US House Passes Bill Renewing Warrantless Surveillance Under FISA Section 702 Amid Privacy Concerns (2 Viewers)

[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

 

[MT15]

Two questions. You’ve been ducking the first one:

1. How is this an “expansion” (and a terrifying one to boot) if it is a renewal?

2. If the information is “for sale” then it’s not private, correct? Why does the FBI need a warrant for publicly available information?

 

[Lapaz]

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?

I don’t get outraged by FBI taps, because only criminals will get in trouble. I think it should be a misdemeanor.

 

[SaintForLife]

Two questions. You’ve been ducking the first one:

1. How is this an “expansion” (and a terrifying one to boot) if it is a renewal?

2. If the information is “for sale” then it’s not private, correct? Why does the FBI need a warrant for publicly available information?

I'm not ducking anything. The posts from Elizabeth Goitein I posted goes over how it's an expansion as well as the articles she's written.

The FBI and others have to purchase that information because it's illegal for them to get it themselves without a warrant. Rand Paul tried to prevent the sale of our data, but his ammendment didn't pass.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t get outraged by FBI taps, because only criminals will get in trouble. I think it should be a misdemeanor.

What about when they illegally searched people after the George Floyd riots? Was that okay?

So you aren't an absolute believer in the 4th ammendment?

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[Lapaz]

What about when they illegally searched people after the George Floyd riots? Was that okay?

So you aren't an absolute believer in the 4th ammendment?

I have a problem with searches and especially seizures, but I have no problem with the FBI searching databases. An absolutist would have an issue with that, but I think searching a foreign database is in our country’s best interest. It may strictly be against the law, but so is speeding. Some things are just not as horrible.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The FBI and others have to purchase that information because it's illegal for them to get it themselves without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment only protects information that is actually private.

• Information that is publicly available and traded is not private information and therefore is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
• It's not a violation of privacy for any branch of government to buy publicly available and traded information.
• Any branch of government is well within their rights to buy publicly available and traded information.
• Any branch of government would be stupid not to buy publicly available and traded information that helps them fulfill their duties and responsibilities.
• Anyone that doesn't want the FBI to buy their information that is publicly available and traded information simply needs to not waiver their privacy rights away to websites and apps.

You can't willingly go running through the streets naked in front of people taking and uploading videos of you and then claim the government is violating your privacy by buying uploaded videos of you willingly running naked through the streets.

The FBI does not violate anyone's right to privacy when they buy information that people have willingly agreed to make their private information publicly available.

Now, what I find curios is this. Why are we only hearing complaints about the FBI spying on American's. Nobody spies on Americans like the NSA and they've been doing it for decades. In fact, the FBI was restrained by FISA courts, the supposedly big bad boogeyman looking over every American's shoulder:

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

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.

Remind me again who was persident at that time and which president appointed the head of the FBI that began both of those investigations? Trump. The answer is Trump. Funny how we never heard any complaints from Trump or his devotees about the FBI's invasion of privacy until the FBI started investigating Trump.

But wait, there's more:

The court ruling found the FBI violated rules around the use of the database, created under Section 702 of the FISA Act with its searches.
Specifically, the court found that searches as part of probes into crimes between 2016 and 2020 violated the rules because there was "no reasonable basis to expect they would return foreign intelligence or evidence of crime", although the FBI believed this was "reasonably likely," the decision said.

Remind me again who was the president overseeing the FBI from 2016 - 2020?

Why no complaints about the NSA spying on us. The NSA collects actual private information that we haven't agreed to share with anyone or any company, so why not a single complaing about the NSA spying on us?

The answer is the same one it always is, because the compaint isn't driven by an actual personal moral compass, it is driven solely by their devotian to their leader, Trump. Trump's not mad at the NSA, so he doesn't care that they spy on Americans the most and have been doing it for decades.

Trump is railing against the FBI, because they found evidence of his crimes when they conducted a completely legal and warranted search of his home. Trump and his MAGA disinformation machine are vindicatively smearing the FBI with lies and deceptive exeggerations, because the FBI found damning evidence against Trump.

Trump devotees are smearing the FBI while pretending to be genuinely concerned for our actual privacy rights, because their dear leader, Trump, is doing it.

When you can't make logical sense out of someone's inconsistent championing of rights, truths and morality, check to see if they are a Trump devotee. If they are, then you have you know why they are inconsistent. They are inconsistent, because they are only parroting what Trump says and Trump is lies wrapped inside contradictions that in flesh and blood form.

Rand Paul tried to prevent the sale of our data, but his ammendment didn't pass.

We need to prevent companies from even asking for our data to use or buy their products or services. We need to enact the same protections from data mining us that the European Union has put in place. What Rand Paul tried isn't nearly enough.

 

[MT15]

I'm not ducking anything. The posts from Elizabeth Goitein I posted goes over how it's an expansion as well as the articles she's written.

The FBI and others have to purchase that information because it's illegal for them to get it themselves without a warrant. Rand Paul tried to prevent the sale of our data, but his ammendment didn't pass.

How can the FBI buying something that is publicly available for sale be illegal?

I want you to tell me how it’s an expansion. I’m not reading all that crap. Surely there is a simple way you can break it down. Why is it called a “renewal” if it is an “expansion”?

 

[SaintForLife]

I have a problem with searches and especially seizures, but I have no problem with the FBI searching databases. An absolutist would have an issue with that, but I think searching a foreign database is in our country’s best interest. It may strictly be against the law, but so is speeding. Some things are just not as horrible.

By absolutist you mean someone who believes in the 4th ammendment?

It's good to know that you think the FBI should be able to do some things that are illegal and violate the 4th ammendment. Most people wouldn't admit that.

Let's see if you have that same opinion when it's a Republican administration doing it to Democrats.

 

[SaintForLife]

How can the FBI buying something that is publicly available for sale be illegal?

I want you to tell me how it’s an expansion. I’m not reading all that crap. Surely there is a simple way you can break it down. Why is it called a “renewal” if it is an “expansion”?

The posts from Elizabeth Goitein and her articles explain it in detail . Why would I repost what she's already covered?

 

[MT15]

The posts from Elizabeth Goitein and her articles explain it in detail . Why would I repost what she's already covered?

I suppose you cannot answer my questions then. What a shocker.

 

[LA - L.A.]

...the FBI should be able to do some things that are illegal and violate the 4th ammendment...

No one has said that the FBI should be able to do illegal things and violate the 4th Amendment.

This poster has to constantly make outrageous strawman arguments against people to justify their outrage at other people.

If this poster responded to what other people actually say, then there outrage posting would sound like the rantings of an emotionally unstable individual.

This is why they make the false, strawman accusations. It's an attempt to make their rantings sound less absurd.

Let's see if you have that same opinion when it's a Republican administration doing it to Democrats.

The instances that the FISA court admonished the FBI for abusing their access to the NSA's database all took place while a Republican administration, namely Trump's, was doing it to both Republicans and Democrats.

This poster is giving the false impression that the FBI overstepped during the Biden administration and only targeted Democrats. That's completely false and anyone reading this thread has seen the objective facts that show it's false.

 

[SaintForLife]

"Mike Johnson did not vote on other amendments that day...He went out of his way to be the deciding vote on not having warrants...He went on the news and said 'I've been to the SCIF. I saw things in the SCIF and it changed my mind on this.' Here's the problem with that story, I was in the SCIF with him...They could not give us one example of how they had solved or intervened in an act of terrorism by using the warrantless spying program."

 

[LA - L.A.]

"Mike Johnson did not vote on other amendments that day...He went out of his way to be the deciding vote on not having warrants...He went on the news and said 'I've been to the SCIF. I saw things in the SCIF and it changed my mind on this.' Here's the problem with that story, I was in the SCIF with him...They could not give us one example of how they had solved or intervened in an act of terrorism by using the warrantless spying program."

So either Rep. Thomas Massie or Rep. Mike Johnson is lying, or they are both lying.

They are both MAGA so I find it completely credible that one or both of them are lying. I'm leaning toward they're both lying, based on recent history being the best predictor.

 

[MT15]

So either Rep. Thomas Massie or Rep. Mike Johnson is lying, or they are both lying.

They are both MAGA so I find it completely credible that one or both of them are lying. I'm leaning toward they're both lying, based on recent history being the best predictor.

Yeah if either one of them told me the sky is blue, I would go look out the window before I believed them.

 

[SaintForLife]

“The deputy director's email seems to show that the FBI is actively pushing for more surveillance of Americans, not out of necessity but as a default,” says @RepZoeLofgren (D-CA).

“This directly contradicts earlier assertions from the FBI during the debate over Section 702’s reauthorization.”

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]