Author Of The Patriot Act Says NSA Surveillance Is An Abuse And Must End
from the about-time dept
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who was the chair of the House Judiciary Committee when it put forth the Patriot Act, and someone who's not known for being afraid to support expanded surveillance, has now come out strongly against the NSA's surveillance efforts, saying that they must end. He claims that he pushed back against the suggestions of the federal government when the Patriot Act was first proposed, to make sure that it wouldn't take away our liberty. But he's concerned about what's become of the law that he brought forth. He insists that the law was never intended to approve the kind of spying and data collection done by the NSA, and the President's belief that these efforts were authorized by Congress is false:In his press conference on Friday, President Obama described the massive collection of phone and digital records as "two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress". But Congress has never specifically authorized these programs, and the Patriot Act was never intended to allow the daily spying the Obama administration is conducting.Of course, what's really, really frustrating about this is that most of the members of Congress only have themselves to blame for not knowing what's going on. Many did know, and Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall repeatedly asked the other members of Congress to ask these questions and to learn more about how the NSA was using a "secret" interpretation to do much more surveillance than the public and many in Congress believed the law allowed. The fact that all of those Representatives and Senators ignored them until now is incredibly frustrating.
To obtain a business records order like the one the administration obtained, the Patriot Act requires the government to prove to a special federal court, known as a Fisa court, that it is complying with specific guidelines set by the attorney general and that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation. Intentionally targeting US citizens is prohibited.
Technically, the administration's actions were lawful insofar as they were done pursuant to an order from the Fisa court. But based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the Fisa court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended.
It's great that Sensenbrenner is speaking out strongly now. I just wish he'd done it years ago when the issue was first raised.
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: fisa amendments act, jim sensenbrenner, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I see part of the problem
So they have to prove that they are complying with rules that they get to make up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The terrorists have finally won.
God Save America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The terrorists have finally won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The terrorists have finally won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The terrorists have finally won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Barn door
"Oh, my! I have done wrong! I didn't mean it like that! Whatever am I to do?"
Should have thought about the consequences a little bit earlier than this, Jim.
Pandora's Box never closes once it's opened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Barn door
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only himself to blame
As for his version of what was intended, there was no lack of warnings from all of the public advocacy groups (EFF, ACLU, EPIC, CCR, et. al.), that the language rushed through in the Patriot Act could easily be interpreted as it has. They chose to ignore and fight vehemently to get this Act through at all costs with their most earnest convictions. To all of the Congress people who helped pass the Patriot Act, we should simply turn and give them the big middle finger knowing that regardless of their "intentions", they've messed with this country in more ways than imaginable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only himself to blame
�Unveiling the Guardian's new US homepage�, by Janine Gibson, The Guardian, Sept 14, 2011
�Spencer Ackerman joins the Guardian as National Security Editor�, The Guardian (Press Release), May 8, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only himself to blame
Most likely because US papers, especially the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. wouldn't print it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And did he mean must end or must end "now"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone who actually used his common sense among the nutshell in that place....
there's still hope for the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words
"We authorized this, but deliberately kept ourselves ignorant of the details, so that if it became public, we can act outraged and keep our cushy positions of power."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorism simply wins by making us turn on ourselves and do the dirty work for them. But, ya know, them on the hill are too smart for that to ever happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franklin...
Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolute Power Corrupts
Based on anecdotal evidence, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that the NSA (like IRS) snooping activities could be used for nefarious purposes. (Also don't forget the new facility being built in Utah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center)
Also how effective has this snooping been? It evidently did not expose the Boston Marathon bombers, the Sandy Hook School mass killer, and it would not likely to be effective against spontaneous acts of terrorism. So is all this supposed snooping actually cost-effective?
So do we allow a police state in the name of supposed security that has the potential to be used for nefarious purposes (despite the denials)?????????? I say not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. It is the Murphy's Law of Legislation: Anything that can be abused will be abused.
Corollary: Everything can be abused.
With that in mind, the responsible legislator will craft his or her laws to minimize the damage caused by abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if we Verizon (and VZW) customers are due a refund? Maybe a class action is in order, but then we'd see a small sum and the lawyers would cash in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can they ever let go of this data now that they have it?
In fact, do you think that anyone in government could bring themselves to ever scale back this spying. Some might want to prevent its expansion, but I doubt anyone wants to or would be able to ever scale it back.
Like the federal budget, like politicians' ethics, like an object near a black hole, the size of this spying operation can move in only one direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foreign Sovereignty
The Washington Post had this headline today: "Merkel, other European leaders raise concerns on U.S. surveillance"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/merkel-other-european-leaders-raise-concerns-on-u s-surveillance/2013/06/10/305eddda-d1da-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z1
So the issue is not simply purported "rogue" individuals like Snowden or Manning, but how the US treats the rest of the world. For example, the US loudly proclaims that China is committing cyber-security attacks against the US, but the US, as the NSA leaks point-out, is itself committing cyber-security improprieties. The US has lost its moral high ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop calling me black, asshole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And guess what happens 5, 10, 15 years later, after these kinds of "anti-terrorism" policies are put into place?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130607/18020323369/sen-lindsey-graham-verizon-customer- im-glad-nsa-is-harvesting-my-data-because-terrorists.shtml#comments
Instead of telling us we have nothing to fear, why don't these government agencies define what they mean by "terrorist"? If they're so willing to break so many civil liberties, at least tell us who you're looking for. Or do they really want to cast a net and sweep up everything they find?
Like some other posters said, what happens when the government catches something else in their sweep? They might currently be looking for terrorist activity, but what happens if their sweep catches you buying pot? And what if you're actually buying pot where it's legal (but not legal at the federal level), but the NSA agent has a quota to fill so he flags your number as suspicious?
And what will happen to this Senator when a lowly NSA agent mistakenly (or not) links his phone to a "terrorist"? Will the Senator be detained or will he start screaming about how this was a bad law in the first place because it now affects him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Author of the Patriot act says unlawful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]