​The reform coalition on Capitol Hill remains determined to add strong amendments to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But will they get the chance before an April 19th deadline for FISA Section 702’s reauthorization?
 
There are several possible scenarios as this deadline closes. One of them might be a vote on the newly introduced “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America” (RISA) Act. This bill is a good-faith effort to represent the narrow band of changes that the pro-reform House Judiciary Committee and the status quo-minded House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could agree upon.
 
But is it enough? RISA is deeply lacking because it leaves out two key reforms.
 

• It excludes the principal reform of the House Judiciary Committee’s Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act – leaving intact the ability of the FBI and other agencies to continue to use Section 702 data to perform baseless searches on Americans. These searches have been performed on Members of Congress, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, and tens of thousands of protestors on the left and right. Reformers want a warrant before agencies can collect Americans’ communications, as the Fourth Amendment requires.

 

• The bill does not close another loophole through which the FBI, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, and other federal agencies purchase and warrantlessly access the personal information of Americans. This data broker loophole gives the government access to Americans’ health, financial, romantic, religious, and political lives. If Congress cannot reform this practice with a warrant requirement, most other reforms will be meaningless.

 
The bill does include a role for amici curiae, specialists in civil liberties who would act as advisors to the secret FISA court. RISA, however, would limit the issues these advisors could address, well short of the intent of the Senate when it voted 77-19 in 2020 to approve the robust amici provisions of the Lee-Leahy amendment.
 
For all these reasons, reformers should see RISA as a floor, not as a ceiling, as the Section 702 showdown approaches. The best solution to the current impasse is to stop denying Members of Congress the opportunity for a straight up-or-down vote on reform amendments.

​The reauthorization of FISA Section 702, which allows federal agencies to conduct international surveillance for national security purposes, has languished in Congress like an old Spanish galleon caught in the doldrums. This happened after opponents of reform pulled Section 702 reauthorization from the House floor rather than risk losing votes on popular measures, such as requiring government agencies to obtain warrants before surveilling Americans’ communications.
 
But the winds are no longer becalmed. They are picking up – and coming from the direction of reform.
 
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and fellow committee member Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), today introduced the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act. This bill requires the government to obtain warrants or court orders before federal agencies can access Americans’ personal information, whether from Section 702-authorized programs or purchased from data brokers.
 
Enacted by Congress to enable surveillance of foreign targets in foreign lands, Section 702 is used by the FBI and other federal agencies to justify domestic spying. According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, under Section 702 government “batch” searches have included a sitting U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, journalists, political commentators, a state senator, and a state judge who reported civil right violations by a local police chief to the FBI. It has even been used by government agents to stalk online romantic prospects.
 
Millions of Americans in recent years have had their communications compromised by programs under Section 702. The reforms of the SAFE Act promise to reverse this trend, protecting Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights from the government. The SAFE Act requires:

• Intelligence agencies to obtain an order from the FISA Court or a court order before accessing the contents of Americans’ communications collected under Section 702. In a nod to efficiency, warrants need not be obtained before the government runs queries of the data base. Given that less than 2 percent of Section 702 queries actually return results, this narrow requirement will greatly reduce the number of cases in which government agents must seek a warrant, leaving them free to focus on foreign intelligence for national security.

 

• Generally prohibits collection of Americans’ purchased data. Federal agencies currently purchase Americans’ most sensitive, personal information – revealing details about our health, finances, romantic lives, religious worship, and political activities – from data brokers, without any specific statutory authorization. Intelligence agencies make up their own rules for these purchases of our information, without accounting for how and why they use it. The SAFE Act allows agencies to collect Americans’ data when it cannot be separated from other data purchases, but such data must be treated under minimization procedures. The bill otherwise closes this “data broker loophole” by requiring the government to get a court order to collect Americans’ data.

 

• Strengthens the role of highly credentialed experts in privacy law as advisors to the FISA Court. People targeted by a surveillance request by the Department of Justice before this secret court are not represented – and are usually unaware – that they are targets. Such an amicus curiae would ensure that a legal expert with high-level security clearance would advise the court on the privacy and constitutional implications of surveillance requests.

 

• Adds additional training for FBI personnel conducting Section 702 queries, while also requiring more managerial oversight of their queries, as well as audits, and regular reports of Section 702 activities to Congress. The Durbin-Lee bill requires approval from the FBI Deputy Director for any query involving a U.S. elected official, a U.S. state or political appointee, a U.S. political organization, or a member of such an organization. Similar approvals would be required involving religious organizations in any batch query. In this way, Durbin-Lee protects the First Amendment rights of how people vote, serve in office, and worship.

 

• Strengthens the prohibition of “reverse targeting,” in which foreign surveillance can be used as a pretext to work backwards to justify spying on a domestic target.

 

• Repeals the practice of “abouts” collection, currently suspended, in which the NSA collects second-hand mentions of a targeted person, rather than the communications of that actual person.

 

• Imposes criminal penalties for knowingly submitting false information, or omitting relevant information, to the FISA Court. In the infamous Carter Page case, an FBI attorney gave the court a doctored document. Durbin-Lee would make the deliberate misleading of a court a specific crime.

 
Durbin-Lee is a pragmatic bill. It lifts warrants and other requirements in emergency circumstances. The SAFE Act allows the government to obtain consent for surveillance if the subject of the search is a potential victim or target of a foreign plot. It allows queries designed to identify targets of cyberattacks, where the only content accessed and reviewed is malicious software or cybersecurity threat signatures.
 
The SAFE Act is a good-faith effort to strike a balance between national security and Americans’ privacy. It should break the current stalemate, renewing the push for debate and votes on amendments to the reauthorization of Section 702.

​Time and again, the forces of the surveillance status quo have prevented Congress from voting on reforms of FISA Section 702 – the authority passed by Congress to allow the government to track foreign threats but has been used in recent years to surveil millions of ordinary Americans.
 
The intelligence community especially doesn’t want Congress to demand closure of the loophole that allows the government to purchase your most sensitive and personal information from data brokers. Federal agencies can use this data to accumulate a portfolio of your health and medical issues, personal life, financial concerns, religious beliefs and worship, and political posts and activities.
 
Repeated attempts by the U.S. House of Representatives to debate and hold a floor vote on these reform amendments to Section 702 have been stalled by legislative maneuvers and gamesmanship. At the same time, the government has applied to the FISA Court to extend Section 702 without reforms for a whole year, which could elbow Congress out of the policy process entirely.
 
While Congress struggles, a poll conducted by YouGov, commissioned by FreedomWorks and DemandProgress, show the American people – Republicans, Democrats, and independents – are paying attention and they do not like what they see:
​

• Eighty percent of Americans agree that Congress should require government agencies to obtain a warrant before purchasing location information, internet records, and other sensitive data about people in the U.S. from data brokers.

 

• Seventy-six percent agree that government agencies should be required to obtain warrants before intentionally searching international communications for conversations involving people in the U.S.

In the reauthorization of Section 702, Americans demand that Congress:

• Close the loophole that allows international surveillance to become a platform to surveil Americans.

 

• Close the loophole that allows government to purchase our sensitive, personal information from data brokers.

Members of Congress are now asking themselves: If I allow these domestic surveillance programs to continue, how am I going to explain this my constituents? You can help clarify this issue for your Member of Congress.
 
Tell your U.S. House Representative:
 
“Stop the FBI and other government agencies from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers.”

​Ken Blackwell, former ambassador and mayor of Cincinnati, has a conservative resume second to none. He is now a senior fellow of the Family Research Council and chairman of the Conservative Action Project, which organizes elected conservative leaders to act in unison on common goals. So when Blackwell writes an open letter in Breitbart to Speaker Mike Johnson warning him not to try to reauthorize FISA Section 702 in a spending bill – which would terminate all debate about reforms to this surveillance authority – you can be sure that Blackwell was heard.
 
“The number of FISA searches has skyrocketed with literally hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches per year – many of which involve Americans,” Blackwell wrote. “Even one abuse of a citizen’s constitutional rights must not be tolerated. When that number climbs into the thousands, Congress must step in.”
 
What makes Blackwell’s appeal to Speaker Johnson unique is he went beyond including the reform efforts from conservative stalwarts such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Andy Biggs of the Freedom Caucus. Blackwell also cited the support from the committee’s Ranking Member, Rep. Jerry Nadler, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who heads the House Progressive Caucus. Blackwell wrote:
 
“Liberal groups like the ACLU support reforming FISA, joining forces with conservatives civil rights groups. This reflects a consensus almost unseen on so many other important issues of our day. Speaker Johnson needs to take note of that as he faces pressure from some in the intelligence community and their overseers in Congress, who are calling for reauthorizing this controversial law without major reforms and putting that reauthorization in one of the spending bills that will work its way through Congress this month.”
 
That is sound advice for all Congressional leaders on Section 702, whichever side of the aisle they are on. In December, members of this left-right coalition joined together to pass reform measures out of the House Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming margin of 35 to 2. This reform coalition is wide-ranging, its commitment is deep, and it is not going to allow a legislative maneuver to deny Members their right to a debate.

​PPSA, in concert with a coalition of major civil liberties groups from the left, right, and center, is appealing to Members of Congress “to oppose any legislative end-run that allows the FBI and other intelligence agencies to continue to spy on Americans without giving Congress the opportunity to vote on reforms.”
 
The word from Capitol Hill is that the intelligence community is now lobbying to attach a reauthorization of FISA Section 702 to a “must-pass” spending measure. Such a maneuver would cement the intelligence community’s strategy of denying Members of Congress a chance to have a debate and to vote on reforms to this surveillance authority.
 
Our letter, which includes Americans for Prosperity, the Brennan Center for Justice, Demand Progress, FreedomWorks, and the Wikimedia Foundation, warns Congress:
 
“The Fourth Amendment will become a constitutional dead letter if the government can continue to track our every movement, communications, where we worship, our financial and health issues, what we believe, and our political activity without warrants.”
 
Our letter concludes: “Congress must be able to vote on reforms rather than being faced with a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ choice between funding the government and protecting Americans’ liberties.”
 
Our FISA Reform Coalition letter ended by urging Congress to stand up for Americans’ privacy, the Constitution, and against the insulting premise that Members of Congress should not be allowed to vote on surveillance reform.

Tell your Representative in the U.S. House that you want the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies to stop spying on you and your family.
 
In recent years, the FBI and other agencies have freely dipped into Americans’ private communications and data caught up in foreign surveillance. The FBI, IRS, Drug Enforcement Administration, Pentagon, and other agencies also track your every move by purchasing your geolocation data and other sensitive, personal information scraped from the apps on your cellphone and sold to the government by shady data brokers.
 
Your personal information from these sources tells the FBI where you’ve been and where you’re going, where you worship, who you date or have fun with, and all about your health, financial information, personal beliefs, and political activities. Do you trust this government to have so much power over your life?
 
Consider that the FBI has already been caught dipping into Americans’ personal communications in recent years by the millions. The government has followed our political and religious activities for years without warrants, spied on 19,000 donors to a Congressional campaign, and spied on a state senator, a state judge, a U.S. Congressman, and U.S. Senator. If judges and Members of Congress can have their rights violated, imagine how much respect the FBI and other government agencies have for your privacy.
 
For now, champions of the intelligence community on Capitol Hill have used a legislative maneuver to prevent a vote that would require the government to get warrants before looking at your private information. The FBI and their friends know that if these amendments get a fair vote on the House floor, they will lose. So they’ve upended the whole process.
 
This is dirty pool. The lack of a vote denies your Member of Congress the right to debate and vote for reform. Unchallenged, this maneuver ensures that the FBI and other agencies will continue to ignore the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly mandates that the government go to a court and obtain a warrant before your personal communications can be inspected.
 
So tell your U.S. House Representative to demand that the FBI and other federal agencies stop accessing your private, personal communications and data without a warrant.
 
Tell your U.S. House Representative:
 
“Stop the FBI from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers.”

​Just in time for the Section 702 debate, Emile Ayoub and Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice have written a concise and easy to understand primer on what the data broker loophole is about, why it is so important, and what Congress can do about it.
 
These authors note that in this age of “surveillance capitalism” – with a $250 billion market for commercial online data – brokers are compiling “exhaustive dossiers” that “reveal the most intimate details of our lives, our movements, habits, associations, health conditions, and ideologies.”
 
This happens because data brokers “pay app developers to install code that siphons users’ data, including location information. They use cookies or other web trackers to capture online activity. They scrape from information public-facing sites, including social media platforms, often in violation of those platforms’ terms of service. They also collect information from public records and purchase data from a wide range of companies that collect and maintain personal information, including app developers, internet service providers, car manufacturers, advertisers, utility companies, supermarkets, and other data brokers.”
 
Armed with all this information, data brokers can easily “reidentify” individuals from supposedly “anonymized” data. This information is then sold to the FBI, IRS, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and state and local law enforcement.
 
Ayoub and Goitein examine how government lawyers employ legal sophistry to evade a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the collection of location data, as well as the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution, to access Americans’ most personal and sensitive information without a warrant. They describe the merits of the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, and how it would shut down “illegitimately obtained information” from companies that scrape photos and data from social media platforms.
 
The latter point is most important. Reformers in the House are working hard to amend FISA Section 702 with provisions from the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, to require the government to obtain warrants before inspecting our commercially acquired data. While the push is on to require warrants for Americans’ data picked up along with international surveillance, the job will be decidedly incomplete if the government can get around the warrant requirement by simply buying our data.
 
Ayoub and Goitein conclude that Congress must “prohibit government agencies from sidestepping the Fourth Amendment.” Read this paper and go here to call your House Member and let them know that you demand warrants before the government can access our sensitive, personal information.

​From Gene Schaerr, general counsel of the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability:
 
“For months, the House Intelligence Committee warned that failure to reauthorize Section 702 would subject the American homeland to unprecedented danger. 
 
“Now the Intelligence Committee has caused the bill to be pulled rather than allow the House to work its will and vote on a few reasonable and important reform amendments. 
 
“They are now willing to endanger Section 702 in its entirety unless they get everything they want.
 
“Think about it – the intelligence community and deep state are so determined to maintain the ability to spy on Americans that they are willing to put at risk the very authority they claim they need to protect us against foreign threats.”

​Long before the founding of the United States, religious refugees flooded into America to escape the Star Chamber, the Inquisition, the persecutions, and wars over religious doctrine that made worship in the Old World a dangerous activity. Millions wanted relief from the incessant surveillance – exemplified by William Laud, Charles I’s Archbishop of Canterbury – that often relied on spies dispatched to listen to sermons with sharp ears for anything out of line with official orthodoxy.
 
As the House of Representatives prepares to decide whether to include surveillance reforms in the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there are serious implications for the free practice of religion in America.
 
House Speaker Mike Johnson made this clear in an interview late last year when he addressed the FBI’s surveillance of traditional Catholics as possible terrorists, and the targeting of pro-life activists like Mark Hauck, whose wife and seven children watched in terror as an FBI SWAT team broke down their front door and pointed five guns at his head over a supposed violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
 
“I’ve made it very clear that, in my view, the evidence shows that, the FBI, for example, in the last couple of years has been weaponized,” Speaker Johnson told The Daily Signal. “We have the evidence to show it. They have, in some cases, targeted people of faith. They’ve targeted conservative Catholics and concerned parents at school board meetings … that’s what happened.”
 
Alex Marthews of Restore the Fourth documents abuses of religious rights from church- organized civil rights protests in the 1960s to the surveillance of patriotic, law-abiding Muslims today. We recently reported on the creepy surveillance of Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California. Such government snooping into religious expression is enabled by two massive databanks that the government freely dips into without a warrant.

One is Section 702, an authority that allows the surveillance of foreign targets located abroad, but incidentally collects the communications of millions of Americans. The FBI has dipped into this ocean of Americans’ communications millions of times in recent years without warrants.
 
The other database is the commercial purchase of our most sensitive and personal information scraped from apps and sold to the FBI, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, and many other agencies. This, too, is information the government holds and freely accesses, all without a warrant.
 
There are deep implications for the character of our nation in the growth of warrantless surveillance. Religious scholar David Lyon writes of the modern replacement of the idea of a God, who watches his creation with deep and loving concern, with the state’s Algorithm, replacing eternal joy with a perpetual living death. Or to put it in secular terms, this is the vision of George Orwell of a boot stamping on a human face forever.
 
Any House Member who values the freedom to worship as one wishes, or not to worship at all, should take a stand for religious freedom by requiring warrants before the FBI or any other governmental agency can freely inspect our beliefs, values, and activities. This is not a new or radical notion. The founders wrote the warrant requirement into the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to set us apart from Old World ways.
 
Let us not go back.

The word from Capitol Hill is that Speaker Mike Johnson is scheduling a likely House vote on the reauthorization of FISA’s Section 702 this week. We are told that proponents and opponents of surveillance reform will each have an opportunity to vote on amendments to this statute.
 
It is hard to overstate how important this upcoming vote is for our privacy and the protection of a free society under the law. The outcome may embed warrant requirements in this authority, or it may greatly expand the surveillance powers of the government over the American people.
 
Section 702 enables the U.S. intelligence community to continue to keep a watchful eye on spies, terrorists, and other foreign threats to the American homeland. Every reasonable person wants that, which is why Congress enacted this authority to allow the government to surveil foreign threats in foreign lands. Section 702 authority was never intended to become what it has become: a way to conduct massive domestic surveillance of the American people.
 
Government agencies – with the FBI in the lead – have used this powerful, invasive authority to exploit a backdoor search loophole for millions of warrantless searches of Americans’ data in recent years. In 2021, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revealed that such backdoor searches are used by the FBI to pursue purely domestic crimes. Since then, declassified court opinions and compliance reports reveal that the FBI used Section 702 to examine the data of a House Member, a U.S. Senator, a state judge, journalists, political commentators, 19,000 donors to a political campaign, and to conduct baseless searches of protesters on both the left and the right. NSA agents have used it to investigate prospective and possible romantic partners on dating apps.
 
Any reauthorization of Section 702 must include warrants – with reasonable exceptions for emergency circumstances – before the data of Americans collected under Section 702 or any other search can be queried, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
 
This warrant requirement must include the searching of commercially acquired information, as well as data from Americans’ communications incidentally caught up in the global communications net of Section 702.
 
The FBI, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and other agencies routinely buy Americans’ most personal, sensitive information, scraped from our apps and sold to the government by data brokers. This practice is not authorized by any statute, or subject to any judicial review. Including a warrant requirement for commercially acquired information as well as Section 702 data is critical, otherwise the closing of the backdoor search loophole will merely be replaced by the data broker loophole.
 
If the House declines to impose warrants for domestic surveillance, expect many politically targeted groups to have their privacy and constitutional rights compromised. We cannot miss the best chance we’ll have in a generation to protect the Constitution and what remains of Americans’ privacy.
 
Copy and paste the message below and click here to find your U.S. Representative and deliver it:
 
“Please stand up for my privacy and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to government agencies by data brokers.”

​No sooner did the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act pass the House Judiciary Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support than the intelligence community began to circulate what Winston Churchill in 1906 politely called “terminological inexactitudes.”
 
The Protect Liberty Act is a balanced bill that respects the needs of national security while adding a warrant requirement whenever a federal agency inspects the data or communications of an American, as required by the Fourth Amendment. This did not stop defenders of the intelligence community from claiming late last year that Section 702 reforms would harm the ability of the U.S. government to fight fentanyl.
 
This is remarkable, given that the government hasn’t cited a single instance in which warrantless searches of Americans’ communications proved useful in combating the fentanyl trade. Nothing in the bill would stop surveillance of factories in China or cartels in Mexico. If an American does become a suspect in this trafficking, the government can and should seek a probable cause warrant, as is routinely done in domestic law enforcement cases.
 
No sooner did we bat that one away than we heard about fresh terminological inexactitudes. Here are two of the latest bits of disinformation being circulated on Capitol Hill about the Protect Liberty Act.
 
Intelligence Community Myth: Members of Congress are being told that under the Protect Liberty Act, the FBI would be forced to seek warrants from district court judges, who might or might not have security clearances, in order to perform U.S. person queries.
 
Fact: The Protect Liberty Act allows the FBI to conduct U.S. person queries if it has either a warrant from a regular federal court or a probable cause order from the FISA Court, where judges have high-level security clearances. The FBI will determine which type of court order is appropriate in each case.
 
Intelligence Community Myth: Members are being told that under the Protect Liberty Act, terrorists can insulate themselves from surveillance by including a U.S. person in a conversation or email thread.
 
Fact: Under the Protect Liberty Act, the FBI can collect any and all communications of a foreign target, including their communications with U.S. persons. Nothing in the bill prevents an FBI agent from reviewing U.S. person information the agent encounters in the course of reviewing the foreign target’s communications.
 
In other words, if an FBI agent is reading a foreign target’s emails and comes across an email to or from a U.S. person, the FBI agent does not need a warrant to read that email. The bill’s warrant requirement applies in one circumstance only: when an FBI agent runs a query designed to retrieve a U.S. person’s communications or other Fourth Amendment-protected information. That is as it should be under the U.S. Constitution.
 
As we face the renewed debate over Section 702 – which must be reauthorized in the next few months – expect the parade of untruths to continue. As they do, PPSA will be here to call them out.

​“Once again, the House has passed the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS) Act with unanimous, bipartisan support. Forty-nine states have press shield laws protecting journalists and their sources from the prying eyes of prosecutors. The federal government does not. From Fox News to The New York Times, government has surveilled journalists in order to catch their sources. Journalists have been held in contempt and even jailed for bravely safeguarding the trust of their sources.
 
“The PRESS Act corrects this by granting a privilege to protect confidential news sources in federal legal proceedings, while offering reasonable exceptions for extreme situations. Such laws work well for the states and would safeguard Americans’ right to evaluate claims of secret wrongdoing for themselves.
 
“Great credit goes to Rep. Kevin Kiley and Rep. Jamie Raskin for lining up bipartisan support for this reaffirmation of the First Amendment. As in 2022, the last time the House passed this act, the duty now shifts to the U.S. Senate to respond to this display of unanimous, bipartisan support. I am optimistic. At a time of gridlock, enacting this bill into law would be a positive message that would reflect well on every Senator.”

​Three of the largest pharmaceutical chains – CVS Health, Kroger, and Rite Aid – routinely hand over the prescription and medical records of Americans to police and government agencies upon request, no warrant required.
 
“Americans' prescription records are among the most private information the government can obtain about a person,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA) wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra revealing the results of a congressional investigation into this practice. “They can reveal extremely personal and sensitive details about a person’s life, including prescriptions for birth control, depression or anxiety medications, or other private medical conditions.”

The Washington Post reports that because the chains often share records across all locations, a pharmacy in one state can access a person’s medical history from states with more restrictive laws.
 
Five pharmacies – Amazon, Cigna, Optum Rx, Walmart, and Walgreens Boots Alliance – require demands for pharmacy records by law enforcement to be reviewed by legal professionals. One of them, Amazon, informs consumers of the request unless hit with a gag order. All the major pharmacies will release customer records, however, if they are merely given a subpoena issued by a government agency rather than a warrant issued by a judge. This could be changed by corporate policy. Sen. Wyden and Reps. Jayapal and Jacobs urge pharmacies to insist on a warrant rather than comply with a request or a subpoena. 
 
Most Americans are familiar with the strict privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) from filling out forms in the doctor’s office. Most will surely be surprised how HIPAA, as strict as it is for physicians and hospitals, is wide open for warrantless inspection by the government.
 
This privacy vulnerability is just one more example of the generous access government agencies have to almost all of our information.
 
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies can know just about everything about us through purchases of our most sensitive and personal information reaped by our apps and sold to the government by data brokers. As privacy champions in Congress press HHS to revise its HIPAA regulations to protect Americans’ medical data from warrantless inspection, Congress should also close all the loopholes by passing the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act.

​Late last week, Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to respond to a PPSA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The government now has two weeks to schedule the production of “policy documents” regarding the intelligence community’s acquisition and use of commercially available information regarding 145 current and former Members of Congress.
 
This is the second time Judge Contreras has had to tell federal agencies to respond to a FOIA request PPSA submitted. In late 2022, Judge Contreras rejected in part the FBI’s insistence that the Glomar doctrine allowed it to ignore FOIA’s requirement to search for responsive records. Despite that clear holding, the FBI – joined this time by several other agencies – again refused to search for records in response to PPSA’s FOIA request. And Judge Contreras had to remind the agencies again that FOIA’s search obligations cannot be ducked so easily. 
 
Instead, Judge Contreras found that PPSA “logically and plausibly” requested the policy documents about the acquisition of commercially available information. And Judge Contreras concluded that a blanket Glomar response, in which the government neither confirms nor denies the existence of the requested documents, is appropriate only when a Glomar response is justified for all categories of responsive records.
 
The judge then described a hypothetical letter from a Member of Congress to the NSA that clarifies the distinction between operational and policy documents. He considered that such a letter might ask if the NSA “had purchased commercially available information on any of the listed Senators or Congresspeople” without revealing whether the NSA (or any other of the defendant agencies) “had a particular interest in surveilling the individual.” Judge Contreras decided that “it is difficult to see how a document such as this would reveal sensitive information about Defendants’ intelligence activities, sources, or methods.”
 
It is on this reasoning that the judge ordered these agencies to produce these policies documents. We eagerly awaits the delivery of these documents in both cases. Stay tuned.

​Man proposes, God disposes, but Congress often just kicks the can down the road.
 
Throughout 2023, PPSA and our civil liberties allies made the case that Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – enacted by Congress to give federal intelligence agencies the authority to surveil foreign threats abroad – has become a convenient excuse for warrantless domestic surveillance of millions of Americans in recent years. 
 
With Section 702 set to expire, the debate over reauthorizing this authority necessarily involves reforms and fixes to a law that functions in a radically different way than its Congressional authors imagined.
 
In December, a strong bipartisan majority in the House Judiciary Committee passed a well-crafted bill to reauthorize FISA Section 702 – the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act. This bill mandates a robust warrant requirement for U.S. person searches. It curtails the common government surveillance technique of “reverse targeting,” which uses Section 702 to work backwards to target Americans without a warrant. It also closes the loophole that allows government agencies to buy access to Americans’ most sensitive and personal information scraped from our apps and sold by data brokers.
 
And the Protect Liberty Act requires the inclusion of lawyers with high-level clearances who are experts in civil liberties to ensure the secret FISA Court hears from them as well as from government attorneys.
 
The FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would not stop the widespread practice of backdoor searches of Americans’ information. And it does not address the outrageous practice of federal agencies buying up Americans’ most sensitive and private information from data brokers.
 
In the crush of business, the deadline for reauthorizing Section 702 was delayed until early spring. Now the contest between the two approaches to Section 702 reauthorization begins in earnest.
 
With a recent FreedomWorks/Demand Progress poll showing that 78 percent of Americans support strengthening privacy protections along the lines of those in the Protect Liberty Act, reformers go into the year with a strong tailwind. While we should never underestimate the guile of the intelligence community, reformers look to the debate ahead with hopefulness and eagerness to win this debate to protect the privacy of all Americans.

​In July, we wrote about revelations that the U.S. Department of Justice subpoenaed Google for the private data of House Intel staffers looking into the origins of the FBI’s Russiagate investigation. Then, in October, we wrote about a FOIA request from Empower Oversight seeking documents shedding light on the extent to which the executive branch is spying on Members of Congress. Now, following the launch of an official inquiry, Rep. Jim Jordan has issued a subpoena to Attorney General Merrick Garland for further information on the DOJ’s efforts to surveil Congress and congressional staff.
 
On Halloween, Jordan launched his inquiry into the DOJ’s apparent attempts to spy on Congress, sending letters to the CEOs of Alphabet, Apple, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon requesting, for example, “[a]ll documents and communications between or among Apple employees and Justice Department employees referring or relating to subpoenas or requests issued by the Department of Justice to Apple for personal or official records or communications of Members of Congress or congressional staff….”
 
Jordan also sent a letter to Garland, asserting that “[t]he Justice Department’s efforts to obtain the private communications of congressional staffers, including staffers conducting oversight of the Department, is wholly unacceptable and offends fundamental separation of powers principles as well as Congress’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Justice Department.”
 
Nearly two months later, according to Jordan, the DOJ’s response has been insufficient. In a letter to Garland dated December 19, 2023, Jordan says that the “Committee must resort to compulsory process” due to “the Department’s inadequate response to date.”
 
That response, to be fair, did include a letter to Jordan dated December 4 conveying that the legal process used related to an investigation “into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in a national media publication. Jordan, citing news reports, contends that the investigation actually “centered on FISA warrants obtained by the Justice Department on former Trump campaign associate Carter Page” (which the Justice Department Inspector General faulted for “significant inaccuracies and omissions”).
 
Whatever the underlying motivation, Jordan is right to find DOJ’s explanation to date unsatisfying. Spying on Congress not only brings with it tremendous separation of powers concerns but raises a broader question about FISA and other processes that would reveal Americans’ personal information without sufficient predication. 
 
We need answers. Who authorized these DOJ subpoenas? And how can we make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again? PPSA looks forward to further developments in this story.

​With Congress extending the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 until April, the debate over surveillance can be expected to fire up again when Members return in January. As Members relax and reorient over the holidays, we urge them to take a moment to listen to what the American people are saying.
 
The conservative FreedomWorks and the progressive Demand Progress, both highly respected advocacy organizations with deep grassroots, came together to conduct a national poll on the public’s approval of specific measures. Some of these measures are in the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act passed by the House Intelligence Committee, and some in the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, passed 35-2 by the House Judiciary Committee.
 
Across the board, Americans overwhelmingly support the provisions in the Protect Liberty Act.
​

• 78 percent support Congress strengthening privacy protections (in Protect Liberty Act, but not in the FISA "Reform" and Reauthorization Act).
  
  
• 76 percent support Congress requiring a warrant before Americans' international communications are searched by government agencies (in Protect Liberty Act, but not in the FISA “Reform” and Reauthorization Act).
  
  
• 80 percent support Congress requiring a warrant before purchasing Americans’ location and internet records from data brokers (in Protect Liberty Act, but not in the FISA "Reform" and Reauthorization Act. 

 
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, declared that, “in the wake of serious FISA abuses, our fidelity must be to the Constitution, not the surveillance state.” The FreedomWorks/Demand Progress poll shows that the American people agree.

Gene Schaerr, PPSA's General Counsel, explains how the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's bill on FISA's Section 702 would actually expand warrantees surveillance. 

​"But the House Intelligence bill’s expansion to include “equipment” would cover, for example, any small or medium-sized business that simply provides Wi-Fi or stores data. This means that your business landlord, Airbnb host, hotel manager, or coffee shop barista will have a legal obligation to give the government any of your emails, texts, or phone metadata that ran through their equipment. Larger entities, such as data centers, would also be enlisted in spying on Americans."

The Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) will be scoring this week’s votes on each of the two competing bills to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

For our followers, PPSA will positively score Members who vote in favor of the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, which passed the House Judiciary Committee this week in an overwhelming bipartisan 35-2 vote.

We will negatively score Members who vote in favor of the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

PPSA supports the Protect Liberty bill because it places critical guardrails and limits on warrantless FBI and other government surveillance of Americans, while reauthorizing Section 702 to protect national security.

PPSA opposes the HPSCI bill because it rubberstamps the FBI’s and other agencies’ warrantless surveillance of Americans for years to come, while actually expanding the ability of the government to spy on Americans.

The table below highlights the key differences between the two bills.

“There would be eyes everywhere,” is how the Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Goitein reacted to a provision in the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act (FRRA), a House Intelligence bill that would widen the trawl of digital collection of Americans’ information.
 
Section 504 of the FRRA would target businesses far outside of the tech sector that are not communications companies. By widening the definition of an “electronic communication service provider,” FRRA’s Section 504 could enlist coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and Airbnbs into snooping on Americans.
 
“Any entity that you visit as a customer, that provides Wi-Fi service, could be required to let the government tap into its equipment, and pull out the entire stream of communications,” Goitein told Vice’s Motherboard.
 
Many have characterized this provision as a Trojan Horse. This provision would likely result in improper collection of Americans’ domestic communications, leading to the government compelling “Upstream” access to data networks from businesses with no experience in managing the legal intricacies of communications management, or ability to filter out select communications.
 
“This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” the Brennan Center said in a joint statement with the Electronic Frontier Foundation about this purported “reform” legislation.

​The House Judiciary Committee today passed the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
 
Unlike competing proposals – such as the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act now before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) – the Protect Liberty Act mandates a robust warrant requirement for U.S. person searches under FISA Section 702. It curtails the common government surveillance technique of “reverse targeting” – using FISA’s Section 702 authority to work backwards to target Americans without a warrant.
 
The Protect Liberty Act adopts language from the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act. This language closes the loophole that allows government agencies to buy access to Americans’ most sensitive and personal information scraped from apps and sold by data brokers.
 
The Protect Liberty Act also requires amicus participation in FISA cases to protect the public and the Constitution, ensuring that the secret FISA Court will hear from civil liberties experts as well as government attorneys.
 
And the bill would require FBI agents seeking search orders to testify to the accuracy of their reasons for bringing the search.
 
In contrast, the competing FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act emerging from HPSCI has a weak warrant requirement that would not stop the widespread practice of backdoor searches of Americans’ information. And it does not address the outrageous practice of federal agencies buying up Americans’ most sensitive and private information from data brokers.
 
The contrast between these two bills could not be starker. Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the Protect Liberty Act is the only one of these two bills “that can pass on a floor vote.”
 
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan says he expects a floor vote next week.
 
PPSA applauds the committee for passing this bill with such strong, bipartisan support. We are grateful to committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) (who introduced the bill), Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ), as well as leaders of the House Freedom Caucus and Progressive Caucus, Reps Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).
 
PPSA is also grateful to all the Members of the House Judiciary Committee who offered helpful amendments to strengthen the bill.
 
PPSA will follow this fast-moving story.

A report in The Wall Street Journal does a masterful job of combining graphics and text to illustrate how technology embedded in our phones and computers to serve up ads also enables government surveillance of the American citizenry.
 
The WSJ has identified and mapped out a network of brokers and advertising exchanges whose data flows from apps to Defense Department, intelligence agencies, and the FBI. The WSJ has compiled this information into several illustrative animated graphs that bring the whole scheme to life.
 
Here’s how it works: As soon as you open an ad-supported app on your phone, data from your device is recorded and transmitted to buyers. The moment before an app serves you an ad, all advertisers in the bidding process are given access to information about your device. The first information up for bids is your location, IP address, device, and browser type. Ad services also record information about your interests and develop intricate assumptions about you.
 
Many data brokers regularly sell Americans’ information to the government, where it may be used for cybersecurity, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and public safety – or whatever a federal agency deems as such.
 
Polls show that Americans are increasingly concerned about their digital privacy but are also fatalistic and unaware about their privacy options as consumers.
 
According to a recent poll by Pew published last month, 81 percent of U.S. adults are concerned about how companies use the data they collect. Seventy-one percent are concerned about how the government uses their data, up from 64 percent in 2019. There is also an increasing feeling of helplessness: 73 percent of adults say they have little to no control over what companies do with their data, while 79 percent feel the same towards the government. The number of concerned Americans rises to 89 percent when the issue of children’s online privacy is polled. Crucially, 72 percent of Americans believe there should be more regulation governing the use of digital data.
 
Despite high levels of concern, nearly 60 percent of Americans do not read the privacy policies of apps and social media services they use. Most Americans do not have the time or legal expertise to carefully study every privacy policy they encounter. Given that one must accept these terms or not be online, it is simply impractical to expect Americans do so. Yet government agencies assert that it is acceptable to collect and review Americans’ most personal data without a warrant because we have knowingly signed away our rights.
 
There is good news. In the struggle for government surveillance reform currently taking place on Capitol Hill – and the introduction of the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act – Americans are getting a better understanding of the costs of being treated as digital chattel by data brokers and government.