Senators Wyden And Heinrich Speak Out Against Expanding FBI's Ability To Warrantlessly Spy On Your Communications
from the don't-allow-it dept
We've been writing for a while now how the FBI has been trying to rewrite a key part of the PATRIOT Act to massively expand its ability to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to get email and browser information with no warrant and no oversight. Despite the fact that the FBI was asking for this just days before the Orlando shooting, right after it, a bunch of Senators, led by John McCain, used the opportunity to fast track that legislative change, cynically pointing to the Orlando shooting as a reason why it's needed (despite it having nothing whatsoever to do with that). That effort failed, but just barely -- and it's expected to be brought up again shortly for another vote.Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich are trying to convince people that this is a bad, bad idea. They've written a short but compelling article on how this is a massive abuse of privacy, and why the FBI absolutely does not need this power.
Given what web browsing history can reveal, there is little information that could be more intimate. If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance-abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal information about him or her. That’s what you get when you can get access to their web browsing history without a court order.They note that there are real threats, but this change in the law won't help to stop those threats. Indeed, the FBI already has the ability to get this information -- it just needs to submit to a tiny bit of oversight:
But the FBI already has at least two separate ways they can quickly obtain these electronic records with court oversight. First, under the Patriot Act’s section 215, the FBI can get a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a suspect’s electronic records. The president’s surveillance review group, which included former top intelligence officials, said this kind of court oversight should be required for this kind of information. Second, in emergency situations where the FBI believes it needs to move immediately, it already has the authority to get these records first, and then settle up with the court afterward. This authority comes from section 102 of the USA FREEDOM Act, which is based on language Sen. Wyden authored and we both strongly supported.This effort to expand the FBI's surveillance powers should be a non-starter and it's depressing that so many Senators are willing to grant the FBI near total freedom to spy on our electronic records without a warrant. Given the FBI's history of abusing its surveillance powers, sometimes for political gain, shouldn't Congress be restricting such powers, rather than expanding them?
Stay tuned, later today, on the Techdirt Podcast, we'll have Senator Wyden discussing why this is so problematic.
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: fbi, martin heinrich, national security letters, nsls, ron wyden, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We need to encourage people to consider voting third party in enough numbers to actually get a third party politician elected. This means breaking the chains of ideological echo chambers that keep people locked into the partisan tinfoil hat-ery we often see here in the comments. The only way I know of doing this is to challenge the tendency to ricochet from extreme to extreme and encourage people to actually consider other possibilities. Sometimes it works, but if you want change, stop doing the same damn thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IMO, the first step towards breaking the two-party deadlock is - and has to be - switching away from single-choice first-past-the-post voting to a ranked-choice voting method which satisfies the Condorcet criteria... and the only way we're going to have a chance of getting that implemented is from the bottom up: starting with municipalities and counties, all across the nation, then moving up to the state and eventually the federal level.
With that done, a candidate who backs possibilities not consistent with the usual partisan extremes will be able to get better traction even among the existing divided-and-partisan electorate, simply because the people who do already agree with such a candidate will be able to do so without "wasting their votes" - and the resulting increased diversity of views in elected politicians will itself serve to help break the ideological echo chambers you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age of Technology
Best explanation: the average age of a U.S. Senator is about 63 years old. Except for those like Ron Wyden, old dogs are not willing to learn new tricks. Until Congress is comprised almost entirely of "digital natives" (or near-digital natives like Martin Heinrich), the FBI can fool them every time with the magic words "on a computer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Age of Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Age of Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Age of Technology
The idea that you can predict the mental agility of someone from their age seems to have little basis.
What is true, however, is that as people age they tend to specialize more in where they spend their mental energy. Younger people are still sampling all the possibilities before them to find what they like. Older people are more likely to have found it.
So a senator, for instance, may have great mental agility and stay on the cutting edge in terms of being a senator, but has little time for specialties outside of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chipping away. . .
We need to create some legal requirement that counters the expansion of these powers, so that every expansion requires the equal expansion of the legal requirement to provide the public access to the agencies own internal information with mandatory criminal penalties for non-compliance.
They talk about balancing security and privacy, we should require them to actually experience that trade off like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chipping away. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chipping away. . .
It's called "Bill of Rights" and is there already. There is nothing wrong with it, but those who break the oath of office they have sworn on it need to get prosecuted and thrown in jail.
As long as that doesn't happen, it is pointless to create other "legal requirements" that by definition cannot change the significance of what already is the highest law of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chipping Away. . .
But there is no cost to the FBI directly when they degrade the rights afforded citizen's by the bill of rights, I'm sure in their view it's a benefit!
I'm talking about a built in counter force that is automatic and ensures that they also lose the right to keep internal agency information from the public to a degree proportional to the rights they expect the public to give up.
Then balancing privacy and security is more then just talking points, they pay a real price in the same way we do as citizens. I think we will see their idea of what is balanced start to retreat and the continued assault on our right's much less attractive to the agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]