US House Passes Bill Renewing Warrantless Surveillance Under FISA Section 702 Amid Privacy Concerns (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

Ignoring rising privacy concerns, the US House of Representatives gave the green light on Friday to a bill renewing the warrantless surveillance program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702, for the next two years. However, the vote witnessed the piecing together of conservative resistance that had stalled a prior chance at its approval. A shorter renewal period, as opposed to an initially proposed five-year term, was agreed upon in an attempt to win over Republican dissenters, culminating in a 273-147 vote in favor of the bill.

Increasing distrust concerning governmental surveillance powers has been apparent of late, especially amongst some conservatives who want to see the Fourth Amendment protected. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Disagreements over the potential framework for revamping the FISA spy program have resulted in divisions within the Republican party, evidenced by 19 members breaking away to block the legislation this week. However, an indication of support from previous objectors was given late Thursday.

The legislation under review allows the government to gather foreign intelligence by monitoring the communications of non-US residents overseas without the necessity of a warrant. However, it has, despite assurances that it wouldn’t happen again, been used to surveil US citizens.

US House Passes Bill Renewing Warrantless Surveillance Under FISA Section 702 Amid Privacy Concerns

The Fourth Amendment is being ignored in the name of national security.

reclaimthenet.org

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

Our country is turning into a surveillance state.

 

[J-DONK]

Our country is turning into a surveillance state.

I just can't see this being a real conviction. Does SFL support the ACLU? My guess is no.

Does anyone think SFL made a post like this in 2018?

SFL, what's your saintsreport username? I'll check for consistency.

 

[SaintForLife]

I just can't see this being a real conviction. Does SFL support the ACLU? My guess is no.

Does anyone think SFL made a post like this in 2018?

SFL, what's your saintsreport username? I'll check for consistency.

You should spend less time whining and crying and more time posting on the subject matter.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[J-DONK]

You should spend less time whining and crying and more time posting on the subject matter.

LOL, that means no, I don't have a single post from 2013, 2018, nor the snowden leaks that shows I cared until today.

 

[efil4]

LOL, that means no, I don't have a single post from 2013, 2018, nor the snowden leaks that shows I cared until today.

you silly man.

by posting on subject he means you running to Twitter to compile a wall of Tweets that discuss the subject FOR YOU, however not necessarily YOUR OWN opinion, and post them all here, without any valid discussion of the subject...just the tweets.

Then sit back and profit as 3-5 reply with honest questions that either go completely unanswered or get told that you are "CIA mouthpiece"

LOL.

this !@@$ is entirely too transparent now. He literally knows no other way to have an informed discussion- someone has to have fed to him so he can regurgitate.

 

[samiam5211]

Good.

 

[SaintForLife]

She was right. Too bad the people who don't like the 4th ammendment won.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[MT15]

SFL - if this bill is a 2-year renewal of the way these things have been, how is it a “dramatic and terrifying expansion”?

 

[SaintForLife]

Most people have no idea how bad this bill is.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is much worse than the Patriot Act.
More information on the bill:

 

[superchuck500]

This is much worse than the Patriot Act.
More information on the bill:

But isn't it true that (1) those businesses could only be compelled to act under this program if there's some basis by which they can provide non-Americans communications overseas, and (2) there a proposed exclusion for "public accommodation facility, dwelling, community facility, or food service establishment"?

There has been public speculation about whether the expanded definition could bring businesses such as hotels and coffee shops that provide internet connectivity within the scope of Section 702. To the extent that such entities are not already ECSPs, such as by operating as an ECS or RCS, the expansion would only appear to implicate them to the extent they could help acquire non-Americans’ communications overseas. The definitional change does not affect other limitations of the statute, so even under the HPSCI bill, Section 702 could still not be used to compel a hotel, coffee shop, store, or other establishment within the United States to provide any assistance to the government. Still, in response to concerns about the expansion, the RISAA definition includes exceptions that the HPSCI bill did not. The proposed new definition of ECSP would exclude “any entity that serves primarily as” a public accommodation facility, dwelling, community facility, or food service establishment.

Unpacking the FISA Section 702 Reauthorization Bill

The FISA reauthorization bill has something to interest everyone from addressing the use of U.S. person query terms to formalizing oversight.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[SaintForLife]

But isn't it true that (1) those businesses could only be compelled to act under this program if there's some basis by which they can provide non-Americans communications overseas, and (2) there a proposed exclusion for "public accommodation facility, dwelling, community facility, or food service establishment"?

Unpacking the FISA Section 702 Reauthorization Bill

The FISA reauthorization bill has something to interest everyone from addressing the use of U.S. person query terms to formalizing oversight.

www.justsecurity.org

Good question. I have no idea and I don't claim to be able to read the bill and know exactly what it means legally.

I'll look to see if I can find anything specific about your point.

Considering the guy who wrote that article used to work for the DOJ, I think I would trust the opinion of long time privacy advocates like Senator Wyden over someone who might be on the other side of that debate. I'm not saying that guy was lying or misleading, but I'm more skeptical of that point when it comes from someone who worked at the DOJ and might favor less privacy.

Wyden talks about it here:

 

[SystemShock]

Remember when articles were posted in their entirety, in a format that a human being could read it? And not in slices haphazardly arranged?

Anyway, come decrypt my shirt if you can,

 

[efil4]

But isn't it true that (1) those businesses could only be compelled to act under this program if there's some basis by which they can provide non-Americans communications overseas, and (2) there a proposed exclusion for "public accommodation facility, dwelling, community facility, or food service establishment"?

Unpacking the FISA Section 702 Reauthorization Bill

The FISA reauthorization bill has something to interest everyone from addressing the use of U.S. person query terms to formalizing oversight.

www.justsecurity.org

I'll look to see if I can find anything specific about your point.

He just gave you the answer- specific to his point in his reply.

you dont have to look far for it.