choice will reduce incidental collection on Americans without sacrificing our security. We proposed, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved, the new procedures, which achieve this goal and protect Americans’ privacy.

Cabinet officials and security professionals from different agencies will testify on this matter on Wednesday. President Trump stands with them 100 percent on the need for permanent reauthorization of Section 702. Officials from the past two administrations also agree that we cannot have a blind spot in our defenses simply because a foreign terrorist on foreign land chooses an American email provider.

We cannot allow adversaries abroad to cloak themselves in the legal protections we extend to Americans. And Section 702 is one of the most effective tools for identifying and preventing threats. Congress should do its part to make America safe again and leave the politics of distraction for another day.

 

Enock-O-Lypse Now!

Underneath Denver International Airport
Jun 19, 2016
11,850
19,751
Been saying it for years, Dems and Repubs are just there to divide and conquer the people ...behind the scenes they play for the same team and that team is not the U.S.A.

Daglord @Daglord making a run for most valuable poster on the TMMAC.

Daglord - the content king!