The Senate voted by a razor-thin margin Tuesday to invoke cloture on the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017, which would reauthorize for six years Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill includes some significant changes to 702, though the reforms are substantially more modest than those sought by privacy advocates.
Latest in FISA Amendments Act
Lawfare carried comprehensive coverage of this year’s developments in the lead up to the Dec. 31, 2017 reauthorization deadline for Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (along with the other provisions of the law’s Title VII). The government bought itself a few more weeks in last week’s continuing resolution to extend government spending, when Congress and the White House pushed the deadline for reauthorization forward to Jan. 19 of next year.
Document: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017
The House Permament Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) has released its version of the FISA Amendements Reauthorization Act of 2017.
You can find the document here:
I’m not a fan of sunsets. I don’t mean the glorious sprays of color caused by the setting sun. I’m referring to expiration dates, particularly those attached to intelligence-gathering laws. I’ve long believed that Congress shouldn’t need a countdown clock to perform its oversight of national security programs and that it can amend any law it deems deficient at any time, sunset or no sunset.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released three redacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions (FISC) yesterday, respectively on a pen register and trap-and-trace case, Section 702 certifications, and the Government's first application for orders requiring the production of call records under the USA FREEDOM Act.
This lede from the New York Times's Charlie Savage says it all:
A brief word in response to Peter Margulies’s point about the costs of my proposal to give up the use of PRISM for “foreign affairs” surveillance. He believes the costs of my proposal would be too high. He makes some good points about the value of “foreign affairs” surveillance, especially as it may help enforce trade agreements.