​When you hear of a new surveillance program being marketed as a child-safety initiative, give it particularly close scrutiny. History shows that the narrower and more compelling the stated justification for a surveillance plan, the broader and more outlandish the surveillance will actually be.

A newly reported example comes from BusPatrol, a company that has installed AI-powered camera systems on more than 40,000 school buses in 24 states. The cameras have been marketed as a way to identify drivers who ignore the fold-out “STOP” arm signs from buses and illegally pass them while stopped. 

Joseph Cox of 404 Media reports that BusPatrol is now planning a dramatic expansion of its mission. Leaked company documents reportedly show plans to convert school buses into roaming automatic license plate reader (ALPR) platforms that would capture information on every vehicle a bus passes, regardless of whether any crime or traffic violation occurred. The resulting data would then be sold to law enforcement. 

A system designed to document a specific violation at a specific moment is fundamentally different from a system that continuously records the movements of everyone nearby. In effect, school buses would become mobile surveillance vehicles.

Under the proposal, cameras would photograph vehicles, record their license plate numbers, and attach GPS location data. Law enforcement and possibly other actors could then query those records to reconstruct a vehicle's travel history. As privacy advocates have long warned, tracking a car often means tracking a person. 

These bait-and-switch tactics are familiar.

After the attacks of September 11, Americans were told that extraordinary surveillance programs were necessary to prevent terrorism. Many of those authorities later expanded far beyond their original scope. Section 702 of FISA was enacted to monitor foreign threats overseas, yet the communications of millions of Americans became subject to warrantless searches.

From the UK to Congress, we’ve seen how the fight against child sexual abuse material has been used as a shield to threaten the encryption that protects women and children from stalkers, journalists from vengeful politicians, businesses communicating about proprietary information, and millions of law-abiding Americans who want to have a digital conversation without Big Brother listening in.

Government agencies have repeatedly justified the acquisition of vast quantities of personal data by pointing to legitimate public concerns, only for those powers to evolve into broader surveillance tools.

BusPatrol's reported plans follow the same trajectory. A narrowly tailored safety program aimed at preventing children from being struck by passing vehicles could become a platform for collecting location information on millions of ordinary Americans who have done nothing wrong.

The danger is not merely the collection of data. It is the normalization of surveillance infrastructure. Every new camera network creates pressure to find new uses for the information it gathers. Indeed, BusPatrol’s internal documents suggest that this latest move is in response to investor demands for new revenue streams.

Protecting children is a worthy goal. Turning school buses into rolling location-tracking platforms is not.
​
Americans should be wary whenever government agencies or private contractors ask them to trade away privacy in exchange for safety. Proposals like this need their own mounted “STOP” arm signs.

​Tulsi Gabbard is set to depart her post as Director of National Intelligence on June 30 to care for her ailing husband. Before she leaves, Director Gabbard has a golden opportunity to advance government transparency by releasing a secret opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) detailing what Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has described as “violations of Americans’ constitutional rights” involving Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
 
Inexplicably, the Justice Department notified Congress in April that it is appealing the release of this crucial opinion describing how the FBI and other agencies violated laws or procedures governing Section 702. Congress enacted this authority to facilitate the surveillance of foreign threats abroad, but in recent years the FBI has also used it to gain warrantless access to the communications of millions of Americans.
 
On May 1, Sen. Wyden secured commitments from the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) – to declassify this important opinion detailing how the FBI and other agencies violated laws and procedures regulating Section 702.
 
Yet the Trump administration continues to block the release of this information in the midst of an intense surveillance debate, as Congress has struggled for weeks to reauthorize Section 702. Releasing the opinion would help lawmakers determine whether the FBI is still conducting warrantless “backdoor” searches of Americans’ communications despite the guardrails Congress enacted during the 2024 reauthorization.
 
What might kinds of violations may have occurred?
 
Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice reports that the FBI used an “advanced filtering function” to “search for U.S. persons’ communications using terms associated with those persons.” Although such searches plainly met the statutory definition of a query, “the FBI did not treat the searches as queries and therefore did not track or count them.”
 
The existence of a querying tool that allegedly operated outside statutory constraints raises broader concerns. If one such tool escaped oversight, could similar tools exist at other agencies – or elsewhere within the FBI – that have not yet been detected by internal auditors or disclosed to Congress?
 
Charlie Savage of The New York Times has reported that a source told him a digital filtering system designed to help analysts refine query results focused on foreigners was also generating results that the secret court deemed warrantless “queries” of Americans’ communications.
 
Beyond confirming these reports, the administration should answer questions, starting with:
 

• How often did these improper queries occur?

 

• How many Americans were affected?

 

• Did the FBI or any other federal agency review the contents of communications obtained through these searches?

 

• Has any American faced legal action based on evidence derived from such warrantless queries?

 
The Justice Department’s resistance is particularly troubling because it defies the public requests of both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to release this information. At the same time, the administration and House Speaker Mike Johnson have resisted votes on reform amendments while pushing to reauthorize Section 702 without meaningful additional safeguards.
 
Withholding this information from Congress and the American people during an active reauthorization debate displays a troubling disregard for the transparency and oversight a democracy requires.
 
During her confirmation hearing, Tulsi Gabbard pledged to restore trust in the intelligence community through greater transparency and accountability. This is her opportunity to fulfill that promise. Doing so may displease some within the intelligence establishment, but it would demonstrate a commitment to the principles she pledged to uphold – and ensure that her tenure concludes with an act of meaningful transparency.

​Would you like to know what you have at stake in the current congressional debate over the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)?
 
Do you want to understand exactly how federal agencies sidestep the U.S. Constitution to gain ready access to your communications, search histories, and data about your finances, health, romantic life, and location histories – including who you meet with, what you believe, where you go?
 
Are you looking for the plain truth about rampant government surveillance beneath Washington’s sea of acronyms?
 
Visit our new Surveillance Coalition website – fisareform.org.
 
On this site you will find a clear description of the issue, what is at stake, and the precise reforms needed.
 
Under the “Section 702 Basics” tab you will find an “Explainer” produced by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law that answers these questions:

• What Is Section 702?

 

• Whose communications does the government collect under Section 702

 

• How does the government use Section 702 as a domestic spying tool?

 

• Are backdoor searches constitutional?

 

• How have intelligence agencies abused backdoor searches?

 

• Did Congress fix the problems with Section 702 when it last reauthorized the law?

 

• How do the current administration’s actions impact concerns about backdoor searches?

 

• What can be done to protect Americans from warrantless government spying?

 

• Would a warrant requirement harm national security?

 

• What happens if Congress doesn’t reauthorize Section 702 by the deadline?

 
Under the “Resources” tab you can read incisive op-eds by leading Members of Congress and our Coalition leaders, including PPSA’s own Bob Goodlatte, in publications ranging from The New York Times and The Washington Post to The Hill – as well as our Coalition letters to Congress and the Trump administration that spell out key reforms needed to protect Americans’ privacy.
 
Finally, under the “National Security Protected” tab you can find a rebuttal to those who say that delaying the reauthorization of the FISA Section 702 surveillance authority – or placing any guardrails on government surveillance of the American people – would be dangerous to our safety.
 
We show step by step how these scaremongering claims are false – how our reforms are carefully designed to protect national security – and why the protection of the homeland can go hand-in-hand with respect for the Constitution and Americans’ privacy.
 
At the entrance of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters is an engraved inscription from the Bible: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
 
We believe that this is good advice for the American people as well.

​We don’t condone vandalism. But we have to admit that a recent event in the Texas Hill Country town of Bandera showed a flash of the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, or, perhaps more appropriately, of the settlers in the East Texas town of Gonzales who, in 1835, cried “Come and Take It!” while firing their small brass cannon at the Mexican Army.

We’re talking about the repeated efforts of the Bandera city council to install eight AI-enhanced license plate readers on poles around the town, only to have local residents use saws to cut the poles in half and take down the cameras. After several rounds of this rebellion, the city council finally gave up and ended its contract with Flock Safety, a company that is building a national network of cameras that track cars and store the daily movements of millions of Americans.

Brian McManus chronicles this contest of wills in Courier Texas.

“Bandera is the cowboy capital of the world,” one resident told McManus. “We don’t need to implement mass government surveillance in our town.”

McManus reports that Bandera has a lower crime rate than both the Texas and national averages. Banderans just didn’t like the idea of “ordinary people going about their ordinary lives in a town where everybody already knows everybody.”

There is one aspect of this story that touches on something of national significance. McManus writes:

“This was not a left-versus-right argument. It was rooted in community and the instinct toward personal liberty and suspicion of government overreach that defines much of rural Texas political identity. The irony that a surveillance state program backed by Republican state grant money ran headlong into Republican small-town resistance was not lost on people in the [city council] room.”

While Congress debates surveillance policy, it is clear that national concern about the need to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people cuts across party and ideological lines.

Advocacy for reform amendments to FISA Section 702 comes from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), as well as Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Can you think of any other issue that unites staunch conservatives and stalwart liberals?

All of them and many more are backing measures to keep the government’s hands off Americans’ personal data without warrants, as the Constitution requires.
​
They might agree with one Bandera resident who told McManus that surveillance “just doesn’t pass the vibe check.” Neither does the federal government’s warrantless collection and inspection of Americans’ personal data.

“Even committed border watchers who favor stronger enforcement of immigration rules should have qualms about the deployment of surveillance state capabilities by the government,” writes J.D. Tuccille in Reason. “Tools and techniques adopted for one purpose are inevitably redirected to others.”

Tuccille goes on to round up recent news articles that underscore his point.

• “In the battle against illegal immigration, the U.S. is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on tools that give federal agencies easy access to the home and workplace addresses of American citizens, their social-media accounts, vehicle information, flight history, law-enforcement records, and other personal information, as well as data to track their daily comings and goings,” write Shane Shifflett and Hannah Critchfield in The Wall Street Journal.

 

• The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology reports that by 2022, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had “scanned the driver’s license photos of 1 in 3 adults,” “had access to the driver’s license data of 3 in 4 adults,” “was tracking the movements of drivers in cities home to 3 in 4 adults,” and “could locate 3 in 4 adults through their utility records.” We can only imagine how these capabilities have expanded in the subsequent four years.

 

• “ICE is currently using the Mobile Fortify app in the field to identify anyone they happen to encounter and want to identify,” warns the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “By pointing their phone at an individual for face identification, ICE can query various databases and obtain data related to ‘individuals, vehicles, airplanes, vessels, addresses, phone numbers, and firearms.’”

EPIC reports that scanned protesters have lost TSA PreCheck and Global Entry status for travel.

Tuccille writes: “In itself that may not sound like a big deal, but it means the federal government is willing to identify and retaliate against people for exercising constitutionally protected rights. That can extend to even more severe consequences.”

As Congress returns this week to resume the debate on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – an authority enacted by Congress to enable the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, but often used to spy on Americans – Members would do well to take stock of just how much the surveillance state has grown.

Tuccille concludes: “Ultimately, there’s no such thing as a single-purpose surveillance state. There’s just the misuse and abuse of the government’s ability to monitor and identify people who come to its attention.”

The Associated Press last year wrote a landmark series of six stories about the role that U.S. tech firms play in global surveillance, particularly in China. “Made in America, Watched Worldwide,” just won a Pulitzer for international reporting. The award is richly deserved, honoring the efforts of multiple journalists who worked painstakingly on the project for three years.

Celebrating their efforts is an opportunity for all of us in the privacy community to reflect not only on the AP’s key findings but also on the ominous realization that the technology described is homegrown. In other words, it can just as easily be sold to U.S. agencies and directed at the American people. That’s over 90,000 distinct entities when you add up the total number of federal, state and local government operations.

In other words, U.S. technologists not only helped design the Chinese surveillance state, we’re also not that far from having one ourselves. This danger is growing more acute with the ability of AI to transform information into actionable knowledge and to turn individual data points into personal dossiers.

So let’s think about that as we briefly summarize the AP’s topline findings. Everything in this list is all-too-easily capable of being implemented here in the United States:

• Silicon Valley Is the Architect: The sprawling digital cage used to monitor and suppress millions in China was designed and powered by American tech. And U.S. tech didn’t just sell generic hardware that was misused after the fact. AP demonstrated that Big Tech actively pitched their products as tools for social control, providing the blueprint for automated, algorithmic repression.

• Surveillance at Scale: Mass surveillance no longer requires specialized hardware; everyday cloud infrastructure can process staggering amounts of video surveillance footage. Ubiquitous, mundane IT equipment is being repurposed to form an active monitoring grid. And data such as fingerprints and facial recognition scans can be readily synthesized into centralized tracking databases.

• Algorithms of Suspicion: The repression blueprint is already being operationalized on American roads through predictive intelligence networks that monitor the daily movements of millions of drivers, analyzing travel patterns to flag individuals as “suspicious.” Targeted human observation based on probable cause is increasingly being ceded to the opaque calculations of a machine.

• China Is Everywhere: Beijing is leveraging U.S.-engineered AI and high-end hardware to conduct transnational repression on American soil. Systems designed in Silicon Valley and perfected in China are being used to track individuals within the United States, projecting the latter’s authoritarian power into American suburbs. It’s already too late for Tibetans, even in Nepal. One refugee in that mountain kingdom said: “There are cameras everywhere. There is no future.”

• AI Goes To War: The rapid integration of Silicon Valley tech into lethal military operations exposes a chilling reality: Once these systems are “battle-proven,” they can be refined and marketed to militaries and law enforcement authorities anywhere. Domestic policing could quickly become a RoboCop scenario, in China and in California. The line between surveillance and lethal force is blurring.

One of the heroes of AP’s reporting is longtime Chinese activist Zhou Fengsuo. Arrested and imprisoned as a student leader during the Tiananmen protests, the now-U.S. citizen Zhou testified before Congress in 2024, warning that the lack of privacy guardrails and meaningful reform “is a strategic failure by the United States.”  

Current legal guardrails on American surveillance are not keeping pace with advancing technologies and questionable partnerships unmasked in AP’s series. And that gap underscores the urgent need for robust reform of surveillance laws – before these untethered AI networks are fully (and permanently) turned inward.
​
Congress should take a deeper look into the technologies U.S. companies are selling to China and other adversarial nations – and how they are being deployed here. The rapidly escalating power of AI should especially make it clear why the House leadership proposal to extend FISA Section 702 for three years is unacceptable.

The U.S. Supreme Court set the first warrant requirement for Americans’ location data in 2018. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carpenter v. United States, declared that when the government “tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near-perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
 
Though the Court’s ruling set a warrant standard for the extraction of historic cell phone data from cell towers, Carpenter failed to become a general precedent for using other means to geolocate Americans – such as tracking people through their phones.
 
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to become the next landmark ruling. If the sharp questions of the Justices are any indication, they may well limit the government’s ability to conduct large geolocation sweeps that can compromise the privacy of large numbers of Americans.
 
The case involves Okello Chatrie, convicted of bank robbery near Richmond, Virginia, after local authorities used a geofence warrant for the area of that crime and picked up Chatrie’s phone at the scene. Hundreds of other people within the area geofenced by police were also pinned, including guests at a Hampton Inn, residents in an apartment house and a retirement home, and diners at a Ruby Tuesday restaurant.
 
What’s the big deal, you ask, if this maneuver helped catch a bank robber?
 
As a lower court judge noted, with such a procedure – this time a warrant issued to Google – everyone within the designated perimeter “has effectively been tailed.” Even when such technology is used for a clear purpose, such as locating a bank robber, the precedent opens the way for the government to track Americans’ associative activities, from protests to political activity to worship. In its questioning, the Supreme Court recognized the Orwellian possibilities of this technology.
 
“What’s to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization,” Chief Justice Roberts asked the government’s lawyer. “What are the restraints that would prevent that from becoming a problem?”
 
Adam G. Unikowsky, Chatrie’s attorney, characterized geofence warrants as fishing expeditions that “search first and develop suspicions later.” Unikowsky told the Justices:
 
“The technology may be novel, but the constitutional problem it presents is not. The potential for abuse is breathtaking: The government need only draw a geofence around a church, a political rally or a gun shop, and it can compel a search of every user’s records to learn who was there.”
 
The Justice Department lawyer had a tough time arguing that Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for location history data that his phone shared with Google. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor asked questions showing a concern that the government’s position could be expanded to include emails, photos, and documents, as well as location data.
 
The Justices also questioned the extent to which Americans are even aware that their cell phones enable tech companies to track their locations in a way that can be shared with the government.
 
These questions echoed the PPSA amicus brief, in which we told the Justices: “Letting a plumber into your house to fix a sink does not mean you have no expectation of privacy when the police come knocking.” 
 
A little levity came to the proceedings when Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was shocked by how many ads she saw on her phone that were triggered by her visits to specific locations.
 
“I need to check my location settings, plainly,” she said, triggering laughter throughout the courtroom.
 
Judging by the questioning, it appears that this case may, at the very least, lead to some tightening of mass geofencing. PPSA hopes that all the Justices will agree with our brief in which we declared: “The Founders would have been shocked to see privacy brought to this sorry state.” 

At 2 a.m. on Friday, the House of Representatives did something rare in Washington. It said no.

A deeply flawed proposal to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act went down in flames – and deservedly so. That bill would have imposed a weak, cosmetic warrant standard that would have made privacy protections worse, not better. It would have also reauthorized this authority for another five years, denying Congress a vehicle for oversight and debate over evolving surveillance technologies and practices until 2031.

We’ve since heard the intelligence community and its champions spread the word to the media and on Capitol Hill that Friday’s failed reauthorization was caused by irresponsible “obstructionism” fomented by the extremes of both parties at the expense of national security.

That’s nonsense – hogwash, even.

On Friday, the House voted 228-197 to shelve Speaker Mike Johnson’s deeply flawed “clean” version of Section 702. Even that substantial bipartisan majority didn’t fully reflect the will of the more than three-fourths of Americans who support a warrant requirement before the government can collect and review Americans’ private communications.

Why shouldn’t a majority of the majority have the right to vote on reforms again?

After the Friday night version of Section 702 failed, both houses of Congress voted to extend that surveillance authority to the end of April. This gives Congress and the public time to fully grasp the ends and outs of this debate.

Here are three expert resources to do just that:

What Is Section 702 – What Does It Do and Why Is It So Important?

Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice has produced a clear, readable primer on Section 702. She sets out the purpose and structure of this surveillance authority. She gives solid answers about how the government uses Section 702 for backdoor searches, and how a warrant requirement for Americans’ data in Section 702 would contain reasonable exceptions that would continue to protect national security.

Why Congress Must Act

Two respected U.S. senators, conservative Mike Lee (R-UT) and liberal Democrat Dick Durbin (D-IL), took to the pages of The New York Times to lay out how much is at stake in the Section 702 debate. These senators note that FBI agents in recent years have searched for the communications of political protesters across the ideological spectrum, Members of Congress, a congressional chief of staff, a state court judge, multiple U.S. government officials, journalists and political commentators, and 19,000 donors to a political campaign.

How Does the Data Broker Loophole Violate Our Privacy?

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) in The Hill highlights a parallel threat: federal agencies’ purchases of Americans’ most sensitive and personal information from third-party data brokers. Rep. Davidson writes:

“Data brokers compile detailed dossiers on millions of Americans, aggregating location histories, browsing activity, app usage, and financial transactions into comprehensive profiles of daily life. This data could be used to create a gun registry by tracking purchase information, or target parents attending school board meetings, or identify people engaged in other First Amendment-protected activities.”

Good Reform Proposals on the Table

There is no shortage of serious reform proposals. The Lee-Durbin Security And Freedom Enhancement Act is a compromise that would pair reauthorization with meaningful Fourth Amendment safeguards.

In the House, Rep. Davidson and Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) Government Surveillance Reform Act offers the most comprehensive reform of surveillance law in decades.

Other proposals include Rep. Andy Biggs’s legislation, the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act.

All of these amendments would curtail the government’s ability to grasp and exploit our personal information at will.

Security and Liberty Are Not Opposites

No one disputes the importance of monitoring foreign threats. Section 702 will – and should be – reauthorized. But it must be reformed to prevent its use as a backdoor surveillance tool for a domestic spying operation.

If you agree, please register your opinion with House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Click here to tell House Speaker Johnson that we can have both national security and respect for the U.S. Constitution. Please drop any attempt at a clean reauthorization of FISA Section 702 that rejects reasonable domestic surveillance reforms.

​As the House debates the extent of domestic surveillance of the American people under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, our representatives should note a breaking story – that the FBI has investigated the Cato Institute and its employees for years.

Of course, no one is above the law and anyone who appears to have committed a crime can be investigated. But the Cato Institute? Really?

This libertarian think tank attracted luminaries like Nobel Prize-winning economists, including the late Milton Friedman and the late Friedrich Hayek. Its policy papers, podcasts, and videos stand out for their quality of writing and the depth of their research. In a city where many nonprofit public policy institutes are little more than dressed-up public relations shops, Cato fellows are notable for their intellectual integrity and fearless honesty.

In 2019, the FBI responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Cato fellow Patrick Eddington by swearing that it had “no records” on the organization. On April 15, the FBI reversed course, admitting under pressure from federal Judge James Boasberg that it has investigated Cato employees and the Institute itself for years for potential crimes.

What could these crimes be? Improper footnoting? Misuse of p-values in statistical analysis?
Eddington writes:

“You will search the public record in vain to find any indictment, federal criminal charge, or prosecution of any current or former Cato Institute employee or any charge against the Institute itself for any violation of federal law … 

“These are two distinct but reinforcing problems: an active criminal investigation running in parallel with classified intelligence collection, both shielded from disclosure, both targeting a prominent First Amendment organization, with no public prosecutorial output to show for it.

“So we now have a publicly filed, sworn declaration confirming an active, years-long FBI criminal investigation potentially targeting Cato employees – with zero public record of any resulting indictment, charge, or prosecution spanning what appears to be a timeframe that runs at minimum from before the original 2019 FOIA request through the present. That’s a potentially very long-running investigation of an IRS-recognized, prominent public policy organization engaged in First Amendment-protected activity that, as far as public records reflect, has produced nothing in the way of charges.”

Eddington concludes: “This is precisely the fact pattern that has historically characterized politically motivated surveillance operations conducted under color of law.”

Many on the left also complain that the FBI has subjected their First Amendment organizations to undue scrutiny.
​
Something to think about before the House accepts a rule that would allow no reform amendments to the Section 702 surveillance authority.

Congress made a solemn promise on surveillance reform to the American people in public, only to break it in private. As a result, the “Make Everyone a Spy” provision allows the government to conscript office-space providers – including those who rent space to media organizations, law firms, and political campaigns – into enabling warrantless surveillance through their buildings’ internet networks. Even churches and other houses of worship can be targeted.
 
As the House debates the reauthorization of Section 702, PPSA and our followers call on House leadership to deliver on this very public promise to narrow the provisions of a loophole in the definition of government electronic communications service providers (ECSP) in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
How We Got Here
 
When FISA Section 702 was reauthorized in 2024, it included a provision that was intended to allow the government to compel the cooperation of one particular type of company, believed to be providers of cloud computing, to respond to requests for data for national security purposes. The broad language of this provision, however, allows the National Security Agency to secretly demand access to communications equipment from almost every U.S. business or non-profit organization.
During the Senate debate on this intelligence legislation in 2024, key lawmakers admitted that their draft language was overly broad. They insisted there was no time to fix it, but assured their colleagues that after passage they would work to narrow the ECSP language, making a “technical fix” to ensure that only appropriate entities could be compelled to assist in surveillance. House Intelligence Committee leaders indicated openness to that correction, calling it “totally fine.” 
 
As the U.S. House of Representatives once again moves forward on the next reauthorization of Section 702, that promised fix has been ignored by both houses of Congress for two years.
 
Basic Liberties at Stake
The ability to surveil foreign threats is vital to protecting the homeland and the American people. But PPSA is firm in the conviction that we can have robust surveillance of terrorist and cybersecurity threats without allowing our government to regularly spy on the American people – especially with massive databases supercharged by AI.
For that reason, we ask House leadership to embrace several key reforms.
 
·      First, warrants must be required before Americans’ communications, swept up in NSA’s global trawl, can be accessed by the government.
 
·      Second, the secret FISA courts should be required to rely on qualified amici – civil liberties experts with high-level security clearances – to represent the larger constitutional concerns of the American people in sensitive cases.
 
·      Third, the House should close the “data broker loophole” that allows government agencies to sidestep the Fourth Amendment by buying Americans’ search histories, geolocation histories, and communications from shady, third-party data brokers.
 
·      One more obvious reform is the one already promised: The House must address the “Make Everyone a Spy” provision before reauthorizing Section 702.
 
It is unconscionable that the NSA can conscript vast swaths of American businesses and non-profit organizations that provide ordinary services, such as Wi-Fi, into a domestic spying operation on customers, tenants, and congregants.
 
This ability of the government to spy on media, law firms, political organizations, and religious groups trashes both the First and Fourth Amendments. This is more than a failure in legislative oversight. It is a breach of trust.
 
Just as bad, when combined with other unresolved problems, such as Section 702’s warrantless “backdoor searches,” and the government’s purchase of sensitive personal data by a dozen government agencies, Congress has set the stage for a genuine American surveillance state.
 
Fortunately, the House has no lack of solutions. Bipartisan proposals – from Rep. Andy Biggs’s Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act to the Government Surveillance Reform Act, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson and Rep. Zoe Lofgren – contain language that would narrow the ECSP definition.
 
Since Senate leaders did not deliver the ECSP fix earlier in their own chamber, the responsibility now falls squarely on the House. Leadership should not move forward with any intelligence package that ignores this commitment or relies on vague assurances that reforms will come “later,” behind closed doors.
 
Anything less would confirm the worst suspicions of the American people – that when it comes to surveillance, a promised reform is always just one vote away, one that never quite arrives.
 
Click here to tell House Speaker Mike Johnson to drop any attempt at a clean reauthorization of FISA Section 702 that rejects reasonable domestic surveillance reforms.

​“Well, we have to make changes now. Think about this, after January 6th, I was surveilled. All right. During Obama years, they released my tax returns. All right. When I ran a large hospital company, they targeted my company because I was against Hillarycare.

“So, if they can target a large company CEO and a U.S. senator, they can target [all] Americans. We have to have some common-sense changes. Nobody at the FBI has ever been held accountable for the over 200,000 Americans who have been surveilled. Nobody. So, maybe this administration is doing the right thing, but what about the next administration?
​
“So, we have to have some common-sense reforms. We're going to have a couple weeks to start having a real conversation about how we do that. And I'm very optimistic.”

​Did you see The Wall Street Journal editorial Monday morning entitled “Playing National Security Roulette”? The editors argue that anything less than a clean reauthorization of the FISA Section 702 surveillance authority will “put the lives of Americans at risk.”
 
The Journal editors acknowledge that this authority, enacted by Congress to surveil foreign threats abroad, was misused by FBI agents who ran searches on political protesters, political donors, and Members of Congress. “But the intelligence community has since instituted safeguards on how searches must be authorized,” the editors tell us.
 
Thus, according to The Journal, adding any amendments to Section 702 would be a reckless gamble with national security – and reforms are not needed anyway, because the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA) fixed all the problematic parts of Section 702.
 
Wrong on both counts.
 
Reforms Would Not Compromise National Security
 
Reformers want to amend the law to make the program consistent with the Fourth Amendment by requiring probable cause warrants before inspecting Americans’ communications.
 
But the warrant requirement being proposed for surveillance of Americans contains very clear exceptions for “exigent circumstances,” such as terrorist threats, as well as exceptions for every single other type of search the administration has claimed is helpful in protecting national security, including defenses against cyberattacks. Not only would these reform proposals allow the FBI to proceed without obtaining a warrant in an emergency, but the Bureau would also have great latitude as to what constitutes an emergency.
 
In short, warrants would be required in cases where the government is conducting a fishing expedition with no nexus to national security – such as an agent searching for the communications of his Tinder date, or searching for the communications of thousands of donors to a congressional campaign – but would not be required in exigent cases with national security implications. 
 
The FBI Continues to Violate the Law
​
A FISA Court opinion in March 2025 revealed that the FBI had been systematically violating statutory requirements. In August 2024, DOJ overseers learned that the FBI was operating a “filtering” tool that allowed it to query Section 702 data under the radar. These U.S. person “searches” or queries were not counted, tracked, or audited, nor were they approved by an attorney or supervisor, as required by law.
 
Thus, the actual number of U.S. person queries for 2024 remains unknown and outside of any audits.
 
A new FISA Court opinion found that the systemic violations continue. According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, the FISA Court issued a classified opinion that reportedly reveals that even though DOJ shut down the filtering tool the FBI used in 2024, the FBI has been using another, similar filtering tool to conduct queries without following the requirements of RISAA.
 
Thus, the systemic violations of RISAA are not fixed. They are ongoing.
 
In Summary:
 
The warrant requirement proposals contain sufficient exceptions to counter potential terrorists, cybersecurity attacks, and other threats to the American people. And contrary to The Journal’s assertion that the RISAA “reforms appear to be working,” they are clearly not.
 
One final note – while the reauthorization of the Section 702 statute has an April 20 deadline, FISA Court surveillance orders are in effect through next spring. The House has plenty of time to debate these reform measures. There is no need for the kind of panic The Journal – obviously influenced by intelligence community spin – is fomenting.

​Yes, you – and us, and everyone else. We may all soon be tracked in the FBI’s proposed database for domestic terrorism. As Ken Klippenstein reports, buried inside the administration’s 2027 budget “is a new FBI-led center dedicated to ‘proactively’ hunting Americans the government classifies as so-called domestic terrorists.”

It’ll be a busy place, by the looks of it, operating as a joint mission center where 10 federal agencies watch out for any hint of the following beliefs:

·      anti-Americanism
·      anti-capitalism
·      anti-Christianity
·      support for the overthrow of the U.S. government
·      extremism on migration
·      extremism on race
·      extremism on gender
·      hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family
·      hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion
·      hostility towards those who hold traditional views on morality

With the exception of overthrowing the government, this is a highly subjective list, capable of being interpreted (or added to) as any current or future administration of any stripe sees fit. It could include any atheist or agnostic, any supporter of Bernie Sanders, anyone who has leftward views on gender and the family. These standards, of course, could be inverted by the next administration to make suspects out of people who are critical of progressive policies, restrictive gun laws, or big government.

Today, we target atheists. Tomorrow, the FBI could once again target “radical traditional Catholics.”

The free speech implications alone are beyond chilling, but as a privacy matter, it’s draconian. It blurs the distinction between George Orwell’s “thoughtcrime” and actual terrorism. And to work, it must rely on artificial intelligence crunching vast amounts of social media data in ways that reduce the Fourth Amendment to an afterthought.

No less concerning, when this database is paired with the personal data these same federal agencies obtain by purchasing Americans’ digital records from third-party data brokers, you can see all the elements of a total surveillance state falling into place.
​
It is hard to imagine that such broad categories can yield meaningful intelligence about real terrorists. But it may be just enough for the government to build a dossier on you.

​“Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

That was the question Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) put to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open hearing in 2013.

“No sir,” Director Clapper responded, then qualified his statement by saying, “not wittingly.”
It has since been proven – and is a matter of government record – that the NSA’s global trawl of data has pulled in the communications of Americans by the millions over the last five years. Quite a record for a surveillance authority enacted by Congress to surveil foreign targets on foreign soil.

See for yourself the misuse of this authority revealed in a rare public scolding of the FBI by the secret FISA Court over “widespread violations” of Americans’ privacy with Section 702 data. Or look at the revelations issued by that court of specific instances of how the FBI misused warrantless Section 702 material against U.S. political figures. It is widely reported that the FBI has freely helped itself to Section 702 data, searching the data of more than 19,000 congressional donors, a state judge, and Members of Congress.

The Hunter Biden Laptop Deceit

In 2016, former Director Clapper was joined by former CIA Director John Brennan, former NSA General Counsel Glenn Gerstell, and former NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett, along with almost 50 other former senior intelligence officials in signing a letter released just before the 2020 election. They chimed in on a New York Post story about the contents of a laptop owned by Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

This time, the Fibbing Four solemnly told the American people that the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.” The FBI later determined that the emails and contents of the laptop were “not tampered with or manipulated.” Even The New York Times was forced to report that the laptop and its contents were genuine.

The irony is that former intelligence officials, abusing their continued access to classified information to skew a national election, is about the most Russian thing they could do.

Misinformation About Reform Legislation

Now Director Clapper, and his Hunter Biden colleagues Brennan, Gerstell, and Ledgett, have fired off another letter. This one is directed at Congress telling Members not to allow any reform amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority, Section 702, because that would degrade the government’s ability to protect Americans.

“If Congress fails to authorize Section 702, history may judge the lapse of Section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time,” they write, joined by enough of their colleagues to get the number of signatories up to around 50. “As Members of Congress know, we face sophisticated threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, including the real possibility of devastating cyber-attacks and state-sponsored terrorism directed at Americans.”

These are, of course, real and active threats. But the Fibbing Four gloss over the fact that all of the reform proposals being proposed in Congress contain exceptions for “exigent circumstances.” These exceptions would allow intelligence agencies to react to time-sensitive emergencies, such as the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario. These reform proposals also contain exceptions for cybersecurity and warrantless searches of metadata, requiring court approval only to examine the content of Americans’ communications.

Fool Me Once…

The good news is that Congress is getting wise to such shenanigans just before every vote. Before the last Section 702 reauthorization two years ago, the champions of the intelligence community put out a cryptic story about “a serious national security threat” that turned out to be theoretical, not imminent, reports about “Russian space nukes.”

Our advice to Congress is to look at the plain language of the reform legislation that allows the intelligence community to continue to defend America – while upholding our constitutional rights as well.
​
We can defend America and obey the Constitution at the same time. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

​The American Prospect reports that statements made by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, are raising the question of how well Members of Congress understand the surveillance authorities they oversee.

​“I am not aware of any NSA purchases of U.S. person data,” Rep. Himes is quoted as saying in a virtual town hall last week. “And because their targets, by law, are exclusively foreign, they … have no reason and no business buying American data.”

​
​We agree with the last part of that statement. If only the first part were true.
 
In a letter sent in 2023 in response to a query from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), then-NSA Director Gen. Paul Nakasone wrote: “NSA acquires various types of CAI (commercially available information) for foreign intelligence, cybersecurity, and other authorized mission purposes, to include enhancing its signals intelligence (SIGINT) and cybersecurity missions. This may include information associated with electronic devices being
used outside and, in certain cases, inside the United States.”
 
Charlie Savage of The New York Times summarized the letter’s content thusly, “The National Security Agency buys certain logs related to Americans’ domestic internet activities from commercial data brokers.” This characterization was under the headline, “N.S.A. Buys Americans’ Internet Data Without Warrants, Letter Says.”
 
Rep. Himes also said that AI “has absolutely nothing to do with 702. Nothing. Full stop.”
 
The American Prospect reports that the Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD) budget justification shows that NSD “worked closely” with the intelligence community “to discuss new AI tools that are involved in processing or analyzing FISA-acquired information.”
 
All of which suggests that before the House debates the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 – a program that authorizes foreign surveillance on foreign soil but has often been used to warrantlessly spy on Americans on U.S soil – a deeper discussion with civil liberties groups and a robust House debate are warranted.
 
In facing the looming Section 702 debate, Members of the House need to hear from all sides of the surveillance debate – not just the approved line from the executive branch intelligence agencies.

Reading the private communications of Americans – without showing evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant from a judge – violates the Constitution, disrespects American values, and opens the door to abuse.

Yet Congress is once again caught up in a debate over the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with some claiming that a warrant rule would endanger lives and national security.

The Center for Democracy and Technology and PPSA teamed up to brief Congress on the realities and actual numbers behind these claims about the examination of “U.S. person” queries – searches of people in America whose texts, emails, and calls get caught up in the National Security Agency’s global trawl of data.

Here are some of the myth-exploding facts from our brief.

MYTH #1: U.S. person queries are immensely important in a broad array of situations, making it dangerous to place restrictions on this important tool.

REALITY: Queries only provide value in a limited set of situations – and the proposed warrant rules provide exceptions to account for all of them.

Testimony from the intelligence community, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board uncovered only a few distinct scenarios in which U.S. person queries provided value. And the proposed warrant rule includes exceptions to the warrant requirement that account for them.

These exceptions include tracking the signatures of cyber threats, gaining consent from Americans targeted for foreign assassination and kidnapping plots, and tracking Americans’ contacts with suspicious foreign contacts. The government has yet to produce a single instance in which a warrant requirement would have impeded such efforts. Even then, the exceptions in reform proposals allow warrantless inspection of metadata – who contacted whom – leaving the government free to track Americans who are communicating with terrorists or foreign spies.

MYTH #2: U.S. person queries need to be done quickly and efficiently in the case of a “ticking time bomb,” and a warrant rule would slow the process down in a manner that endangers Americans’ lives.

REALITY: The government has never shown that queries provide such time-sensitive responses. But if they are needed, and the clock is ticking, once again the reform proposals include exceptions for such “exigent circumstances” scenarios.

In short, the exigent circumstances, cybersecurity, consent, and metadata exceptions to the proposed warrant requirement allow the government to respond to threats quickly.

MYTH #3: Warrants are not feasible given the scale of U.S. person queries – adding a warrant requirement would overwhelm intelligence agencies and the courts.

REALITY: By permitting warrantless metadata queries – such as communications logs – the warrant rule ensures that the government will not need to go to court frequently.

In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, the FBI conducted queries for over 57,000 unique U.S. person terms, an unacceptable degree of government overreach and fishing expeditions.

Only 1.58 percent of the FBI’s U.S. person queries resulted in FBI agents accessing the content of communications. Thus, even if queries continued to be conducted at the prior rate of 57,000 annually – which is unlikely given that many of these queries were improper or overly broad – a warrant would be potentially applicable to less than 1,000 queries a year.

That’s less than three such queries per day on average, hardly an insuperable burden on the FBI and the courts.

Because the proposed warrant rule would permit warrantless metadata queries – only requiring court approval to access the content of messages – agencies would be able to confirm when a query will yield a “hit” before devoting any time and effort to seeking a warrant.

And most of those two to three queries per day would fall under the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Our brief to Congress concludes:

“Americans’ basic rights should not be secondary to bureaucratic hurdles and staffing limits. The exceptions and exemptions built into the warrant proposal would allow the government to remain within the boundaries of the Constitution while also having the means to protect national security.”

​As the April 20 expiration of FISA Section 702 approaches, a familiar script is playing out on Capitol Hill. Members are warned that any delay in reauthorizing Section 702 – which enables U.S. intelligence agencies to surveil foreign threats – risks allowing a terrorist attack to unfold on American soil.

This “you will have blood on your hands” argument is not just wrong. It is a cynical ploy to short-circuit a debate that Congress owes the American people, one that would in no way endanger national security.

Here is the reality: Letting the statutory authority of Section 702 lapse does NOT mean America’s surveillance goes dark. Surveillance continues under Section 702 certifications issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which remain valid until their expiration – currently extending to March 2027.

This is not speculation. It is how this law works. As The New York Times has reported, legal directives to communications providers “shall continue in effect” under existing court authorizations.

Yet lawmakers are again being told by the intelligence community to act immediately or risk catastrophe. This fear-based messaging has become routine, repeatedly stampeding Congress into reauthorizing Section 702 without strong reforms to protect Americans’ privacy.

Enacted by Congress to target foreign threats abroad, Section 702 has been used to conduct millions of warrantless searches of Americans’ communications – peaking at 3.4 million in 2021. These are the predictable results of allowing the government to conduct “backdoor searches” without a warrant.

In 2024, a bipartisan amendment to require warrants for searches of Americans’ communications failed in a 212–212 tie in the House. That vote showed how close meaningful reform is – if lawmakers are given the time to pursue it.

Supporters of a “clean” extension – one without any reform amendments – are once again promising a debate on reforms later. Such promised reform debates never arrive. Recent history gives no reason to believe that this time will be different.

Congress has time to debate well beyond April 20. It has time to patiently consider reforms, such as adding a warrant requirement before 702-derived communications of Americans can be inspected.
​
The choice for Congress is not between national security and civil liberties. It is between rubber-stamping a flawed surveillance authority and doing the hard work of fixing it for their constituents.

Why does PPSA oppose a “clean” extension – without any changes or reforms – of the scandal-ridden Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)? Recent history shows how much is at stake when the U.S. House votes in April on whether to reauthorize this surveillance authority, and why Congress must allow time for significant debate and reforms.

Section 702 was enacted by Congress to enable U.S. intelligence agencies to surveil foreign threats on foreign soil. The intelligence community maintains that the communications of Americans are swept up in the National Security Agency’s global trawl only “incidentally.”

Patrick Eddington, a former CIA officer now a Cato Institute policy analyst, writes that the rub is that “the practice is not incidental but a predictable, systematic, and – from the government’s perspective – valuable byproduct of the program.”

Here are some examples of what “incidental” looks like:

• The FBI in 2021 conducted more than 3 million warrantless searches of Americans’ communications under Section 702. This was an astonishing abuse of a surveillance power that Congress designed for foreign surveillance, not warrantless surveillance of Americans.

 

• The FBI, in violation of its own rules, illegally searched for the communications of 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, of multiple U.S. government officials, of journalists, of political commentators, of a local political party, of people who came to the FBI to perform repairs, of victims who approached the FBI to report crimes, of business, religious, and community leaders who applied to participate in the FBI’s “Citizens Academy,” of college students participating in a “Collegiate Academy,” of police officer candidates, of colleagues and relatives of FBI agents, and of Black Lives Matter and January 6 protesters.

 

• Some of the most egregious improper queries occurred after the FBI implemented new rules to curb abuses. In April 2023, a FISC opinion revealed that the FBI in 2022 dipped into Section 702 data to warrantlessly spy on a U.S. Senator, a state senator, and a state judge.

 

• Just last week, the FBI admitted that it has resumed collecting Americans’ location data and movements – where we go and potentially those we meet with – by purchasing that data from third-party data brokers. Though this is not a Section 702-authorized program, it is a clear sign of the hunger the government has for collecting our data without a warrant.

Three evils emerge from what has become a routine domestic surveillance program.

• The first evil is that warrantless surveillance of Americans – which completely sidesteps the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requirement for a probable cause warrant – gives the FBI a “backdoor search” loophole. By conducting fishing expeditions, the FBI can develop predicates for investigating Americans outside of constitutional boundaries.

The intelligence community objects to this characterization, stoutly maintaining that Section 702 is not directed at Americans. To quote Eddington again:

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and multiple congressional oversight reports have documented thousands of such searches annually, many involving wholly domestic criminal investigations with no foreign intelligence nexus.”

• The second evil is where this data can go. Once Americans’ data is collected by surveillance programs authorized by Section 702, it can be held for years. With a recent move by the Trump administration to tear down long-standing data silos between the agencies, this information could soon be at the fingertips of dozens of federal agencies, including the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, and the ATF.

 

• The third evil is the ability of AI to quickly turn vast amounts of data from domestic surveillance into actionable intelligence against Americans.

PPSA agrees that Section 702 is an important authority, needed to keep Americans safe from foreign threats. We also believe that we can protect civil liberties and national security at the same time. There is no reason for Members of Congress to be panicked by a needless legislative game of chicken.
​
Defenders of civil liberties should stand together to test the value of various reform amendments in the crucible of a much-needed open debate.

We usually think of the government’s domestic surveillance abuses as violations of the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted to monitor foreign threats on foreign soil. In practice, however, it has been used by the FBI to sweep up the communications of millions of Americans on American soil and to specifically surveil thousands of Americans – all without warrant.

Now, with a House vote looming in April, Congress is considering a “clean” reauthorization – one that stiff-arms debate over amendments that would impose basic guardrails on warrantless surveillance of Americans.

What is obvious – but just as alarming – is that a “clean” reauthorization could also threaten Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Congress has long prohibited the creation of a federal registry of American gun owners. Yet, as Cato Institute scholar Patrick Eddington explains, Section 702 might offer the government a workaround of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 “at a level of commercial granularity that a formal registry might never achieve.”

How? Many handguns, rifles, and much of the ammunition sold in the United States are manufactured abroad. These foreign manufacturers are caught in the NSA’s global trawl as they communicate with their U.S. operations about everything from inventory management to purchase orders.

Eddington writes on the Cato Institute Blog:

“When Americans buy a Glock pistol, a Beretta shotgun, or a box of Czech-made Sellier & Bellot ammunition at their local gun store, they likely assume the transaction is between them, the dealer, and perhaps the ATF’s background check system. What they almost certainly don’t know is that the business communications underpinning that entire supply chain – every email, phone call, and text between U.S. importers and their foreign suppliers – is almost certainly being vacuumed up and stored under the Section 702 database.”

Layer onto this the current administration’s push to break down long-standing agency data silos under Executive Order 14243. It takes little imagination to see how the FBI, ATF, or the Department of Homeland Security might do exactly what Congress forbids – create a registry of Americans who own firearms. Add artificial intelligence, and the creation of such a registry goes from possible to easy.

Worse, Section 702 data is retained for years. Even if the current administration does not exploit this capability, it could become a very useful tool for the next administration.

Section 702 thus arms the government with the means to violate not only the Fourth Amendment, but the Second – and even the First. The ability to track what people say, where they go, and whom they associate with opens the door to mapping political, religious, and social networks – core First Amendment activities.

More abuses may soon come to light. By April 10, the administration must produce documents in response to a Cato Freedom of Information Act request detailing instances of noncompliance with the law by federal agencies over the last two years.
​
Section 702 has been too prone to scandalous violations of Americans’ rights to give it a green light with no reforms. For the sake of our First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights, this surveillance authority must be open to debate and reforms.

Talk of a “clean reauthorization” of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is growing on Capitol Hill. But as Washington starts to dream of an easy vote that includes no surveillance reforms, the American people are not having it.
 
FISA Section 702 is an authority enacted by Congress to enable the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, but it has often been used by the FBI in recent years to spy on the communications of millions of Americans. Included in that debate is concern over the way in which a dozen federal agencies – ranging from the FBI to the IRS – are purchasing Americans’ personal information from shady third-party data brokers.
 
A new poll commissioned by Demand Progress shows that Americans are paying attention to this threat to privacy – and they don’t like what they see.

• Only 12 percent of voters, including 17 percent of Republicans and eight percent of Independents, believe Congress should renew surveillance and monitoring activities without reforms.

 

• Some 37 percent of voters, including a plurality of 41 percent of Republicans, think FISA should only be reauthorized if it contains restrictions on government purchases of our personal data.

 

• Another 37 percent don’t want the program reauthorized at all.

The poll also shows that the recent dust-up between the Pentagon and AI company Anthropic is focusing the public’s attention on the potential for the government to use artificial intelligence to drive the surveillance of the American people to unprecedented levels.
 
This is especially true as the administration works to dismantle long-standing information silos and remove safeguards that once limited the sharing of Americans’ private data between agencies – from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI and the IRS.
 
AI surveillance, with data collected under Section 702, could allow government employees across the federal bureaucracy to run warrantless searches of Americans’ private communications. Combined with the vast amounts of Americans’ personal data that federal agencies purchase from third-party data brokers, AI-run surveillance programs will have truly frightening reach.
 
The poll also shows that Americans are watching the AI debate and that a majority see it as a threat to privacy.
​

• Sixty-six percent of voters – including 76 percent of Independents and 52 percent of Republicans – believe the government should not be able to force AI companies to grant unrestricted access to analyze Americans’ personal data.

Before Congress embraces a comfortable conformity on a “clean” reauthorization of Section 702 or any other surveillance authority, Members would do well to pay attention to the rising alarm over surveillance among their constituents.

The Government Surveillance Reform Act (GSRA), which would stop federal agencies from buying Americans’ most personal data from shady data brokers while reforming Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), was reintroduced on Thursday with strong bipartisan and bicameral support.

Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) are the sponsors of the GSRA, which balances comprehensive surveillance reform with national security.

“It leaves in place the authorities needed to protect the American people from foreign threats, while reforming what Senator Lee calls ‘illegal government spying’ directed at Americans,” said Bob Goodlatte, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and now Senior Policy Advisor to PPSA.

Cosponsors of the bill include Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Reps. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

Among its many reforms, the GRSA:

Closes the backdoor search loophole: By requiring a warrant for the government to inspect Section 702 information, the bill stops federal agents from fishing through warrantlessly obtained data to generate suspicions about Americans.

Ends reverses targeting: It prohibits the use of foreign surveillance as a pretext to gather data on Americans.

Closes the data broker loophole: The bill bans the practice of federal agencies buying some of our most personal information from data brokers without a warrant.

Repeals the “Make Everyone a Spy” provision: The bill repeals a controversial 2024 provision that allows the government to force millions of Americans and companies to secretly spy on its behalf.

Updates privacy protections for AI and other modern technologies: The bill’s warrant requirement extends to Americans’ location information, web browsing data, search and chatbot records, and the wealth of data collected by modern vehicles.

Expands the use of amici in the secret FISA courts: The bill mandates increased use of amici curiae – experts in privacy and civil liberties – to represent the civil rights of the American people in sensitive cases before secret courts that have no adversarial process. It also provides these advisors to the court with full access to all relevant information needed to do their job.

“It has been said that the Government Surveillance Reform Act is the most balanced and comprehensive surveillance reform bill in almost half a century,” Bob Goodlatte said. “It enjoys deep bipartisan and bicameral support because many Members of Congress are alarmed by the abusive and pervasive surveillance of the American people.
​
“This well-crafted legislation must be included in the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 in April.”

​The Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Chatrie, warning that geofence warrants threaten not only Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, but also our religious liberty and freedom of association.

PPSA previously urged the Court to hear this case and rein in geofence warrants as modern digital general warrants. These warrants compel technology companies to turn over location data for every device within a defined geographic area. Investigators then sift through the movements of potentially hundreds –sometimes thousands – of people in hopes of identifying a suspect.

Now that the Court has granted review, PPSA explains in its amicus brief that this dragnet surveillance exposes something far more sensitive than physical location. Location data can reveal belief, identity, and association.

“Geofence warrants also threaten core First Amendment freedoms by enabling surreptitious mass intrusions into sensitive spaces like places of worship,” the PPSA brief explains. 

A geofence warrant could easily capture the identities of everyone attending a church service, synagogue gathering, mosque prayer, or religious conference. In practice, that means the government could obtain what amounts to a list of worshippers.

The facts of the case illustrate the danger. The geofence search used by investigators in Chatrie encompassed Journey Christian Church in Midlothian, Virginia, capturing the location data of anyone present at the church at that time who carried a smartphone with Google location services enabled. 

That possibility raises profound First Amendment concerns. Location data can expose deeply personal religious information, including “faith affiliation; sacrament participation; belief shifts via changing attendance or visiting a new church; or involvement in recovery ministries.” 

The Supreme Court has long recognized that government surveillance of association can chill constitutional rights. Americans who believe their religious participation may be quietly recorded by the government may think twice before attending services or participating in religious life.

That chilling effect is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

PPSA’s brief urges the Court to recognize that geofence warrants do more than raise Fourth Amendment questions about search and seizure. They also threaten the First Amendment freedoms that protect Americans’ ability to worship, gather, and associate without government monitoring.

After all, in the digital age, tracking where people go can reveal who they are, what they believe, and whom they stand beside.
​
The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to make clear that the Constitution protects those freedoms from the reach of dragnet surveillance.

​The media reported on the drama of the Pentagon’s AI contracts as a horse race: Anthropic tried to limit what the War Department could do with the company's Claude AI product. The administration subsequently rescinded all government contracts with the company. OpenAI offered its products as the alternative and won the day.

But beneath this drama lies a deeper and more dangerous reality: In the absence of meaningful guardrails, the AI tech of any company can be used for surveillance and – if combined with data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – could allow government employees across the federal bureaucracy to run searches on Americans’ private communications.

Such AI-powered surveillance could extend far beyond the Department of War’s use cases and even the Justice Department’s FBI investigations. Government AI-enabled mass surveillance of the domestic population would:

• Not be subject to any oversight authority – constitutional or statutory

 

• Not be encumbered by recent reforms like 2024 RISAA (Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act)

 

• Be supercharged by the dismantling of long-standing information silos and the removal of safeguards that once limited the sharing of Americans’ private data between agencies – from the Department of Homeland Security to the IRS.

 

• All done without a warrant – without any court supervision of the government’s invasion of your privacy.

The danger of AI surveillance in a government that shares data between agencies should prompt Congress to strengthen Fourth Amendment privacy protections. With such a vast datascape available to the world's most powerful government – where many existing restrictions have already been weakened – we otherwise risk the irrevocable loss of personal privacy and the rise of a permanent surveillance state.

We need to come to terms with the fact that AI tech makes rummaging through our private lives and personal histories easier and faster than anyone could have imagined even a few years ago. Americans’ communications could become permanently accessible to the prying eyes of government agents in almost any agency with a whim (or a political directive) to pursue.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. AI was supposed to have guardrails, as was Section 702, enacted by Congress to enable the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, but has instead been used by the government to search the private communications of Americans without a warrant.

RISAA was a noble attempt to rein in the misuse of Section 702 as a domestic spy tool. Its reforms included oversight and restrictions on FBI searches involving people inside the United States. It implemented rules for queries involving high-profile groups or individuals. It established training and accountability measures, while enhancing oversight of the two secret courts FISA created.
​
These were important reforms, but they were weakened by last-minute changes to the bill. When Section 702 comes up for renewal next month – this time in the context of an AI juggernaut – it may well be our last chance to protect our freedoms while protecting national security. 

​ICE has become enough of a household word that, like NASA, it’s no longer necessary to spell out its acronym. ICE’s aggressive enforcement of immigration law, now the nation’s hottest political flashpoint, is dividing Americans like nothing else in recent memory. Regardless of where you stand on ICE and illegal immigration, we should all agree that ICE’s massive expansion into domestic surveillance is a grave concern for anyone who values the Fourth Amendment and privacy.

When a protester recording video on her phone wants to know why a masked agent is taking down her information and he replies – “Because we have a nice little database and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist!” – Sheera Frankel of The New York Times rightly suggests that we’ve entered uncharted territory. Political dissent is now being treated as domestic intelligence.

The masked agent was not kidding. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is launching a pressure campaign to get Big Tech to identify persons who post content deemed “critical” of ICE. Rather than traditional investigative work, the government appears to be leaning on something akin to an abuse of process, filing hundreds – if not thousands – of subpoenas intended to compel tech giants to cough up user data.

This data grab of lawful speech is unprecedented. It amounts to using an exceptional legal maneuver – an emergency procedure meant for crimes like child trafficking – to collect constitutionally protected political expression. And let’s be clear about the constitutional claim: The contents of our “friends-only” digital posts are modern “papers and effects,” private possessions the Fourth Amendment was designed to shield from generalized searches.

If tech companies cave (and, as highly regulated companies, they likely will), and ICE plugs the data of protesters into its increasingly Orwellian surveillance architecture, then the genie will already be out of the bottle. Once such a capability is developed, it rarely remains confined to a single mission or a single agency. Surveillance tools migrate. Authorities expand. Bureaucracies replicate what works.

These tools – algorithms housed in digital fortresses – will almost certainly be shared with the FBI, IRS, FTC, SEC, and a dozen other agencies eager for their piece of the silicon pie. And they won’t just target Americans who are anti-ICE. Depending on the political winds of the day, databases built to track one form of dissent can just as easily be turned against pro-choicers, pro-lifers, critics of the administration in power, progressives, or MAGA supporters.
​
This looks less like law enforcement and more like the construction of a permanent political-intelligence system – the start of a security-state apparatus on a scale never before seen, primarily and perversely used to surveil and catalog the political beliefs of Americans. Congress should examine this emerging capability and look to install guardrails when it debates surveillance policy in March and April.