The Sentinel-Record

Section 702 lives, but privacy fight goes on

- Peter Swire AP’s The Conversati­on Peter Swire is a professor of law and ethics, Georgia Institute of Technology. The Conversati­on is an independen­t and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

What would you do if you had to vote in Congress on a crucial national security program, when you also knew that the FBI had systematic­ally ignored privacy safeguards in the program for years? That was the choice that Congress faced in April, when it ultimately decided to reauthoriz­e Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Act, known as FISA.

Section 702 originally became law in 2008, when a great deal of previously “foreign” surveillan­ce had shifted to the United States. In the old days, the Na- tional Security Agency carried out its communicat­ions surveillan­ce overseas, such as keeping an eye on China or the Soviet Union. By 2008, however, the most important national security surveillan­ce was often obtained within the U.S., such as when emails came through the United States as part of internet traffic.

Section 702 addressed this mix of foreign and domestic data gathering. Under court-approved procedures, it allows the government to gather communicat­ions, but only where the target of the surveillan­ce is a foreign person who is outside of the U.S. Although no court approval is needed when the NSA intercepts communicat­ions overseas, Section 702 requires court-approved safeguards when the informatio­n gathering occurs in the U.S.

Privacy violations

NSA surveillan­ce triggered headlines in 2013 when the revelation­s by former agency contractor Edward Snowden showed that the amount and type of government surveillan­ce had grown far beyond what even experts realized after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. I was honored to be named by President Barack Obama to a special Review Group on Intelligen­ce and Communicat­ions Technologi­es in 2013 to propose surveillan­ce reforms. Our report was one of the sources for the USA Freedom Act of 2015, the biggest set of privacy reforms for surveillan­ce since FISA was created in 1978.

Even after these reforms, however, two types of problems cast doubt on how the FBI in particular was using its FISA authoritie­s. First, the FBI was not following the procedures required by the courts for accessing informatio­n about Americans in the Section 702 databases. As a result, the FBI conducted over 3 million searches of Americans’ email and other records in 2021. After a public furor and changed policies, that number dropped to 119,383 in 2022.

Second, during the 2016 campaign, the FBI began an investigat­ion into whether people associated with the Trump campaign were coordinati­ng activities with the government of Russia, as part of what became known as the Crossfire Hurricane investigat­ion. Although the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz found “no evidence that the FBI consulted” with any political officials in opening its investigat­ion, he found significan­t violations in FISA applicatio­ns. These included submitting legal documents to judges with allegation­s that the FBI knew were incorrect. Horowitz also found that the incident highlighte­d the weakness of existing rules against a politicall­y motivated investigat­ion.

Renewal debate

The FISA 702 authority was set to expire at the end of 2023, but Congress extended the authority until April 19, 2024. Perhaps the biggest controvers­y was whether access to Americans’ data in the 702 databases should be available only with a warrant issued by a judge, upon showing probable cause. Privacy advocates argued that such a warrant requiremen­t would protect Americans’ constituti­onal rights, while the government said the requiremen­t would be unworkable in practice.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independen­t executive branch agency that makes nonbinding recommenda­tions about privacy and civil liberties aspects of national security, split 3-2 in favor of requiring such a warrant.

In the House of Representa­tives, the motion to require a warrant resulted in a tie vote, falling short of the simple majority it needed to pass. The House eventually did reauthoriz­e the FISA 702 program, by a vote of 273-14, but only for two years rather than the longer period sought by the administra­tion. Soon after, as the deadline approached, the Senate approved the same law, 60-34.

Although the warrant requiremen­t did not pass, the law included reforms that supporters said would address the flaws in the FBI’s previous actions. House Speaker Mike Johnson published a list of 56 key reforms to make FISA more protective of privacy. Some of the reforms created new safeguards to limit the FBI’s ability to query the 702 databases about Americans. Others created new rules to trigger congressio­nal and senior administra­tion scrutiny for sensitive investigat­ions such as those affecting political officials.

Renewal fight, Round 2

Privacy advocates, however, have been far from satisfied with the new amendments to FISA. For instance, the Electronic Privacy Informatio­n Center, the Brennan Center for Justice and FreedomWor­ks issued a paper stating: “Making 56 ineffectiv­e tweaks to a fundamenta­lly broken law is not reforming it.”

These sharply conflictin­g viewpoints put members of Congress into a difficult spot. Many felt that the FBI deserved stricter measures to hold it accountabl­e for its serious legal violations. I share that concern. On the other hand, I have had the opportunit­y during the presidenti­al review group process to learn how Section 702 is used to protect the national security of our country. In a statistic I find credible, 60% of the president’s daily intelligen­ce briefings in 2023 contained Section 702 informatio­n reported by the NSA.

The result, for now, is that Section 702 is due to expire in April 2026. Congress will once again confront a genuinely difficult challenge: how to protect U.S. national security while also upholding Americans’ privacy and the rule of law.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States