SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
government surveillance
'Five-Alarm Fire' as GOP House Speaker Tries to Ram Through Spying Bill
"Absentsignificant amendment, RISAA will do nothing to prevent the government's repeated abuses of Section 702 to spy on Americans," critics said.
Apr 10, 2024
Update (3:45 pm ET):
Nineteen Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday blocked the GOP speaker's effort to move forward with reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a controversial spying authority historically abused by government agencies.
"The failure of today's vote makes clear that even with the speaker's finger on the scale, Congress won't reauthorize FISA without meaningful privacy reforms," responded Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security and Surveillance Project.
"The path forward is clear: We need strong reforms to Section 702, including closing the backdoor search loophole and data broker loophole," he added. "Another short-term extension ignores the genuine privacy concerns that have been raised by members of both parties. It's time to bring a bill with genuine reforms to the House floor."
Earlier:
With just over a week left for the U.S. Congress to renew a major—and highly controversial—state surveillance program before it expires, privacy defenders on Tuesday warned that so-called "compromise" legislation is little more than a ploy to permanently reauthorize warrantless government spying on American citizens.
The Biden administration and members of Congress from both parties are seeking to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also captures the communications of Americans.
Following a Tuesday markup session by the House Rules Committee and Wednesday consultations with intelligence officials, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is expected to call a vote on the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA) on Thursday. The bill would reauthorize Section 702 for five years while enacting what supporters call a series of reforms meant to protect Americans against state surveillance.
"Absent significant amendment, RISAA will do nothing to prevent the government's repeated abuses of Section 702 to spy on Americans," said the Brennan Center for Justice, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and FreedomWorks in a joint statement.
Introduced in February by Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.), RISAA would reauthorize what the congresswoman called "an indispensable tool that protects us from national security threats within the United States and abroad."
Congress passed a short-term extension of Section 702 last December, with lawmakers unable to agree on whether and how to reform the contentious law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
RISAA is meant to be a compromise between the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act and the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act. The former bill was supported by privacy defenders, while the ACLU warned that the latter "would greatly expand the government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant."
Proponents are touting RISAA's 56 purported reforms. Johnson asserted last week that the legislation "will establish new procedures to rein in the FBI, increase accountability at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), impose penalties for wrongdoing, and institute unprecedented transparency across the FISA process so we no longer have to wait years to uncover potential abuses."
However, civil liberties defenders warn that many of RISAA's so-called reforms are little more than window dressing that preserve the status quo.
"Making 56 ineffective tweaks to a fundamentally broken law is not reforming it," said the Brennan Center, EPIC, and FreedomWorks.
Johnson had previously supported closing the so-called data broker loophole—which the government exploits to purchase sensitive information—and the backdoor search loophole, through which domestic law enforcement agencies can access Americans' communications without a warrant. While the House is expected to vote Thursday on an amendment to close the backdoor search loophole, lawmakers are also likely to vote on three FISA expansions and special protections that only apply to members of Congress.
"This is so disappointing—when Speaker Johnson was on the Judiciary Committee with me, he was in our coalition fighting for major FISA reforms to protect sensitive data. Now that he's speaker, he's folding to spy agencies who want to violate your privacy," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote on social media Tuesday.
Jayapal lamented that RISAA says the "FBI has to notify congressmembers to spy on us, but regular Americans can be spied on without a warrant?"
Demand Progress policy director Sean Vitka said in a statement, "In a truly staggering betrayal of public trust, Speaker Johnson is now not only sabotaging votes on overwhelmingly popular privacy protections for Americans, he is trying to ram through the Intelligence Committee's expansions of FISA."
"This is a five-alarm fire, born from Speaker Johnson's apparent decision to jam his thumb on the scale and sell out everyone in the United States to foreign data brokers," Vitka added.
Furthermore, RISAA contains a provision that Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center, warns "could result in the permanent reauthorization" of Section 702 "without a single reform."
"The House must NOT pass any legislation that could be read to permanently reauthorize Section 702, let alone permanently reauthorizing it without a single reform," Goitein said. "This provision of RISAA must be fixed, or the bill should be DOA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ACLU Sues Colorado Springs, FBI Over 'Unconstitutional' Spying on Activists' Devices
"Unless called to account in this lawsuit, the police could seize and search the phones and devices of anyone in our community."
Aug 02, 2023
The ACLU of Colorado on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs, four members of the Colorado Springs Police Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, accusing them of illegally spying on the private communications of a local activist arrested on minor—and critics say dubious—charges during a 2021 housing rights protest.
Filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado in Denver on behalf of Jacqueline "Jax" Armendariz Unzueta and the Chinook Center, a progressive community advocacy group, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of perpetrating the "unconstitutional and invasive search and seizure of the phones, computers, devices, and private chats of people and groups whose message the CSPD dislikes."
"Over the last several years, CSPD has engaged in a concerted campaign against activists in the region, abusing its powers to target them through infiltration, surveillance, and dragnet warrants to search and seize their personal devices and digital data without justification," the complaint states.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
The lawsuit contends that the actions of CSPD detectives Daniel Summey and B.K. Steckler, CSPD officers Jason Otero and Roy Ditzler, and the FBI "expose a pervasive disregard for long-standing constitutional rules meant to constrain law enforcement and protect personal privacy, with far-reaching implications for everyone in our community."
The Chinook Center—which describes itself as a "progressive, mission-driven community space that empowers and connects people and grassroots organizations working for social, economic, and environmental justice in the Pikes Peak region"—helped organize a July 31, 2021 housing rights march in which Armendariz Unzueta participated.
According to the lawsuit, "CSPD targeted Chinook Center leaders for arrest at the march, sharing pictures of the activists in advance and stating that they would get a 'boot to the head.'"
The suit continues:
Ultimately, a CSPD commander ordered arrests of prominent Chinook Center members for marching in the street, even after the protestors complied with police requests to move onto the sidewalk.
Colorado Springs police then obtained a search warrant—one of several that are the subject of this lawsuit—to search the Chinook Center's private chats on Facebook Messenger. The warrant did not even purport to be supported by probable cause. It was not limited to a search for any particular evidence, let alone evidence of a particular crime, and it was unlimited as to topics.
"The warrants targeting Chinook and Armendariz Unzueta were part of a pattern and practice of unconstitutional actions intended to teach activists a lesson: Colorado Springs police would retaliate against political expression with dragnet warrants to chill free speech," the lawsuit states.
"Tolerating or accepting this justification would eviscerate the Fourth Amendment and justify unbounded intrusions into the privacy of anyone even associated with someone accused of a crime," the complaint asserts. "Unless called to account in this lawsuit, the police could seize and search the phones and devices of anyone in our community."
CSPD's justification for the seizure and search of Armendariz Unzueta's devices is based on the fact that she was arrested for marching in the street and allegedly dropping her bicycle in the path of an officer during the march, "even though the officer easily avoided the bicycle and was not injured in any way," according to the suit.
The arrest, police said, gave them the right to search activists' devices because protesters used them to share photos and messages.
The FBI is named in the lawsuit because, according to the filing, agents at its Rocky Mountain Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory illegally seized, searched, and copied Armendariz Unzueta's personal devices.
"CSPD and the FBI searched these devices for the words 'human,' 'right,' 'housing,' 'protest,' and 'police,' among many other terms, without any time limitation whatsoever," the filing states. "They also seized and reviewed all of Armendariz Unzueta's private personal photos, videos, text messages, and emails for more than a two-month period, again unlimited by subject or topic."
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Armendariz Unzueta said that "this case is about love for my community. I hope CSPD will never again target, terrorize, and attempt to silence others as they did to me."
"We cannot let CSPD continue to be arrogant bullies with badges and guns that violate the civil rights of innocent people because of their entrenched—and ignorant—political and racial biases," she added.
"This case is about love for my community. I hope CSPD will never again target, terrorize, and attempt to silence others as they did to me."
ACLU of Colorado legal director Tim Macdonald said that "our Constitution recognized the profound danger that these types of warrants would have on freedom and liberty and precluded them. Indeed, these types of general warrants were common in the time of King George and helped lead to the American Revolution."
"Unless called to account in this lawsuit, the police could seize and search the phones and devices of anyone in our community," Macdonald warned.
As noted in the lawsuit, "the FBI had been spying on the Chinook Center and other activist groups since the summer of 2020, with CSPD Detective April Rogers masquerading undercover as an activist, participant, and volunteer with Chinook and allied organizations" during racial justice protests in response to the May 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and the earlier CSPD killing of De'Von Bailey, who was shot four times in the back after someone called to falsely report a robbery as revenge.
This was part of the FBI's wider infiltration campaign targeting Back Lives Matter and, according to critics, a continuation of the agency's longtime efforts to monitor, infiltrate, and destroy social justice movements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Quietly Approves Rule to Give FBI 'Sprawling' Hacking Powers
Absent action by Congress, the rule change will go into effect in December
Apr 29, 2016
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly approved a rule change allowing a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
Absent action by U.S. Congress, the rule change (pdf) will go into effect in December. The FBI would then be able to search computers remotely--even if the bureau doesn't know where that computer is located--if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
The rule changes, which the FBI said were necessary to combat cybercrime, come amid escalating tensions between the intelligence community and technology and privacy advocates, and just a day after the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before seizing data stored with tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Dropbox.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it--whether they call it a 'remote access search' or a 'network investigative technique'--what we're talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a lot more of it," said Kevin Bankston, director of the policy advocacy group Open Technology Institute (OTI), which previously testified against the changes. "Congress should stop this power-grab in its tracks and instead demand answers from the FBI, which so far has been ducking Congress' questions on this issue and fighting in court to keep its hacking tactics secret."
As of April, over one million people use Tor just to browse Facebook, the social media platform noted in a blog post.
Chief Justice John Roberts submitted the change to Congress as part of the court's annual collection of amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which inform every federal prosecution in the country.
In its current incarnation, Rule 41 stipulates that magistrate judges can only authorize searches within their own jurisdiction. The amendment would allow them to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been "concealed through technical means."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of Congress's more outspoken privacy advocates, slammed the proposal as a "sprawling expansion of government surveillance" and called on Congress to reject it.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy and the scope of the government's powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices," Wyden said in a statement. "Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once, and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime."
"These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting," Wyden said. "Substantive policy changes like these are clearly a job for Congress, the American people and their elected representatives, not an obscure bureaucratic process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular