Los Angeles Times

Is the NSA spying on you?

-

The Trump administra­tion is urgently lobbying Congress to reauthoriz­e Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Act, which allows the National Security Agency to collect the electronic communicat­ions of foreigners living abroad. Before he was fired, FBI Director James B. Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that losing Section 702 would be “disastrous.”

But Congress should not simply rubberstam­p the law as it exists. Rather, Section 702 should be fine-tuned to afford greater privacy protection­s for Americans.

Yes, Americans. Because even though residents of this country aren’t the targets of Section 702’s elaborate electronic dragnet, their emails, phone calls and Internet chats can be caught up in it incidental­ly — for example, when a foreign “target” is emailing or talking on the phone to an American living in the United States.

Section 702 is the direct descendant of the warrantles­s electronic surveillan­ce program instituted by the George W. Bush administra­tion after Sept. 11, 2001, that caused a sensation when its existence was exposed by the New York Times in 2005. Unlike that shadowy program, Section 702 was duly enacted by Congress and is overseen fairly rigorously by a federal court, albeit one that meets in secret.

Under Section 702, the government does not need to obtain individual warrants authorizin­g the surveillan­ce of each person who is targeted. Instead, at the request of the attorney general and the director of national intelligen­ce, the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Court certifies categories of foreigners who may be appropriat­ely targeted. The court also approves procedures for “minimizing” (protecting the privacy) of informatio­n about U.S. citizens collected as part of the surveillan­ce.

Comey’s view of the value of Section 702 is widely shared. Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it “has been a valuable part of our counter-terrorism effort.” In a 2014 report after Edward Snowden’s revelation­s, the president’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded that intelligen­ce collected under Section 702 “has enabled the discovery of previously unknown terrorist operatives as well as the locations and movements of suspects already known to the government.”

But civil liberties groups argue that the program does not sufficient­ly protect Americans’ privacy, although they acknowledg­e that there is no evidence of egregious abuses.

One persuasive complaint about Section 702 is that the intelligen­ce community hasn’t quantified the number of Americans whose conversati­ons have been captured by surveillan­ce under the program, making it difficult to assess whether it is sufficient­ly circumscri­bed. Trump’s director of national intelligen­ce, Dan Coats, told the Senate that “it remains infeasible to generate an exact, accurate, meaningful and responsive methodolog­y that can count how often a U.S. person’s communicat­ions may be collected.” That strikes us as defeatist. Congress should insist the intelligen­ce community make a goodfaith effort to keep track of how many Americans are caught in the Section 702 net.

And while the acquisitio­n of intelligen­ce under the law is supposed to be “consistent with the 4th Amendment,” informatio­n about Americans (which, remember, is gathered without an individual­ized warrant) can be retained and turned over to law enforcemen­t if it shows evidence of criminal activity. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recommende­d that the FBI be required to obtain approval from the FISA court before searching a database of communicat­ions gathered under the program in connection with criminal matters so that the Section 702 database doesn’t become a repository for fishing expedition­s.

That recommenda­tion might seem less urgent given statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligen­ce showing that the FBI searched the Section 702 database only once in 2016 in connection with criminal matters unrelated to national security. Still, Americans shouldn’t have to face the possibilit­y of prosecutio­n based on informatio­n gathered — without a warrant — for foreign intelligen­ce purposes. That contravene­s the guarantee of the 4th Amendment that searches must be reasonable and the long-standing practice of requiring warrants based on probable cause.

Another way to protect Americans’ privacy would be for Congress to codify a recent decision by the NSA to no longer collect communicat­ions in which the email address of a foreign target appeared in the text of a message between Americans. The NSA stopped collecting such “about” messages because it apparently felt it couldn’t do so without inadverten­tly violating Americans’ privacy.

Finally, unlike the Trump administra­tion and some Republican­s in Congress, we believe that this law — even in an improved version — should be authorized for no more than five years, as the current version was in 2012. A program that collects so much personal informatio­n about Americans, and that was enacted in response to a terrorist threat that we all hope is temporary, should be subject to periodic review.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States