Privacy protections
Bill should be true to Fourth Amendment
In the years following the 9/11 attacks, Congress gave the intelligence bureaucracy a host of new surveillance powers in an attempt to help fight terrorism. The fears of many civil libertarians were confirmed in 2013 when former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked information detailing the extent of the government’s digital snooping.
Now, as Reason reports, the House Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill that would give Americans modest protections from unwarranted surveillance. But the measure falls far short of providing the more stringent protection that civil liberties and privacy groups — along with several legislators — are rightly demanding.
While they hammered out the passage of the USA Liberty Act last week, committee members pushed back against amendments that would boost privacy protections.
The legislation is designed to take the place of the expiring Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is used by the NSA and FBI to monitor potential spies and terrorists.
However, as Reason points out, Section 702 has also allowed for “backdoor searches” of communications of American citizens — data collected “incidentally” during the surveillance of foreign targets and subsequently used by federal agencies during investigations of domestic crimes. And all of this data collection happens with the oversight of the secretive FISA court, but without warrants.
While the act contains some modest restrictions on the feds and requires they seek court orders to view these communications when looking for evidence of a crime, it does little to alter the current level of data collection. As Rainey Reitman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation warns, the court oversight requirement “won’t be triggered except for those searches conducted to find evidence of a crime.”
He goes to explain that “no other searches for any other purposes will require court oversight, including when spy agencies search for foreign intelligence, and when law enforcement agencies explore whether a crime occurred at all.” He also warns that collection of “metadata — how many communications are sent, to whom and at what times — won’t require court oversight at all.”
The co-founders of the House Fourth Amendment Caucus attempted to amend the Liberty Act to stop “backdoor searches” without a warrant. But, as The Hill reports, House leaders blocked their efforts. As some observers surmise, however, the remainder of the House might not support the Liberty Act without those same reforms. The ACLU and the Republican Freedom Caucus have also pushed for stronger protections against unwarranted snooping.
A showdown now appears inevitable — a showdown that will, we hope, end with the constitutional protections afforded all Americans coming out on top.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 was all from legal prescription opioid medications.
What will be the unintentional result of this campaign by the DEA? It will greatly increase the demand for illegal painkilling drugs and make the illegal trade in these drugs even more profitable.
This response by the DEA is typical of a incompetent federal agency that cannot do its job and simply wants to expand its size and regulate more and more of what the public desperately needs.