Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On
from the would-be-useful-to-know... dept
We've been covering the fight that Senators Ron Wyden and Marc Udall have been in with the administration (and other members of Congress) concerning the FISA Amendments Act, in which the two Senators seem to be suggesting that a loophole in the law has allowed the feds to collect massive amounts of data on Americans without getting warrants. While they are unable to make the details clear, it sure sounds like the feds may be twisting the language of the Act, which was supposed to clear away some obstacles to collecting data on foreigners, such that they're collecting massive amounts of data on Americans. When Wyden & Udall asked officials just how many Americans had their data collected via this program, they were told it was impossible to answer that question. That alone should raise serious alarm bells.Wyden and Udall have now put a hold on the new FISA Amendment Acts extension effort, saying that they don't want to hold back the important parts of the law, but are very worried about how it's being abused to spy on tons of Americans, despite that being against the clear intent. It does seem like a fair question to ask: just how many Americans have had their data surveilled under the law?
We are particularly concerned about a loophole in the law that could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans' communications. Since we do not know how many Americans have had their phone calls and emails collected under this law, we believe that it is particularly important to have strong rules in place to protect the privacy of these Americans. We are disappointed that this bill does not attempt to add these protections.It really is incredible just how much it seems that the federal government is doing everything it can to avoid the basic checks and balances that are supposed to keep excessive behavior in check. Considering the bill is supposed to protect, not expose, Americans, it's scary that the government refuses to even estimate how many Americans are spied upon in this manner. Given the continued efforts and statements of Wyden and Udall, it seems evident that they're aware that the feds are treating this law in a very different manner than the public believes -- but they're held back from saying anything specific, due to much of the info being classified.
The central provision in the FISA Amendments Act added a new section 702 to the original FISA statute. Section 702 was designed to give the government new authorities to collect the communications of people who are reasonably believed to be foreigners outside the United States. Because section 702 does not involve obtaining individual warrants, it contains language specifically intended to limit the government's ability to use these new authorities to deliberately spy on American citizens.
We have concluded, however, that section 702 currently contains a loophole that could be used to circumvent traditional warrant protections and search for the communications of a potentially large number of American citizens. We have sought repeatedly to gain an understanding of how many Americans have had their phone calls or emails collected and reviewed under this statute, but we have not been able to obtain even a rough estimate of this number.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence told the two of us in July 2011 that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed'' under the FISA Amendments Act. We are prepared to accept that it might be difficult to come up with an exact count of this number, but it is hard for us to believe that it is impossible to even estimate it.
Even worse, however, is the attitude of Senate colleagues, who seem ready to push this extension through no matter what, so they can declare that they're helping to keep the country secure, without even bothering to understand the massive loopholes and likely abuse by the feds under the law. From what's been said, it appears that many in the Senate seem to take it at face value that the bill is only used for collecting info on foreigners, and thus they're voting from a position of ignorance. At the very least, they should be willing to speak out and demand the same data that Wyden and Udall are asking for: an estimate as to how many Americans have had data exposed under this bill. If it really is supposed to only focus on foreigners, but millions of Americans have had their info accessed, that seems like a problem that should be addressed, rather than one that should be swept under the rug, as most in the Senate seem interested in doing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: data surveillance, fisa amendments act, marc udall, ron wyden, spying
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If it really is supposed to only focus on foreigners, but millions of Americans have had their info accessed, that seems like a problem that should be addressed, rather than one that should be swept under the rug, as most in the Senate seem interested in doing.
You keep using the word "seems" as if there was any question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
+1 Insightful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Keep looking, I'll wait.
On the other hand, our declaration of independence said something like "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"
Note that it did not say "all citizens are created equal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because last time I checked, the Declaration of Independence didn't discuss citizens rights regarding rights to a speedy trial, the right to bear arms, or a host of other CONSTITUTIONAL rights we've been afforded and which now are trampled on regularly. And of course, it's not the Declaration of Independence that protects us as US citizens and thus separates our "rights" from those of foreign citizens.
If I'm mistaken, because somehow my brain was swapped with a 5 year olds, please. Enlighten me.
And then try to tell me how the Declaration was the document that affords you and I to rant at each other. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't people get upset at other countries for spying on its own citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He really needs to declare himself as a lobbyists, and perhaps open his PAC properly. The shadow stuff is pretty weird, if you ask me - and certainly enough to merit a little attention from the 3 letter agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A more contemporary expression might be, "DO NOT associate your day job with your Facebook Party-All-Night page."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when is consulting shady and evil?
And there's nothing wrong with lobbying - it's the cash rewards and job offers that go along with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because you know. That's our government at work. Making shit up about things they're scared of. :-)
But since just my suggesting such a concept could actually give them an idea, I won't say it here. So pretend this comment doesn't exist. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep using that word. I do not think it it means what you think it means.
Laws exist to protect and serve the citizenry.
A law may help the government out, but it should do so only in a way that enables them to protect and serve the public better.
Sadly they seem to have completely forgotten this, and instead look at it the other way around, where a law is first and foremost supposed to help the government, and if it helps the citizens as well that's just an added bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You keep using that word. I do not think it it means what you think it means.
Oh, and if you the Government is monitoring my online activities then you already know how much I hate you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show your appreciation to Marc Udall here.
Positive reinforcement works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.markudall.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are most of them Politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few good men
Now if only we had more options and not a 2 party broken system, we could have representatives like this from all over the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.markudall.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, is your PAC going to specifically support this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet when a politician is actively working to destroy what America was supposed to stand for, then you come in defending their every move like it was some sort of godsend.
Very telling indeed. Pretty easy to see why you only ever post as an AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, playing the populist opposition character is an easy one. You rail against anything that makes the people actually be responsible, you support everything that gives them what they want for free, and you stand back and soak up all the support.
Wyden is just at this point playing the populist Avatar. It's perhaps his best chance at get re-elected, which is what every congress critter aims to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And what does Wyden being against the spying of U.S. citizens by its own government, which is illegal, have to do with people actually being responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least some people in office are actually consistent regardless of who's doing the spying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PERFORM ANY INFORMATION OR DATA GATHERING ON ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITHOUT A COURT APPROVED WARRANT FOR SUCH ACTIONS. NO STATEMENT OR WORDING IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE USED OR INTERPRETED TO BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.foreigneronline.com/tourdates.html
LOOK! LaCrosse WI on June 16!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. That's what I thought.
Writing clear, obvious and blatantly direct legislation is "foreign" to them. And that means it's illegal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*Or it's a slow day at the office and we've got nothing better to do.
You missed the second addendum to that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erm maybe not they would just tag another word on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]