New Surveillance Law Would Curtail NSA Snooping on Americans, Increase Transparency

[cali]

Last week, an effort in Congress to scale back the NSA’s surveillance of Americans failed after a close vote. But another new law that could significantly rein in the government’s spy programs is being proposed.

As part of a bipartisan push to reform surveillance laws, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. The bill aims to bring more judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency to the secret surveillance powers used by the NSA and FBI, focusing specifically on controversial sections of the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill is co-sponsored by nine senators, including several outspoken critics of current spy laws, like Mark Udall, D-Colo., Ron Wyden D-Ore., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The bill would, among other things:

Narrow the scope of the section 215 of the Patriot Act, the law used by the NSA to gather millions of Americans’ phone records on a daily basis. Under Leahy’s bill, to obtain the data the government would first have to produce a statement of facts showing that it is relevant to an authorized investigation and that there is a link to a foreign group or power.
Allow for judicial review of “gag order” provisions of the Patriot Act that can stop a recipient from challenging a nondisclosure order until one year has passed.
Bring forward the sunset clause of the recently renewed FISA Amendments Act by more than two years, to June 2015, enabling a sooner “re-examination” of the controversial spy law.
Require the inspector general of the intelligence community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans.
Mandate the production of an unclassified report for the public that would review the impact of the government’s secret surveillance powers on the privacy of Americans.

Leahy, who is separately pushing to update an outdated privacy law to protect email from warrantless snooping, says he has been trying for the last two Congresses to bring reform to the surveillance laws, but so far he has been unsuccessful. This time, however, his chances of success are surely markedly higher. More so than at any time in more than a decade, concern is mounting about the extent of the NSA’s sweeping surveillance programs, which have been exposed to an unprecedented level of public scrutiny and debate following a series of leaked secret documents in June. Last week, in a sign that support for the government’s spy initiatives is waning, an amendment that would have cut funding for the NSA’s mass phone records collection was defeated in the House by a narrow 205-217 majority. The vote, described as “extraordinary” and “amazing” by senators who have been pushing for reform of surveillance laws for years, was taken as an indication that support is rapidly growing for enhanced oversight measures because in recent years votes on reining in NSA surveillance powers have usually been voted down with much larger majorities.


<snip>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/29/patrick_leahy_s_fisa_accountability_and_privacy_protection_act_would_curtail.html

[spin]

1. Even if this passes it will only be a matter of time until total government surveillance rises ...

from the ashes once again.

Chances are slim that it will even pass as there are undoubtedly files on every member of Congress and many of the careers of those who vote for passing the law will end in a nasty scandal.

[cthulu2016]

2. Not likely to get a veto-proof majority

Yeah, I said it.

It would have to be veto-proof.

[cali]

3. ugh. you're probably right

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Someone needed to say it.

[KoKo]

4. Leahy talks good... and it's can't be just the Repugs

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2013, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

that hold him back if he's serious. I don't take either him or Levin seriously any more. They've always been good talkers but little comes of it down the road.

[cali]

5. Effective in what way? He's for sure been effective when it comes to

liberal legislation and Levin has never been a liberal. Leahy is one of the most liberal members of the Congress. Not just the Senate, the Congress.

I can get irritated at him but he's passed more liberal legislation than any other Senator. That's not hyperbole though in part it's due to his having been there for 37 years- more than half his life.

this is easy to check out.

[cthulu2016]

6. You are onto something: "it can't just be the Repugs"

[cali]

8. yeah, but just because Leahy doesn't get this particular legislation passed

doesn't mean that what KoKo claimed re Leahy is true.

[cthulu2016]

10. My only point was that Leahy couldn't get 100% of Dems for

any truly liberal bill on much of anything because not 100% of Senate Dems are liberals.

Which is hardly his fault.

[KoKo]

12. I edited because "not effective was too harsh." But...

here's some of why I became somewhat disillusioned with him:

=================

After public criticism of proposal that lets government agencies warrantlessly access Americans’ e-mail, Sen. Patrick Leahy says he will “not support” such an idea at next week’s vote.
| cnet

Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power — including warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail accounts — than they possess under current law.

The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would “not support such an exception” for warrantless access. The remarks came a few hours after a CNET article was published this morning that disclosed the existence of the measure.

-snip-

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI’s efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans’ right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is still looming over Web companies, and the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy’s work on the Patriot Act “appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties.” Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/11/22/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/


-----------------
Senator Leahy To Introduce Legislation To Limit The Patriot Act Today
Posted by J Clifford under Homeland Insecurity, Legislation, Liberty on June 20th, 2013

http://irregulartimes.com/2013/06/20/senator-leahy-to-introduce-legislation-to-limit-the-patriot-act-today/

here are two laws that have significantly contributed to the crisis of unreasonable search and seizure by the Executive governments of George W. Bush and Barack Obama: The Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. The extreme latitude with which the Executive Branch has applied these laws indicates that the best way to restore the confidence of the American people in their constitutional rights is to repeal both the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. No one in either house of Congress, however, has yet introduced a law to do that.

What we have seen so far are a small number of bills that would provide a few restrictions on the Patriot Act or the FISA Amendments Act. The newest of these bills will be introduced today by Senator Patrick Leahy.

Yesterday, during the Senate Judiciary committee meeting in which FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that he has ordered spy drones to conduct surveillance within the United States, Senator Leahy announced his plans to reintroduce legislation to restrict the spying powers created by the Patriot Act. Leahy said, “I authored legislation in 2009 that would have improved and reformed the PATRIOT Act, while increasing public accountability and transparency. My bill was reported by this Committee on a bipartisan basis in 2009 and 2011, and would help protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans, and strengthen oversight by the courts and Congress. I intend to re-introduce that bill tomorrow, and hope that Senators from both parties will join me in this effort to improve the PATRIOT Act and further protect the civil liberties of everyday citizens. The American people deserve to know how broad investigative laws like the PATRIOT Act are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when it involves the collection of data on innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their breadth. Right now, I remain skeptical.”

We can’t yet look at the Leahy legislation, but Senator Leahy’s track record on amending the Patriot Act is not a promising sign. The Patriot Act reform legislation that Leahy has introduced before has been regarded as weaker than the improvements that are needed to protect Americans’ constitutional rights. Every time Senator Leahy has reintroduced his legislation, he has made its reforms less effective, and yet, these compromises to the demands of the Homeland Security regime have not earned his legislation improved support from his congressional colleagues.

Over the years, in terms of both policy and politics, Leahy has been an ineffective champion for the effort to bring America’s surveillance machine back under control. A new, more simple tactic is needed: Total, permanent repeal of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act.

1. Ask Senator Patrick Leahy why he’s Sitting on Privacy and Civil Liberties Board Nominations

2. Patrick Leahy Blows His Stack Over Patriot Act… before he votes it forward

3. Senate Quietly and Unanimously Passes Legislation Preventing Changes to FISA Amendments Act or Patriot Act

[ProSense]

9. Here is the text:

(previously posted here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750)

The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013

June 26, 2013

For Background Purposes

Public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the powerful Government surveillance authorities contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), particularly the impact on law-abiding Americans of provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT and Section 702 of FISA. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013 will improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, and also strengthen oversight and transparency with regard to other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Summarized below are some of the highlights of the bill’s provisions:

New and Shorter Sunset Provisions to Ensure Proper Oversight

• Shortens the sunset for the FISA Amendments Act from December 2017 to June 2015. The June 2015 sunset would align with expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions, and enable Congress to address these FISA provisions all at once, instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
  
  
• Adds new June 2015 sunsets on statutes authorizing use of National Security Letters (NSLs).

Higher Standards for PATRIOT Act Surveillance Authorities

• Elevates the threshold standard for obtaining records through Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group.
  
  
• Requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approve minimization procedures for data collected under Section 215.
  
  
• Requires the government to provide a statement of the facts and circumstances to justify its belief that the Section 215 records for tangible things, or Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices (PR/TT) sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information.
  
  
• Strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for Section 215 orders and strikes the conclusive presumption in favor of the government on nondisclosure.
  
  
• Requires the FBI to retain an internal statement of facts demonstrating the relevance of information sought to its investigation before it can issue a National Security Letter (NSL).
  
  
• For “roving” wiretaps, requires law enforcement to identify “with particularity” the target of a wiretap request under FISA.

Increased Transparency and Public Reporting

• Expands public reporting on the use of National Security Letters and authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of United States persons.
  
  
• Fixes a constitutional deficiency found by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey by shifting the burden to the government to seek a court order for an NSL non-disclosure order, and allows the recipient of such a non-disclosure order to challenge it at any time.

Increased Judicial Review and Inspector General Oversight

• Requires Inspector General audits on the use of Section 215 orders, NSLs, and other surveillance authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act.
  
  
• Provides for a comprehensive review of FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) surveillance by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG).
  
  
• Clarifies the scope of the annual reviews for Section 702 currently required by the law, in order to cover all agencies that have targeting or minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/the-fisa-accountability-and-privacy-protection-act-of-2013

The co-sponsors include Senators Richard Blumenthal, Jon Tester, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden.

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, oversight hearing on surveillance programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023380208

[intaglio]

11. Something I can agree with in this

though the paranoid part of my mind says that evidence from overseas intelligence agencies* will be part of the evidence allowed to be submitted to the court.

_______________________________________

*i.e. Information from Echelon and parallel "cooperative" efforts.