Senate Talking Points Say Warrantless Collection Of Internet Use Data Keeps Terrorists From Killing Us
from the it-doesn't-say-HOW-it-does-this dept
The Senate tried and failed to erect a warrant requirement for the FBI's collection of US citizens' internet browsing data. The amendment to the FISA reauthorization fell one vote short -- something that could have been avoided by having any of the four missing Senate supporters show up and actually support the thing. The House has a chance to pass this amendment before sending the bill to the president, but they've decided to engage in some unproductive infighting instead.
As it stands now, it still stands the way it has always stood: the FBI can get this information without a warrant. If we can't have this amendment, maybe we can have some answers about the FBI's use of this power. Senator Ron Wyden has sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence asking how often government agencies have spied on Americans' internet usage. The answer will probably arrive sometime between "years from now" and "never," given how enthused the DNI usually is about discussing domestic surveillance originating from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Since there doesn't seem to be any good reason to allow the FBI to continue this warrantless collection, surveillance supporters in Washington have decided to craft some bad ones. Dell Cameron reports for Gizmodo that certain Senators think a warrant requirement allows the terrorists to win.
Requiring federal agents to have “probable cause” to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to national security and would force the FBI to stand by while terrorist plots unfold on U.S. soil, according to a leaked copy of talking points distributed to Senate lawmakers this month.
Those talking points appear to have originated in Sen. Mitch McConnell's office and began circulating prior to the Senate vote on the FISA reauthorization. The talking points aren't very convincing, though. As Cameron points out, they're riddled with legal errors and give the appearance that the author(s) believes ginning up a little fear should be all that's needed to sway legislators who still think the Fourth Amendment should mean something.
At one point, the document erroneously claims that legally requiring the FBI to get a warrant to view U.S. citizens’ web browser data would hinder federal agents from investigating a “known foreign” spy caught photographing a power plant on U.S. soil “over the course of several days.” In this hypothetical, the spy goes on to blow up the Hoover Dam as helpless FBI agents presumably observe from a distance.
Whoa if true. One wonders how the FBI ever manages to investigate anyone. Of course, at some point in the several days between the detainment and the eventual blowing up of stuff the FBI could probably have obtained a search warrant to collect this information. Not that it would necessarily need to since this hypothetical involves a "known foreign spy" the FBI already has under surveillance and whose internet data could be legally obtained from NSA collections without doing anything at all to the Fourth Amendment.
Somehow, the talking points manage to get even dumber than this.
Unbelievably, the leaked documents go on to claim that search warrants for browser data would effectively mean the end of all domestic internet surveillance by the U.S. government: “Internet web browsing and search history information comprise data that forms the building blocks for national security investigations,” it says. “To require probable cause for the Government to obtain the Internet data effectively prohibits any Internet data collection.”
Let's see if we have this straight: seeking a warrant will irrevocably terminate an investigation. Limiting the government to things it has probable cause to basically sets fire to the national security fabric, leaving us completely at the mercy of terrorists, domestic and otherwise. It's as if the person writing this believes Constitutional rights and protections are something the government only extends to violent criminals and if they're respected, the end result is dead Americans.
I guess we should be grateful for these Senators and their efforts. After all, if we, the general public, hadn't allowed terrorists to attack the US back in 2001, we wouldn't be in the position we are now: being warrantlessly surveilled by our own government for our own good.
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: 4th amendment, doj, fbi, fisa, mitch mcconnell, nsa, patriot act, probable cause, ron wyden, surveillance, terrorism, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just a reminder:
The warrant requirement for a search comes from the constitution, specifically the fourth amendment which is as follows:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.
Anyone arguing that government agencies can't do their jobs if they have to get warrants is arguing that violating the constitution is required to do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a reminder:
I'm no expert, but this gets me every time. "Probable cause" doesn't appear to mean that a search can be performed on the spot, it's a prerequisite to get a warrant, not a replacement for a warrant. Now the law says that probable cause isn't even needed?
We've gone from: Have a reason to search -> get a warrant -> search
to: Have a reason to search -> search -> if you find something, get a warrant after the fact and perform parallel construction
to now: Fuck y'all -> search everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the shine is starting to come off of "BUT TERRORISTS WILL WIN!" as a battle cry if they are this desperate.
If having to do their job is to hard for them, don't remove the laws remove the lazy assholes who think rights are only for senators who do the insider trading that they stop investigating pretending nothing happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like the only terrorist attacks the FBI prevents are the ones where it spoon feeds some schmuck everything they need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
due to budget cutbacks, the FBI budget only includes funding for four staged terrorist attacks a year. And they have to flub at least one of them to be able to claim that they need MORE funding for next year, due to the increased success of staged terrorist attacks.
Makes perfect sense, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Requiring federal agents to have “probable cause” to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to national security and would force the FBI to stand by while terrorist plots unfold on U.S. soil, according to a leaked copy of talking points distributed to Senate lawmakers this month.
This has pretty much never even stopped some minor terrorist-related anything, never mind any kind of "plot".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, boy.
a “known foreign” spy caught photographing a power plant on U.S. soil “over the course of several days.” In this hypothetical, the spy goes on to blow up the Hoover Dam as helpless FBI agents presumably observe from a distance.
Is the spy photographing from a public location? First Amendment, dorks. Hide the damn dam if you are so a-scaret, or, you know, if you count on things that anyone can see to both be secret and part of your security, you have and have always had bigger problems. Grow the hell up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, right. P.S. Known foreign spy? You can arrest them right now. Like, at any time. They don't even need to be "suspicious", the favorite but always unarticulable excuse for everything. The bar is so low! And you want to waste time on their... web browser history? W.T.A.F.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Requiring federal agents to have “probable cause” to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to .... "
Do Moscow Mitch and his comrades consider themselves to be American citizens? Because I remember some of them bitchin up a storm about the FBI spying on them - even though it was their job to monitor outbound communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well yeah, it's only a bad thing when it's used on them, it's perfectly acceptable to engage in fishing expeditions with no basis beyond a hunch when used against anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They might not even need a hunch. I could be animosity or ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Dredd cometh
When the government abolishes the need for warrants, without amending the Constitutions 4th Amendment, the next wrung on the ladder will be the courts. Don't need warrants, don't need courts. Every LEO will then be given execution powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Dredd cometh
I can't breathe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because nothing helps you find needles by forking on more hay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by -> like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrants Are Useless
I would argue that a warrant, as it stands in 2020, does not meet the definition of a warrant in the 1700s.
Judges never receive criticism when a warrant turns up nothing, but if they fail to issue a warrant, and something happens, they receive unlimited criticism.
This being the case, how likely are they to protect your constitutional rights?
Answer: not very
Some judges have approval rates exceeding 98%, and those that aren't approved are usually re-submitted once the minor procedural errors are fixed (wrong name, date, etc) and then approved.
Warrants are. for all intents and purposes, rubber stamps, and don't protect anyone from anything.
Unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warrants Are Useless
" they receive unlimited criticism"
I have not seen this criticism, what form does it take ... nasty editorials, snide remarks? The horror!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warrants Are Useless
In which case the point to fix is judges handing out warrants too easily, or overly broad warrants, not the idea of warrants themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds familiar...
"Senate Talking Points Say Warrantless Collection Of Internet Use Data Keeps Terrorists From Killing Us"
In other breaking news scientists finally confirm that hanging garlic wreaths from the rafters keeps vampires away based on a five year study where the amount of vampire attacks proved to be zero in any households so protected. "This is incredibly exciting" says Dr. Barnum, team lead at Quack University, Podunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's a warrant for it and they aren't good enough at law enforcement for it to mean anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that's all it took
Terrorist don't have to kill us. Just 1 attack and we'll blame and kill each other.
We Got This, America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FBI lacks capacity to do much about it in my experience.
Also, the warrants have been valid for decades and they all go back to the same place with the same technology doing the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]