Slashdot Mirror


Congress Is About To Vote On Expanding the Warrantless Surveillance of Americans (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On Tuesday afternoon, a handful of U.S. Representatives will convene to review an amendment that would reauthorize warrantless foreign surveillance and expand the law so that it could include American citizens. It would, in effect, legalize a surveillance practice abandoned by the NSA in 2017 in order to appease the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which found the NSA to have abused its collection capacity several times. If it passes Tuesday's review, the bill may be voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives as early as Thursday. Drafted by the House Intelligence Committee last December, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 is an amendment to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is one of six different FISA-related bills under consideration by Congress at the moment, but by far the most damaging to the privacy rights of American citizens.

FISA was enacted in 1978, but Section 702, referred to by former FBI Director James Comey as the "crown jewels of the intelligence community," wasn't added until 2008. This section allows intelligence agencies to surveil any foreigner outside the U.S. without a warrant that the agency considers a target. The problem is that this often resulted in the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens as well due to two loopholes known as "backdoor searches" and "about collection." Backdoor search refers to a roundabout way of monitoring Americans' communications. Since intelligence agencies are able to designate any foreigner's communications as a target for surveillance, if this foreigner has communicated with an American this means this American's communications are then also considered fair game for surveillance by the agency.

4 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Making America Great Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government absolutely needs to the legal ability to keep the 99% under constant surveillance in order to ensure that they don't rise up against the 1%, after all.

  2. ToiletPaper by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    Stupid little thing called the 4th Amendment... Any conflicts?

  3. Re:Power to abuse, not to do their jobs by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Why exempt the Vatican?
    2. Careful, I could easily construct a way to get rid of political rivals that way.
    3. No complaints here, as long as we find ways to ensure that this isn't abused to get rid of "inconvenient" people.
    4. Does that include the Westboro Baptist Church?
    5. See 3. Also, where do you want to put such a person, most likely there is no original state to shove him into.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Re: Clearly what "they" want by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IF the US Constitution applies to the whole world, who is responsible for enforcement of say "the bill of rights" in China or North Korea?

    The United States and its people, are who is responsible for enforcing the limits of the US government's power in China, North Korea, North America, and on the planet Mars. If the US Congress tries to pass a law that abridges the freedom of the press on the moon, or a law that infringes the right to bear arms on Alpha Centauri colony 3, we are responsible for striking down or otherwise nullifying that law.

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect people's freedom. But the mechanics of the Bill of Rights is to deny power to an entity considered particularly at risk of violating peoples' freedom. To enforce the Bill of Rights is to enforce the limits of US government power. You can do that to the US government, no matter where the victim happens to be. It's just a question of whether or not we want to, is a good idea, is practical, etc.

    That last part is what it's really about: you can enforce the law which limits the US government's power to infringe peoples' rights in China, but doing so doesn't have a really practical effect on how freely Chinese citizens can exercise their rights. So of course, we all have reason to be lax about enforcing the law, despite our responsibility as US citizens.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump