US House Passes Bill Renewing Warrantless Surveillance Under FISA Section 702 Amid Privacy Concerns (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

Ignoring rising privacy concerns, the US House of Representatives gave the green light on Friday to a bill renewing the warrantless surveillance program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702, for the next two years. However, the vote witnessed the piecing together of conservative resistance that had stalled a prior chance at its approval. A shorter renewal period, as opposed to an initially proposed five-year term, was agreed upon in an attempt to win over Republican dissenters, culminating in a 273-147 vote in favor of the bill.

Increasing distrust concerning governmental surveillance powers has been apparent of late, especially amongst some conservatives who want to see the Fourth Amendment protected. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Disagreements over the potential framework for revamping the FISA spy program have resulted in divisions within the Republican party, evidenced by 19 members breaking away to block the legislation this week. However, an indication of support from previous objectors was given late Thursday.

The legislation under review allows the government to gather foreign intelligence by monitoring the communications of non-US residents overseas without the necessity of a warrant. However, it has, despite assurances that it wouldn’t happen again, been used to surveil US citizens.

US House Passes Bill Renewing Warrantless Surveillance Under FISA Section 702 Amid Privacy Concerns

The Fourth Amendment is being ignored in the name of national security.

reclaimthenet.org

 

[SaintForLife]

He just gave you the answer- specific to his point in his reply.

you dont have to look far for it.

He gave an answer from someone who may or may not be less sympathetic to privacy concerns considering he previously worked for the DOJ.

I said I trusted the opinions of long time privacy advocates like Wyden over people who have worked in the government.

Do you think the article he posted is the only person we should listen to about the subject?

 

[efil4]

He gave an answer from someone who may or may not be less sympathetic to privacy concerns considering he previously worked for the DOJ.

I said I trusted the opinions of long time privacy advocates like Wyden over people who have worked in the government.

Do you think the article he posted is the only person we should listen to about the subject?

I think the article he posted is written without bias and detailed enough that if you spend the 20 or so min to read it, you will see that.


Its read straight from the bill. The interpretation/definition and exclusions are crystal clear in just that snippet alone.

So what that he worked PREVIOUSLY at the DOJ...that has no bearing on his article that clearly defines what happens in this bill.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think the article he posted is written without bias and detailed enough that if you spend the 20 or so min to read it, you will see that.

How do you know it isn't written from the perspective of someone who is less sympathetic to privacy concerns?

I'm not saying it is because I don't know, but I'm always skeptical of those arguments from people who worked in the government because most are concerned more by the governments needs than the citizens.

Its read straight from the bill. The interpretation/definition and exclusions are crystal clear in just that snippet alone.

So what that he worked PREVIOUSLY at the DOJ...that has no bearing on his article that clearly defines what happens in this bill.

See what I said above.

Did you listen to what Senator Wyden said in the video? He's been a long time privacy advocate.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[efil4]

How do you know it isn't written from the perspective of someone who is less sympathetic to privacy concerns?

I'm not saying it is because I don't know, but I'm always skeptical of those arguments from people who worked in the government because most are concerned more by the governments needs than the citizens.

See what I said above.

Did you listen to what Senator Wyden said in the video? He's been a long time privacy advocate.

no did you? did he talk about the exceptions or not? its a simple question.

 

[SaintForLife]

no did you? did he talk about the exceptions or not? its a simple question.

Yes I did, but when he said this it doesn't sound definitive:

the expansion would only appear to implicate them to the extent they could help acquire non-Americans’ communications overseas.

The FBI has a long history of abusing the tools they have.

FBI misused intelligence database in 278,000 searches, court says

A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.

www.reuters.com

They aren't supposed to search any Americans caught up "incidently" in surveillance of foreign targets, but they do it often.

Speaking of simple questions, did you see what Senator Wyden said about it? He's a long time privacy advocate and he's saying that they could get companies and people to help spy if this bill passes.

 

[efil4]

Yes I did, but when he said this it doesn't sound definitive:

the expansion would only appear to implicate them to the extent they could help acquire non-Americans’ communications overseas.

The FBI has a long history of abusing the tools they have.

FBI misused intelligence database in 278,000 searches, court says

A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.

www.reuters.com

They aren't supposed to search any Americans caught up "incidently" in surveillance of foreign targets, but they do it often.

Speaking of simple questions, did you see what Senator Wyden said about it? He's a long time privacy advocate and he's saying that they could get companies and people to help spy if this bill passes.

so those in italics are Wyden's own words?

Because if you read the original snippet from @superchuck500 , its verbatim. So that leads me to believe Wyden either read that article OR that verbiage is taken directly from the bill.

And if you read on in the original snippet, it continues to define exclusions. did Wyden address the exclusions verbatim as well?


and how are they going to get "companies and people to spy if this bill passes" exactly? Coercion? are they paying ( if so, how much? i need a new fly rod )

 

[SaintForLife]

so those in italics are Wyden's own words?

Because if you read the original snippet from @superchuck500 , its verbatim. So that leads me to believe Wyden either read that article OR that verbiage is taken directly from the bill.

And if you read on in the original snippet, it continues to define exclusions. did Wyden address the exclusions verbatim as well?


and how are they going to get "companies and people to spy if this bill passes" exactly? Coercion? are they paying ( if so, how much? i need a new fly rod )

No, the italics are from the article that SuperChuck posted.

I didn't hear Wyden say anything about exemptions in the video, but if he says they can do it I'll believe him over a former DOJ official based on his history of being a privacy advocate.



Once again, they aren't supposed to be able to spy on Americans without a warrant who are caught up "incidentally" when spying on foreign targets, but they do it often.

One of the main reasons why the Biden Administration opposes about the bill is the warrant requirement to spy on Americans caught up incidentally in surveillance of foreign targets. Think about that.

How will they get companies to spy on people? The X posts from Elizabeth Goiten I posted in this thread talks about it.

 

[efil4]

No, the italics are from the article that SuperChuck posted.

I didn't hear Wyden say anything about exemptions in the video, but if he says they can do it I'll believe him over a former DOJ official based on his history of being a privacy advocate.

Thats what i thought- he DIDNT say anything about exemptions. ( and i didnt even have to watch any video of his speech )

Ever ask yourself why didnt he address the exclusions?

 

[SaintForLife]

Thats what i thought- he DIDNT say anything about exemptions. ( and i didnt even have to watch any video of his speech )

Ever ask yourself why didnt he address the exclusions?

I'm not sure. It was a short video. He might have talked about them in other parts of the video.

Any concern for the Biden administration opposing the requirement to spy on Americans who are incidentally caught up in surveillance of foreign targets? Why would someone oppose getting a warrant to spy on Americans?

Look at what Garland said in the above letter.

“it would be unlawful under Section 702 to use the modified definition of ECSP to target any entity inside the United States including, for example, any business, home, or place of worship”

They weren't supposed to spy on Americans with it when they are caught up in surveillance of foreigners, but they do it often.

Garland said its unlawful to target an entity inside the US under 702, but he doesn't adresss the fact that they could target foreigners they know who are communicating with an American and incidentally spy on that American. That's exactly what they have been doing.

 

[Lapaz]

I'm not sure. It was a short video. He might have talked about them in other parts of the video.

Any concern for the Biden administration opposing the requirement to spy on Americans who are incidentally caught up in surveillance of foreign targets? Why would someone oppose getting a warrant to spy on Americans?

Look at what Garland said in the above letter.

“it would be unlawful under Section 702 to use the modified definition of ECSP to target any entity inside the United States including, for example, any business, home, or place of worship”

They weren't supposed to spy on Americans with it when they are caught up in surveillance of foreigners, but they do it often.

Garland said its unlawful to target an entity inside the US under 702, but he doesn't adresss the fact that they could target foreigners they know who are communicating with an American and incidentally spy on that American. That's exactly what they have been doing.

If the American is communicating with a suspect foreigner, I think it is in the best interests of the US to capture that American’s communications. It shouldn’t be used to initiate spying on an American, but that’s not what is happening.

 

[SaintForLife]

If the American is communicating with a suspect foreigner, I think it is in the best interests of the US to capture that American’s communications. It shouldn’t be used to initiate spying on an American, but that’s not what is happening.

Yes that's exactly what's been happening

SAN FRANCISCO, May 19 (Reuters) - A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.
The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
The searches occurred in the course of U.S. crime investigations including the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and protests after the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the court said.

FBI misused intelligence database in 278,000 searches, court says

A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.

www.reuters.com

 

[MT15]

But it appears to have stopped happening subsequent to the court’s ruling:

The ODNI said the FBI tightened its procedures in mid-2021 and 2022. "As a result, these compliance incidents do not reflect FBI’s querying practices subsequent to the full deployment of the remedial measures," the office said.

Your article is a year old, and says the practice has been remediated.

 

[Lapaz]

Yes that's exactly what's been happening

SAN FRANCISCO, May 19 (Reuters) - A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.
The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
The searches occurred in the course of U.S. crime investigations including the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and protests after the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the court said.

FBI misused intelligence database in 278,000 searches, court says

A U.S. court found that the FBI improperly searched for information in a U.S. database of foreign intelligence 278,000 times over several years, including on Americans suspected of crimes, according to a ruling released on Friday.

www.reuters.com

I wasn’t aware of these violations. FISA did violate the law, but as others noted, they’ve changed their policy to avoid this. This is why free and independent journalism is so important. FISA should’ve gotten warrants to conduct the search due to the uncertainty that the database would reveal crimes, but I’m glad they investigated the foreign databases for January 6th, because the potential crimes went all the way to the top. When crimes may involve top officials that can influence court orders, I think it is better for the country to bend the rules of investigation.

 

[SaintForLife]

I wasn’t aware of these violations. FISA did violate the law, but as others noted, they’ve changed their policy to avoid this. This is why free and independent journalism is so important. FISA should’ve gotten warrants to conduct the search due to the uncertainty that the database would reveal crimes, but I’m glad they investigated the foreign databases for January 6th, because the potential crimes went all the way to the top. When crimes may involve top officials that can influence court orders, I think it is better for the country to bend the rules of investigation.

Oh so they've changed their policies now huh? Nothing to worry about unless you've seen this song and dance before. The FBI pinky promises that they made reforms and it won't happen again and then they break the law again and when caught they say don't worry we corrected it.

The bolded part of your response is concerning. You think the 4th ammendment should be ignored if crimes may involve top officials?

 

[Lapaz]

Oh so they've changed their policies now huh? Nothing to worry about unless you've seen this song and dance before. The FBI pinky promises that they made reforms and it won't happen again and then they break the law again and when caught they say don't worry we corrected it.

The bolded part of your response is concerning. You think the 4th ammendment should be ignored if crimes may involve top officials?

I’m not a purist. I’m not outraged about searching a foreign database, even if it violated the 4th amendment. The violators should be punished, but given that it might have involved the president, someone may need to be the martr to save the country.

 

[SaintForLife]

I’m not a purist. I’m not outraged about searching a foreign database, even if it violated the 4th amendment. The violators should be punished, but given that it might have involved the president, someone may need to be the martr to save the country.

It's a game to spy on Americans without a warrant. You should be outraged if Americans 4th ammendment rights are being violated.

Wouldn't they be able to get a warrant if they thought the President was involved and what does searching random January 6th people have to do with the President.

What about after the protests of George Floyd? Was that not okay because Trump wasn't involved?

 

[SaintForLife]