With the rise of modern technologies, the scope and scale of government surveillance has exploded. The use of digital communication has made communication more efficient, but also much more vulnerable. Governments, meanwhile, are increasing their capacity to exploit these vulnerabilities, and companies, their ability to thwart them. Both the PATRIOT act and the Snowden disclosures pushed the issue to the front of the national conversation. Today, the legal and policy debate—over what kind of surveillance tools are acceptable, against whom, and with with whose authorization—continues in full force.
Latest in Surveillance
Israel reinstated contact-tracing activities by the Israel Security Agency to track carriers of the omicron variant of the coronavirus. Five days later, it halted the ISA’s contact-tracing activities, due to a lack of parliamentary support.
What are the legal and policy questions raised by gig surveillance work?
The limits on congressional surveillance vary from those on other, more common forms of government surveillance. As a whole, they raise difficult questions around the convergence of individual privacy and the separation of powers.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, claimed that the NSA’s “Upstream” surveillance program captures its international communications and is a violation of its First Amendment free-speech rights and its Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
The court’s ruling in FBI v. Fazaga could have significant implications for future challenges to government surveillance under FISA and to the government’s use of the state secrets privilege.
Survey of recent phone and email records seizures shows Justice Department under President Trump markedly more aggressive in pursuing reporters to unmask sources.
The report recommends that agencies track and assess the systems they use to mitigate the privacy and accuracy risks.
On April 26, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) declassified a Nov. 18, 2020, ruling issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The decision grants the U.S. government’s request for approval to continue collecting information on non-U.S. persons in order to acquire foreign intelligence information under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The government’s best defense of a warrantless system of digital surveillance would rely on the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Policymakers have paid scant consideration to the national security implications of unfettered, largely unregulated data brokering. That may be changing.