The US isn’t just reauthorizing its surveillance laws – it’s vastly expanding them | Caitlin Vogus

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the controversial reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the US House of Representatives without any meaningful reforms. It highlights the expansion of surveillance powers granted by the Turner-Himes amendment, which would allow federal law enforcement to compel a wide range of service providers to hand over data. The article expresses concerns about the potential for abuse of these expanded surveillance powers and the threat to Americans' privacy and First Amendment rights.

🙋 Q&A

[01] The Reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA

1. What are the key issues raised in the article regarding the reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA?

• The House of Representatives reauthorized Section 702 of FISA without any meaningful reforms, despite concerns about the law's use for warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications.
• The reauthorization also included the Turner-Himes amendment, which vastly expands the law's scope by allowing federal law enforcement to compel a wide range of service providers, including those with access to communication equipment like wifi routers, to hand over data.
• This expansion is seen as a "chilling assault on free speech" and a threat to Americans' privacy and First Amendment rights, as the law has been abused in the past to target protesters, journalists, and political donors.

2. What are the concerns raised about the potential for abuse of the expanded surveillance powers?

• The article expresses concerns that the government has a long history of abusing its existing surveillance powers and that it would be naive to think it wouldn't abuse the new, expanded powers granted by the Turner-Himes amendment.
• The amendment could expose Americans to increased risk of surveillance through their interactions with a wide range of service providers, from their dentist's office to their cleaning crew.
• The amendment would also make it harder for organizations, such as news outlets, to push back against abusive surveillance practices, as smaller service providers may not have the resources or willingness to challenge the government.

3. What are the specific examples of past abuses of Section 702 mentioned in the article?

• The FBI has abused its authority under Section 702, using it as a warrantless spying tool against Americans and conducting surveillance on Black Lives Matter protesters and American journalists.
• The article cites a declassified report from 2023 that revealed the FBI had used Section 702 to investigate Black Lives Matter protesters, and that the law has been used to spy on American journalists, undermining their First Amendment right to report the news.

4. What reforms were proposed by some lawmakers and civil liberties groups to address the issues with Section 702?

• Many reformers argued that Section 702 should be reauthorized only with real reforms that would rein in government spying, such as requiring the government to get a warrant before it can access Americans' communications.
• However, the House vote did not include a warrant requirement, despite efforts by some lawmakers to weaken FISA's surveillance provisions.

[02] The Response from Media Outlets

1. How have some media outlets responded to the reauthorization of Section 702 without reforms?

• The article notes that some news outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune, have published editorials cheering the demise of the warrant requirement and urging Congress to reauthorize the law.
• The article criticizes these editorials for scoffing at Trump's criticism of Section 702 and framing the anti-surveillance crowd as a "ragtag bunch of fringe rightwingers," ignoring the broader opposition to extending FISA without reforms.

2. What is the article's perspective on the media's response to the reauthorization of Section 702?

• The article finds it "shocking and inexplicable" that so many news outlets continue to support Section 702, given the law's history of being used against the exercise of First Amendment rights, including those of journalists.
• The article argues that the House vote was not just a reauthorization, but a "drastic, draconian expansion of the government's surveillance powers," which the media editorials have failed to adequately address.