Senators Introduce Bill To End Secret Law That Enabled NSA Surveillance

from the good-for-them dept

Tue, Jun 11th 2013 1:28pm — Mike Masnick

A bipartisan group of eight Senators have now introduced a bill to end the secret interpretation of the law which enabled the NSA, via the rubber-stamping FISA Court, to claim that the FISA Amendments Act enabled them to sweep up basically all phone call data on everyone.

The measure, coming amid daily revelations about the extent to which the National Security Agency is monitoring communications by Americans, would require the Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions. The senators say the move would allow Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming to spy on Americans under the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“Americans deserve to know how much information about their private communications the government believes it’s allowed to take under the law,” explains Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who has been an outspoken advocate for congressional oversight of surveillance programs. “There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies. We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’s communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”

The bill will be put forth by Merkley, but co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Dean Heller, Mark Begich, Al Franken, Jon Tester and Ron Wyden. Leahy, being the chair of the Judiciary Committee, is important, suggesting that this bill isn't automatically dead in the water. During the FISA Amendments Act fight at the end of 2012, Leahy was one of only a few Senators (along with Merkley and Wyden) who pushed back on just doing a straight reauthorization. In fact, it sounds like this bill will be similar to the one that Merkley pushed as an amendment to the renewal of the FISA Amendments Act last year, which got shot down -- but did score 37 votes in the Senate. Perhaps with Leahy's support, and all the news going on, it can get a few more votes.

And, in case you're wondering, yes, Congress can order the executive branch to declassify anything it wants, though obviously it needs to pass the law (and get past any potential veto). Declassifying how the FISC has interpreted the law should not be controversial. As we've been pointing out for years, under no circumstances would it make sense to claim that the official interpretation of what's legal and illegal should be classified. Yes, certain techniques or methods might need to remain classified, but the law must be public. Hopefully, others in Congress will finally recognize that basic fact.

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: al franken, dean heller, fisa amendments act, fisc, jeff merkley, john tester, mark begich, nsa, patrick leahy, ron wyden, secret law, senate, surveillance

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Please Sign This Letter To Congress!!, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:31pm

https://optin.stopwatching.us/

Stop Watching Us.

The revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance apparatus, if true, represent a stunning abuse of our basic rights. We demand the U.S. Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA's spying programs.

Read the full letter to US Congress
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:45pm

Mike is really masnicking this NSA bit.
Probably trying to make up for losses during the Deadly Dull Prenda Era. -- By re-writing what everyone else has already covered, and adding some "hopefully" mush in the last paragraph. -- And yet for some reason, the fanboys see him as a visionary. What dullards they must be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:47pm

More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!

Publish more than any other human on earth! Yeah! Techdirt!

Just don't ask the wizard behind the curtain any questions. He doesn't do questions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:49pm

But if we tell everyone what the laws are we can't lock up whoever we want!
But if we tell everyone what all the laws are we can't just arbitrary throw whoever we want in jail, simply because we don't like them (like Kim DotCom)!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:51pm

We need public hearings, and we need them NOW
Forty years ago, Congress spent a long, hot summer with the Watergate hearings -- because it needed to. It was faced with a government gone out-of-control, and the only way to assess the damage and fix the problem was to turn over every rock and see what crawled out from under it.

We need them again. And just like Watergate, they need to be PUBLIC -- no whining about things are "classified": this is the people's business, and it must be done in the full view of the people. Congress should subpoena everyone involved in this. If they decline? Send armed federal marshalls and drag them to the witness table in chains. If they refuse to testify? Lock them in a cell until they talk or die of old age. But however it's done, we, the citizens, need and deserve answers. ALL OF THEM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:54pm

Re:
Just don't ask the wizard behind the curtain any questions. He doesn't do questions.

You're talking about the NSA, right? They're the ones behind the curtain?

So, the NSA programs are legal but knowing about the NSA programs, that's illegal? Have I got that right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:58pm

Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c1210

GTFO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 1:58pm

Re: We need public hearings, and we need them NOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_committee

The Church Committee learned that beginning in the 1950s, the CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation intercepted, opened and photographed more than 215,000 pieces of mail by the time the program called "HTLINGUAL" was shut down in 1973. This program was all done under the "mail covers" program. A mail cover is when the government records without a warrant or notification all information on the outside of an envelope or package, including the name of the sender and the recipient. The Church report found that the CIA was zealous about keeping the United States Postal Service from learning that mail was being opened by government agents. CIA agents moved mail to a private room to open the mail or in some cases opened envelopes at night after stuffing them in briefcases or coat pockets to deceive postal officials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alfredo G, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:02pm

Somehow, I've got the feeling that the excuse "we shouldn't rush this" is going to be used in the next few days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re:
Bawk Bawk Cluck Cluck!!!

Excuses Excuses Excuses!!!

All kinds of "reasons" why he can't/won't discuss his beliefs.

But NEVER just an honest post discussing things honestly.

Hmm....

Wonder why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:05pm

Bill Number?
What's the bill number?

When I call my senator, I want to be able to refer to a bill number.

What's the bill number?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re:
Nope. Talking about Chicken Mike. King of the Avoiders. Most opinionated man on earth, yet completely unwilling to discuss his opinions. Hmm....... Wonder why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM Hilton, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:08pm

Let's hold our breath real hard
It is a very hopeful sign,indeed that Leahy (the chair of the committee is a co-sponsor. His word alone will make others stop and think about the issue.

He also has the power of issuing subpoenas, which might be a very nice power to have right now...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:09pm

Not enough teeth.
This law still gives the feds an out. It says that if they don't feel comfortable sharing the court rulings, they should release a summary. If they don't feel comfortable sharing the summary, the Attorney General is only required to "provide a report to Congress describing the process to be implemented to declassify FISA Court opinions including an estimate of the number of opinions that will be declassified and the number that are expected to be withheld because of national security concerns".

http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5D5997D9-4BA1-46C3-BA86-D208EC82A31E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
You wonder why? Looks to me like you know exactly why - because you behave like a pathetic twat ad nauseam. You are, as it were, an undesirable element and your actions do nothing but reinforce that reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Mike can't be honest about his beliefs no matter who is asking because of me. Makes perfect sense. No way that's just an excuse.

Cluck cluck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:17pm

Re: Bill Number?
Latest Daily Digest I'm seeing is for yesterday, Monday, June 10, 2013. Looking under Senate Chamber Action, Routine Proceedings, Measures Introduced, the digest shows six bills, S. 1122-1127.

So the Merkley bill will be S. numbered right after yesterday's bills?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
Most opinionated man on earth, yet completely unwilling to discuss his opinions.

AJ's head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you a content controller? I hope that you are and that pirate people copy your shit until your ass bleeds.

What?... Are you not entertained!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you be honest about yourself and how your posts appear to be a little desperate? It seems your getting worse? Are you okay, how are things at home?

Are you getting enough sun?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:24pm

Re: Not enough teeth.
Don't worry. Whatever teeth there are will be removed before it has a hope of passing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bawk bawk bawk. Can't discuss even the simplest thing on the merits. Cluck cluck cluck. Total coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
meow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shut up, you pathetic excuse for a person. I've gotten so sick and tired of your constant use of the same old ranting OVER AND OVER AGAIN. GO AWAY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Youtube: Bawk Bawk chicken

Seriously, don't do another video again kid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 11 Jun 2013 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Not enough teeth.
And then Obama will veto it anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ahow628 (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 3:29pm

Or maybe...
Can we just dump the NSA altogether? Seems to be like a startup that slurps up all the venture capital with no return to show for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 3:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are coming unhinged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apauld (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trying to figure out your psychosis, how often does your mother change your diaper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 8:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think she changes them; he naturally gets rid of them by eating them. Problem is that he ends up with a lot of shit on his mouth and that's all he can communicate in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:08am

Re: Or maybe...
They have a nice looking server farm that could be put to good use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 2:26am

Re: Or maybe...
there IS a good reason for the NSA itself- espionage is a legitimate need of the government. The problem is the NSA has overreached what it needs to do to do it's job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 3:03am

Re: Not enough teeth.
the reason for allowing the withholding of the entire ruling is because the point of the law is to allow people to know how the law is being interpreted: that doesn't necessarily require the disclosure of the full ruling. (just X is suspected of Y due to Z. For example, the Miranda rights- the exact details of the case are irrelevant, just that a cop needs to read the rights before custodial interrogation, and what constitutes custodial interrogation. To give a more topical example, at what point can the feds start surveillance on someone suspected of being a terrorist? What level of proof is required? ( to me, it depends on what they are trying to do- find out who a proven terrorist has contacted- OK. find out who john doe had contacted- no.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 3:15am

Re: Not enough teeth.
because full disclosure of the ruling isn't actually necessary- the summary can be something like "surveillance method Z of suspect X is authorized due to Y" with Y being an outline of what proof they have the person is a terrorist (allegation by a stranger, allegation by family, proof they attended terrorist training camp... in short, don't go into details, but give the big picture. And no, the examples I gave aren't necessarily sufficient proof) and suspect X being identified. surveillance method Z doesn't have to be explained in detail, just roughly what it means (e-mails monitored? monitoring what sites they visit?)

in short, information that can identify the source of intelligence is irreleant, as are exact details of the surveillance method. ( you don't, for example, need to know exactly how e-mails are monitored- the scandal about Prism was about the extent of surveillance, not the method)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:04am

S. 1130
Congressional Record
113th Congress (2013-2014)

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - June 11, 2013)

[Page: S4212]

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:�.�.�.�.

By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. HELLER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. PAUL):

S. 1130. A bill to require the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that includes significant legal interpretation of section 501 or 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 unless such disclosure is not in the national security interest of the United; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:16am

Re: S. 1130
Thomas link for Congressional Record page S4212 (113th Congress, 1st Session).

Note from the help on "Direct Links To THOMAS Documents"

Note: Because of the way the data is configured by the Government Printing Office, only a link to the "document" level (text between Bodoni dashes), not the exact page, is possible. Only after the document is displayed can the page numbers within that document be built in a table of contents for that document.

So it looks like that hyperlink is the closest I can generate, and you're going to have to click through on your own to:

3 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - June 11, 2013)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:33am

i would have thought the most important thing the Senators/Congress people should do is make sure they read, inwardly digest and discuss what every law or/and amendment is about and it's possible consequences for doing/not doing what is contained in the document. one of the first things they need to stop doing is catering just for law enforcement (because we see exactly how far they go, even when forbidden to do so) and also stop catering just for big business. just because a business corporation or industry wants something, doesn't mean it is in the best interest of everyone, most importantly, the people. surely, as Senators/Congress people are there to represent the people, isn't it in everyone's best interest that they do so? to just keep doing 'straight re-authorization' is ridiculous. the affects the bill has had so far needs to be looked at as well as the possible effects of renewing it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 5:25am

There are no secret laws
By definition. A "secret" law is no law at all, which means anything done using it as justification is a criminal act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 9:21am

From a report in The Guardian:

"Obama echoed intelligence experts � both inside and outside the government � who predicted that potential attackers will find other, secretive ways to communicate now that they know that their phone and Internet records may be targeted."

As if they didn't already know.

"It was not immediately clear how intelligence analysts weed out Americans' online documents from those sent by a citizen of another country."

Of course they can't. Except by looking at what they collect.

"For example, extremists could start using online providers that do not have servers based in the U.S. and therefore do not have to comply with American court orders."

This applies to every customer who might want privacy, not just extremists.

"Obama said he would be happy to join a new debate in Congress over whether the surveillance programs are appropriate, noting that lawmakers continually authorize the measures that some now are criticizing."

How can there be a meaningful debate over activities that are secret?

How can the government maintain a secret interpretation of a public law?

How can lawmakers effectively criticize a program they are not allowed to describe?

Was there a senator who dissented against the Iraq war? Was it considered heroic at the time? What did he accomplish later?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Raffety (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 3:56pm

Re: Re: S. 1130
Popvox has the bill here:

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s1130
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re: Re: S. 1130
Popvox has the bill here

Thanks.

I'm not seeing the text of the bill yet. All I've got right now is:

The text of S.1130 has not yet been received from GPO

Am I missing something on either Popvox or Govtrack? Is the bill text available somewhere?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 5:03pm

Re: S. 1130
Persistent THOMAS link for S.1130: Bill Summary and Status
[ link to this | view in thread ]