Skip to content

Tag Archives: FISA Amendments Act

Senators Express Concern on 702 Interpretation

By
Sunday, July 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Ellen Nakashima at the Washington Post reports that four U.S. Senators—Jon Tester, Jeff Merkley, Mark Begich, and John Walsh—wrote a July 24th letter to DNI Clapper expressing their concerns with NSA’s interpretation of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. They pull heavily from the PCLOB report released earlier this month, in which the Board observed that . . .
Read more »

Lenity and the FISA Reform Endgame

By
Friday, November 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I was on the same panel as Orin at Monday’s day-long hearing before the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and think there’s a lot to commend his proposal for a statutory rule of lenity as a tool to regulate national security surveillance–to scale back the government’s ability to push for expansive interpretations of the . . .
Read more »

The Supreme Court’s Power To Hear In re EPIC

By
Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Wells blogged on Monday about EPIC’s new original filing in the Supreme Court, seeking mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari from the Justices to review Judge Vinson’s now-leaked FISA Court order with regard the section 215 request for Verizon’s “business records.” Needless to say, the merits of the section 215 question have received a lot of attention, . . .
Read more »

Google and Microsoft Want to Tell Us How Often they Get FISA Orders and FAA Directives: Why Not Let Them?

By
Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

A new development in the FISA/FAA world yesterday evening: Google and Microsoft have filed motions with the FISC (posted here on the FISC’s public site) asking for permission to disclose to the public how often they have received FISA orders and FAA directives over a set period. Why would they want to reveal such information, . . .
Read more »

Thoughts on a Blue-Sky Overhaul of Surveillance Laws: Approach

By
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 9:00 AM

[Editor’s Note: below you’ll find the third in a series of posts by David Kris on surveillance reform.  In the first two installments, David introduced his subject, and then overviewed the challenges facing an attempt to overhaul the legal rules for surveillance.  Below he sketches a possible approach to a “blue-sky” reform effort.]  The first . . .
Read more »

Thoughts on a Blue-Sky Overhaul of Surveillance Laws: Challenges

By
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

[Editor's Note: this is the second in a series of four posts by David Kris, on large-scale surveillance reform.  The first, an introduction, can be found here.  Below, David discusses the challenges facing any "blue-sky" overhaul.]  A blue-sky overhaul, while easy to imagine, would be extraordinarily difficult to execute, fraught with risk, and likely to . . .
Read more »

Thoughts on a Blue-Sky Overhaul of Surveillance Laws: Introduction

By
Saturday, May 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

[Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of four posts, in which David S. Kris discusses the possibility of wide-ranging reform to U.S. surveillance law.]  A paper I wrote for Ben Wittes a few years ago discussed the “modernization” of our foreign intelligence surveillance laws after September 11, 2001, culminating in the FISA . . .
Read more »

Clapper Opinion Recap: Supreme Court Denies Standing to Challenge NSA Warantless Wiretapping

By
Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 9:17 PM

As Wells reported, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA this morning. By a 5–4 vote, it held that a group of human rights organizations, lawyers, activists, and journalists lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of a congressionally authorized, warrantless government surveillance program. The surveillance program was authorized by the . . .
Read more »

Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might…

By
Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM

There’s been a fair amount of buzz over the past few days centered around the idea of a statutory “drone court”–a tribunal modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that would (presumably) provide at least some modicum of due process before the government engages in targeted killing operations, but that, like the FISC, would . . .
Read more »

A Belated FISA Amendment Act Reauthorization Act Update

By
Monday, January 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM

As readers probably already know, the Senate ended an otherwise largely legislation-light 2012 by approving a controversial five-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), which the House had previously passed in September. President Obama signed the reauthorization into law on January 4th. The legislative debate that led up to the bill had . . .
Read more »

President Obama Signs FISA Amendments Act Extension

By
Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Amid all the fiscal cliff hubbub, the Senate on Friday approved, and President Obama on Sunday signed, the inelegantly if accurately named “FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012.”  The new law extends its predecessor, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, for a period of five years. You can find an enrolled copy of the . . .
Read more »

Lawfare Podcast Episode #21: Jameel Jaffer and Benjamin Powell on Clapper v. Amnesty International

By
Monday, November 12, 2012 at 12:59 PM

On Monday, October 29, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which poses the question whether a group of human rights organizations, lawyers, activists, and journalists have standing to challenge a congressionally-authorized warantless government surveillance program. In this episode of the podcast, I spoke with both Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU, who . . .
Read more »

Cato’s Julian Sanchez Responds to Carrie Cordero

By
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Over at the Cato Institute’s Cato@Liberty blog, Julian Sanchez responds to the recent guest post by former Justice Department official Carrie Cordero on FISA Amendments Act reauthorization. Writes Sanchez: we seem to have at least 13 senators who don’t believe they’ve been provided with enough information to perform their oversight role adequately. Perhaps they’re setting the bar . . .
Read more »