Section 702 Powers Back On The Ropes Thanks To Partisan Infighting
I'm normally not a ends justifies the means" sort of guy, but ever since some House Republicans started getting shitty about Section 702 surveillance after some of their own got swept up in the dragnet, I've become a bit more pragmatic. Section 702 is long overdue for reform. If it takes a bunch of conveniently angry legislators to do it, so be it.
The NSA uses this executive authorization to sweep up millions of foreign" communications. But if one side of these communications involves a US person, the NSA is supposed to keep its eyes off of it. The same thing goes for the FBI. But the FBI has spent literal decades ignoring these restraints, preferring to dip into the NSA's data pool as often as possible for the sole reason of converting a foreign-facing surveillance program into a handy means for domestic surveillance.
The FBI's constant abuse of this program has seen it scolded by FISA judges, excoriated by legislators actually willing to stand up for their constituents' rights, and habitually abused verbally at internet sites like this one.
Not that it has mattered. For years, the NSA (and, by extension, the FBI) has been given a blanket blessing of their spy programs by legislators who have been convinced nothing but a clean re-authorization is acceptable in terrorist times like these.
Fortunately for all of us, the future of Section 702 remains in a particularly hellish limbo. As Dell Cameron reports for Wired, Republicans are going to war against other Republicans, limiting the chances of Section 702 moving forward without significant alteration.
The latest botched effort at salvaging acontroversial US surveillance programcollapsed this week thanks to a sabotage campaign by the United States House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI), crushing any hope of unraveling the program's fate beforeCongresspivots to prevent a government shutdown in March.
An agreement struck between rival House committees fell apart on Wednesday after one side of the dispute-represented by HPSCI-ghosted fellow colleagues at a crucial hearing while working to poison a predetermined plan to usher a compromise bill" to the floor.
This makes it sound like this is a bad thing. It isn't, even if those thwarting a clean re-auth have extremely dirty hands. Legislators should definitely take a long look at this surveillance power, especially when it's been abused routinely by the FBI to engage in surveillance of US persons who are supposed to be beyond the reach of this foreign-facing dragnet.
Some in the House want the FBI to pay for what it did to Trump loyalists. Some in the House want the FBI to do whatever it wants, so long as it can claim it's doing (our?) God's work in its counterterrorism efforts. Excluded from the current infighting are people who actually give a damn about limiting surveillance abuses, shunted to the side by political opportunists, loudmouths, and far too many legislators who refuse to hold the FBI accountable.
What's odd about this scuttling is the reason it happened. It had nothing to do with Section 702 and everything to do with the government's predilection for buying data from brokers to avoid warrant requirements erected by Supreme Court rulings.
The impetus for killing the deal, WIRED has learned, was an amendment that would end the government's ability to pay US companies for information rather than serving them with a warrant. This includes location data collected from cell phones that are capable in many cases of tracking people's physical whereabouts almost constantly. The data is purportedly gathered for advertising purposes but is collected by data brokers andfrequently soldto US spies and police agencies instead.
Senior aides say the HPSCI chair, Mike Turner, personally exploded the deal while refusing to appear for a hearing on Wednesday in which lawmakers were meant to decide the rules surrounding the vote. A congressional website shows that HPSCI staff had not filed one of the amendments meant to be discussed before the Rules Committee, suggesting that at no point in the day did Turner plan to attend.
And that's where we are now: legislators refusing to authorize one form of domestic surveillance because it would rather give the feds a pass on a much more prevalent form of domestic surveillance. The former once ensnared some of Trump's buddies. The latter has yet to do so.
The infighting continues, with one side being rallied by none of than Fox News, which prefers to cater to its base, rather than provide any reporting or analysis that might accurately portray current events. The spin being pushed by Fox claims the alterations added to the bill would somehow prevent the NSA (and, by extension, the FBI) from surveilling foreign terrorists.
AFox News reportpublished Thursday morning, while accurately noting that it was Turner's threat that forced Johnson to cancel the vote, goes on to cite sources close to the Intelligence Committee" who offered analysis of the events. The sources claimed that Turner was compelled to abandon the deal because the compromise bill" had been sneakily altered in a manner that totally screws FISA in terms of its ability to be a national security tool."
While redirecting blame away from Turner and his cohorts, the claim is both false and deceptive, relying on assertions that, while farcical perhaps to legal experts, would be impossible for the public at large (and most of the press) to parse alone.
Section 702 still has a good chance to survive intact. This infighting actually makes it much less likely any true reform will take place. Grandstanding has replaced oversight. But, at least for now, we can be assured the surveillance program will remain one step away from being ditched until House Republicans can reconcile their desire to protect people like Carter Page with their desire to treat everyone a little bit on the brown side as a potential terrorist.