​Christian Parenti, John Jay College professor of economics, has penned an intriguing, if somewhat mischievous piece in Compact that makes “The Left Case for Kash Patel.”
 
Parenti builds his appeal for liberal support of Patel, President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, by drawing on the long-time skepticism of the FBI by the left. This tradition harks back to Sen. Frank Church and his eponymous committee that revealed domestic spying by the federal government and the FBI’s scrutiny, sometimes bordering on persecution, of left-wing and liberal activists. Most notoriously, the FBI tried to provoke The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. into committing suicide, and was involved in the Cook County police raid that is now largely seen as an assassination of radical activist Fred Hampton.
 
“But these days,” Parenti writes, “many leftists in good standing scoff at the very idea of a ‘deep state’ with the intelligence agencies at its heart.”
 
Parenti goes on to recount for his left-leaning readers conservative complaints about the FBI’s interference in the political process, beginning with the FBI’s use of political opposition research smears to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to issue four surveillance orders of Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016, and through him a presidential campaign. Parenti writes that the FBI “proceeded to launder accusations derived from” the Steele Report, which it knew was discredited, “through the press and the DC rumor mill and then treated the resulting rumors as if they were real intelligence.”
 
Parenti makes it clear that the FBI also worked for the better part of a year holding 30 meetings with social media companies to “prebunk” the Hunter Biden laptop story, even though the FBI had authenticated the laptop on Hunter Biden’s iCloud storage account.
 
By connecting the FBI’s misconduct against the left and the right, Parenti argues for a few Patel reform proposals that liberals should get behind. Here are two of them:
 
Move the FBI out of Washington: Parenti writes that “Patel suggests most DC-based FBI staff can be sent to existing field offices, and that the top leadership might need to operate by traveling a circuit of regional offices … An FBI located at the center of DC influence-peddling is necessarily different from one that is scattered across America and tasked with fighting interstate fraud and white-collar crime.”
 
Reform the FBI’s interactions with the secret FISA Court: Patel would do this by “introducing some due-process requirements, including written transcripts of its deliberations and a stable of defense attorneys to attack every warrant request.” This is the essence of the Lee-Leahy Amendment, a proposal to inject civil liberties experts to advise the FISA Court whenever a case implicates sensitive rights involving politics, religion, or journalism. That proposal received 77 votes in the Senate in 2020, with strong support from liberal senators.
 
Parenti concludes that Patel’s agenda to radically reform a Bureau that has “a sordid history of targeting trade unions, peace activists, campus radicals, and Black politicians” deserves the support of the left. But he is skeptical that this will happen in today’s polarized Washington.
 
We ask: Why not welcome the chance to bring guardrails to federal surveillance and reforms to end the Bureau’s political interference? Anyone on either side of the aisle concerned with surveillance abuse should hope for – and encourage Patel – to make good on his goals.

A solemn promise was made on the floor of the U.S. Senate – and by the Congress to the American people – that has been broken. As a result, most businesses and organizations in the United States that offer free Wi-Fi service now have a legal obligation to spy on their tenants and customers for the National Security Agency and keep that spying secret from them forever.
 
In April the U.S. Senate reauthorized FISA Section 702, an authority that allows federal agencies to spy on foreign targets on foreign soil. Facing an eleventh-hour vote, the Senate took Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) at his word that a flaw in the bill would soon be corrected. Accepting that promise, the Senate reauthorized Section 702.
 
That flaw concerns a provision added to the reauthorization that allows the NSA to force businesses that offer internet communications – from the landlords of office complexes that house journalists and political campaigns, to fitness centers, to houses of worship – to make the communications of their customers secretly available. Janitors and cleaning services with access to equipment and thumb-drives in their pockets can now be legally enlisted to spy for the NSA. All this can be done without bothering with niceties like the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement.
 
Sen. Warner acknowledged that this language defining an “electronic communications service provider” was overbroad and promised a fix to narrow it. Though the target category is classified, that fix is widely believed to be narrowing the provision to providers of cloud communications.
 
To be fair to Sen. Warner, it was a few House Republicans who rejected adding the fix to the Intelligence Authorization Act. And it was some Republicans who fought to reject any narrowing of this vast expansion of the American surveillance state, dubbed by many to be the “Make Everyone a Spy” provision. We still remain dismayed and disappointed that the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee could make such a promise and not see to it that it is kept.
 
But Congress can still redeem itself. Surely Members will not want to disappoint constituents as word spreads about the extent and magnitude of this new, limitless domestic surveillance program. Surely they will also want to live up to a solemn promise made to colleagues. This fix can be enacted next year.
 
In the meantime, PPSA will be working with our surveillance reform allies, left and right, to narrow the “Make Everyone a Spy” provision.
 
If Congress chooses not to keep its word, however, the American people will surely grow alarmed and upset over this expansive surveillance. Keep in mind that the House came within one tie-breaking vote of adding a warrant requirement in the reauthorization of Section 702 this year. The Make Everyone a Spy law will now be Exhibit A in making our case for warrants and against the surveillance state.
​

Breitbart recently broke a story that a few recalcitrant House Members are holding up a promised fix to what many referred to as the “Make Everyone a Spy” law.
 
The fix regards an amendment to the reauthorization of FISA Section 702, passed in April, in which pro-surveillance advocates added a requirement that U.S. business owners who offer customers the use of their Wi-Fi and routing equipment be covered as “electronic communication service providers” under the law. This means that any business – your neighborhood fitness center, an office complex that houses journalists, political campaigns, or even a church or other house of worship, as well as a host of other establishments – would face the same requirement as large telecoms to turn over the communications of their customers, no warrant required.
 
This was not meant to happen. As the Senate voted in April to reauthorize FISA Section 702, bipartisan furor erupted over this provision, including leading conservatives in both chambers. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, promised his colleagues that the amendment that included this expansive authority would be narrowed to include only one category of business. That category is classified but is widely believed to be data centers that provide cloud computing and storage.
 
With this promise in hand, the Senate voted down an amendment to remove the flawed provision, and immediately passed the reauthorization of Section 702 – all in the belief that the expansive new spy power would soon be curbed.
 
Sen. Warner was true to his word, inserting language into the Senate intelligence bill that narrows the scope of the new measure. Now, in a baffling turn of events, it is the House that is refusing to include the fix in its version of the intelligence bill.
 
Why are some House Members insisting on keeping an authority that allows spying on churchgoers, shoppers, and office workers? Bob Goodlatte, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and PPSA senior policy advisor, told Breitbart News: 
 
“This measure passed because of assurances that this insanely broad authority would be narrowed. The promise of a fix was made and accepted in good faith, but that promise is being trashed by advocates for greater surveillance of our citizens. Unless Congress reverses course, Americans’ data that runs through the Wi-Fi and servers of millions of small businesses, ranging from fitness centers to department stores, small office complexes, as well as churches and other houses of worship, will be fair game for warrantless review. This would truly transform our country into a thorough surveillance state. I can’t imagine the next Congress and new Administration would welcome that.”
 
Surely, giving the deep state free rein to spy on Americans is not in keeping with the philosophy of the incoming Trump administration, the new Republican majority in Congress, or most Democrats.
 
Contact your House Member and say:
 
“Please don’t let this legislative year end without narrowing the Electronic Communication Service Provider standard. Congress must keep its promise to fix the Make Everyone a Spy Law.”

​The nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to serve as Director of National Intelligence promises to be contentious. One thing cannot be disputed: The former Congresswoman from Hawaii and lieutenant-colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, with experience in Iraq and other dangerous countries, would bring a combination of responsible handling of secrets along with a solid record of surveillance reform.
 
Gabbard voted for the USA RIGHTS Act and other measures that would require warrants for the government to access Americans’ data and to protect personal use of encrypted apps. Rep. Gabbard also filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in 2019 to prohibit government purchases of body cameras equipped with facial recognition and other biometric devices.
 
In these and many other ways, Gabbard has compiled the record of a surveillance-reform leader. While in Congress, Gabbard served on the Homeland Security, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations Committees. A former Vice-Chair of the DNC, Gabbard made a long journey from being a staunch Democrat to supporting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. As a private citizen, Gabbard is arguably a victim of surveillance abuse herself.
 
Her record on surveillance reform is enough to send shivers down the backs of officials in the FBI and other intelligence organizations long used to warrantless access to Americans personal information. Not surprisingly, Gabbard is now being attacked in a whisper campaign by nameless sources for being a flake who has taken pro-Russian and pro-Syria positions. Gabbard is articulate in responding to these charges, portraying herself as foreign-policy realist. We hope the Senate will keep an open mind and listen to Tulsi Gabbard’s defense.
 
Above all, we hope the Senate will consider the need to bring balance back to the intelligence community, which often helps itself to the purchased personal data of American citizens without bothering to seek a warrant. As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to reform FISA. Appointing Tulsi Gabbard to lead the intelligence community shows he’s serious about that. The next Director of National Intelligence should be someone who can restore a balance between the need to respect the constitutional rights of Americans and the need to keep America safe.

​The election may have shaken Washington, D.C., like a snow globe in the grip of a paint mixer, but the current Congress still has important business for the lame duck session. For anyone who cares about privacy in this age of surveillance, issue one has to be whether or not Congress will retain the promised fix to what so many call the “make everyone a spy” provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
 
This story goes back to April, when the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence slipped into the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 (which authorizes foreign intelligence) a measure to allow the government to secretly enlist almost every kind of U.S. business to spy on their customers. In response to the outcry, carveouts were made that exempted coffee shops, hotels, and a few other business categories. But most businesses – ranging from gyms to dentists’ offices, to commercial landlords with tenants that could include political campaigns or journalists – are required to turn over their customers’ communications that run on ordinary Wi-Fi systems.
 
It is widely believed that this legislation was aimed at cloud computing facilities, which were not previously covered by the relevant law. When the Senate took up reauthorization of Section 702, Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) admitted to his colleagues that the new measure was overbroad, and that he would craft new legislation to fix it. Sen. Warner kept his word and crafted legislation to narrow the provision. Although the nature of this fix is classified, it is widely believed to limit this new surveillance power to cloud computing facilities.
 
The House Intelligence Committee, however, did not adopt that fix. We hear that behind-the-scenes negotiations are taking place, but we cannot report exactly who might be blocking it or why. Suffice it to say that it is far from clear that Congress will ultimately adopt Sen. Warner’s fix.
 
PPSA calls on Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to make it clear that the NDAA will include a provision to narrow the scope of this extreme provision. We must not give the FBI and other government agencies warrantless access to practically all communications that run through any kind of equipment operated by almost any kind of business.
 
Allowing the current law to remain unfixed and unreformed would be a terrible punch in the gut to the American people and the new Congress. The 119th Congress has many surveillance debates scheduled, including one over the reauthorization of Section 702 itself in 2026 – which passed the House with the breaking of a tie vote. It would be a mistake to saddle the new Republican majority and the incoming Trump administration with a broken promise.

​Sen. Rick Scott – former two-term governor of Florida, now re-elected to the Senate by more than 10 points over his most recent challenger – has consistently voted for surveillance reform. Sen. Scott has been a vocal champion of reforming FISA Section 702 – enacted by Congress to authorize surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, but often used to collect the communications of Americans. Sen. Scott called FBI Director Christopher Wray on the carpet to tell him that he’s squandering the credibility of a great agency by playing games with Americans’ privacy.
 
Rick Scott has also been a strong supporter of a probable cause warrant requirement before the FBI and other intelligence agencies can review Americans’ personal data and communications. Such principled stands on surveillance reform explain why we gave the Florida senator an “A” rating in our PPSA Scorecard.
 
From Tallahassee to Capitol Hill, Sen. Scott has made winning tough races look easy. We encourage more Members of Congress in both parties to recognize what Sen. Scott demonstrates, that surveillance reform is good politics.

​The incoming Trump administration has an unparalleled opportunity to achieve historic surveillance reform. Donald Trump made campaign pledges to:
 

• Make every Inspector General’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee. This would enhance the objectivity of those who oversee surveillance operations by giving them a bit of distance.

 

• Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and that they regulate. This measure would help ensure that when surveillance requests are made by government to the private sector, agendas remain clean and separate.

 

• Reform FISA courts. This measure could bring in qualified amici, seasoned experts with high-level security clearances, to provide the court with – to paraphrase Hemingway – built-in, shock-proof, BS detectors.

 

• Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies to ensure they are not spying on our citizens or running disinformation campaigns against the American people. This leads to a sweet spot shared by surveillance reformers of all stripes – the need to impose a warrant requirement on federal agencies, ranging from the FBI to the IRS, that buy the private and intimate data of Americans from third-party data brokers.

 
The Trump agenda on surveillance reform presages monumental and much needed reforms, from Section 702 reform to passage of the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act by both houses of Congress. The stars are aligning with the incoming administration. The 119th Congress must make the most of this historic opportunity.

​Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance (R-OH) told Joe Rogan over the weekend that backdoor access to U.S. telecoms likely allowed the Chinese to hack American broadband networks, compromising the data and privacy of millions of Americans and businesses.
 
“The way that they hacked into our phones is they used the backdoor telecom infrastructure that had been developed in the wake of the Patriot Act,” Sen. Vance told Rogan on his podcast last weekend. That law gave U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to the data and operations of telecoms that manage the backbone of the internet.
 
Chris Jaikaran, a specialist in cybersecurity policy, added in a recently released Congressional Research Service report about a cyberattack from a group known as Salt Typhoon:
 
“Public reporting suggests that the hackers may have targeted the systems used to provide court-approved access to communication systems used for investigations by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. PRC actors may have sought access to these systems and companies to gain access to presidential candidate communications. With that access, they could potentially retrieve unencrypted communication (e.g., voice calls and text messages).”
 
Thus, the Chinese were able to use algorithms developed for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to see to any U.S. national security order and presumably any government extraction of the intercepted communications of Americans and foreign targets under FISA Section 702. China doesn’t need a double agent in the style of Kim Philby. Our own Patriot Act mandates that we make it easier for hostile regimes to find the keys to all of our digital kingdoms – including the private conversations of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
 
As alarming as that is, it is hard to fully appreciate the dangers of such a penetration. The Chinese have chosen not to use their presence deep in U.S. systems to “go kinetic” by sabotaging our electrical grid and other primary systems. The possible consequences of such deep hacking are highlighted in a joint U.S.-Israel advisory that details the actions against Israel that were enabled when an Iranian group, ASA, wormed its way into foreign hosting providers.
 
ASA hackers allowed the manipulation of a dynamic, digital display in Paris for the 2024 Summer Olympics to denounce Israel and the participation of Israeli athletes on the eve of the Games. ASA infiltrated surveillance cameras in Israel and Gaza, searching for weak spots in Israeli defenses. Worst of all, the hack enabled Hamas to contact the families of Israeli hostages in order to “cause additional psychological effects and inflict further trauma.”
 
The lesson is that when our own government orders companies to develop backdoors into Americans’ communications, those doors can be swung open by malevolent state actors as well. Sen. Vance’s comments indicate that there is a growing awareness of the dangers of government surveillance – an insight that we hope increases Congressional support for surveillance reform when FISA Section 702 comes up for renewal in 2026.

​We’re all resigned to the need to go through security at high-profile sporting and cultural events, just as we do at the airport. The American Civil Liberties Union is raising the question – will that level of scrutiny be the new normal at the mall, at open-air tourist attractions, outdoor concerts, and just plain walking around town?
 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is investing in research and development to “assess soft targets and address security gaps” with new technology to track people in public places. It is funding SENTRY, the Soft Target Engineering to Neutralize the Threat Reality. SENTRY will combine artificial intelligence from the “integration of data from multiple sources,” which no doubt will include facial recognition scans of everyone in a given area to give them a “threat assessment.”
 
We do not dismiss DHS’s concern. The world has no lack of violent people and our country is full of soft targets. Just hark back to the deranged shooter in 2017 who turned the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas into a shooting gallery. He killed 60 people and wounded more than 400. A similar act by a terrorist backed by a malevolent state could inflict even greater casualties.
 
But we agree with ACLU’s concern that such intense inspection of Americans going about their daily business could lead to the “airportization” of America, in which we are always in a high-security zone whenever we gather. ACLU writes that “security technology does not operate itself; people will be subject to the petty authority of some martinet guards who are constantly stopping them based on some AI-generated flag of suspicion.”
 
We would add another concern. Could SENTRY be misused, just as FISA Section 702 and other surveillance authorities have been misused? What is to keep the government from accessing SENTRY data for warrantless political surveillance, whether against protestors or disfavored groups targeted by biased FBI agents? If this technology is to be deployed, guardrails are needed.
 
PPSA seconds ACLU’s comment to the watchdog agency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), that asks it to investigate AI-based programs as they develop. Congress should watch the results of PCLOB’s efforts and follow up with legal guardrails to prevent the misuse of SENTRY and similar technologies.

​The intelligence community’s disregard for solemnly made pledges reminds us of the hit song by the ‘80s new wave band Naked Eyes: “You made me promises promises/
Knowing I'd believe …”
 
Forgive the Boomer reference, but the failure of the intelligence community to live up to its promises is also a golden oldie.
 
For example, in 2017, Dan Coats was asked in a Congressional hearing if he would, if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, provide public estimates of the number of people inside the United States with communications “incidentally” collected by National Security Agency surveillance. Coats said he would “do everything I can” to work with the head of the NSA “to get you that number.” That pledge was followed up by NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett to provide an estimate by the end of that year.
 
This would have been important information for the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 in 2018, as well as congressional debate and reauthorization of this same authority this year. Section 702 allows the NSA to scour global networks in search of the communications of foreign spies and terrorists. Given the interconnected nature of global communications, surveillance technology cannot help but also collect the private communications of Americans at home, potentially violating the Fourth Amendment. Having a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have had their privacy rights implicated by federal surveillance would be very useful guidance for congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies.
 
Yet, Director Coats and the NSA backtracked. Their estimates never came. Their excuse was that separating Americans from this global trawl would be too impractical, somewhat like counting all the krill picked up in a large fishing net. But this argument, to strain a metaphor, doesn’t hold water. The watchdog Privacy and Civil Liberties Board made it clear in 2023 that in order to comply with the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, as well as directives from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the NSA already filters out domestic communications in its programs. In 2022, Princeton researchers published a methodology for a rough estimate of how many people in the United States have their communications caught up under programs authorized by Section 702. Under such partial proxies, Congress could at least have some idea of how many Americans have their communications captured by their government.
 
Beyond ballpark numbers, Congress needs to know how government agencies – the FBI in particular – might be using Americans’ personal information gleaned from Section 702 programs for warrantless domestic surveillance. Despite solemn promises by the champions of the intelligence community that this never happens, the FISC Court revealed that such surveillance has been used by the FBI in ordinary domestic cases – evidence against American citizens that is never revealed in court.
 
Frustrated by the government’s many broken promises, PPSA joined with Restore The Fourth and 22 other civil liberties organizations across the ideological spectrum – ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to Americans for Prosperity – to send a letter to the directors of national intelligence and NSA. We demand access to numbers that the government clearly has and pledged to Congress to provide.
 
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and NSA Director Gen. Timothy Haugh would be well advised not to toss this one into the round file. The reauthorization of Section 702 passed by one tie-breaking vote in the House this year. If the government once again fails to keep its promise, it will not augur well for the next reauthorization of Section 702 on the legislative calendar for 2026.

​The recent approval of the House Intelligence Committee’s annual intelligence policy bill sets up a critical moment for the ongoing debate over surveillance powers, particularly the controversial FISA Section 702. While the bill does not include a provision to narrow the definition of "electronic communication service providers" (ECSP), this issue will soon come to a head in the House-Senate conference.
 
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) signaled his acceptance of Senate Intelligence Chair Mark Warner’s "technical fix," which would narrow the scope of the ECSP definition. Himes said the change “would be totally fine with me,” and that “I always believed that the language was overbroad in the initial amendment…”
 
This change would prevent ordinary businesses—like coffee shops or small offices—from being forced to assist in government surveillance. While Himes expressed he would be "totally fine" with Warner’s proposal, the issue has yet to be fully debated or incorporated into House legislation. We’ve seen efforts at reform falter before, and the final outcome will be determined behind closed doors in the House-Senate conference, where transparency is sorely lacking.
 
As we’ve previously noted, broadening the ECSP definition without clear limitations would create a “Make Everyone a Spy” law, enlisting small businesses into the surveillance apparatus.
 
Moreover, the administration’s reassurance that the law will only be applied to specific providers, based on a classified FISA court decision, is insufficient. History shows that such promises often erode over time, allowing the intelligence community to expand its surveillance reach through legal loopholes. John Wiegmann, the new top lawyer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, also supported Warner’s. But as with everything, we want to see the changes in writing in the bill.
 
The closed-room conference between the House and Senate is where these decisions will play out, but the lack of public scrutiny makes it a fraught process. Given past betrayals on surveillance reform, we have ample reason for anxiety. Privacy advocates must remain vigilant and press for real reforms that ensure no further expansion of surveillance powers. The House and Senate need to guarantee that any changes made truly limit the scope of ECSPs and protect Americans from warrantless data collection. PPSA will be monitoring this situation closely as it unfolds.

​An important analysis from Real Clear Investigations probes the extent to which censorship abroad threatens the First Amendment here at home. 
 
Writer Ben Weingarten asks whether foreign demands that domestic media companies operating abroad comply with those nations’ often far more censorial legal requirements will lead in turn to more censorship here at home. The preponderance of the evidence suggests bad news for fans of the First Amendment.
 
Weingarten points specifically to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which imposes content moderation standards that far exceed what would be considered constitutional in the United States. For example, companies doing business in the EU must combat “illegal content online,” which includes the disfavored rhetoric like “illegal hate speech.”
 
Writes Weingarten:
 
“Platforms also must take ‘risk-based action,’ including undergoing independent audits to combat ‘disinformation or election manipulation’ – with the expectation those measures should be taken in consultation with ‘independent experts and civil society organisations.’ The Commission says these measures are aimed at mitigating ‘systemic issues such as … hoaxes and manipulation during pandemics, harms to vulnerable groups and other emerging societal harms’ driven by ‘harmful’ but not illegal content.”
 
What’s more, investigations pursuant to the DSA can result in fines of up to 6% of annual global revenue, a potential outcome likely to give companies like X and Facebook pause when considering whether to comply with the invasive oversight of European bureaucrats and NGOs serving as arbiters of the appropriate.
 
Then there’s the question of whether social media companies that agree to the EU’s demands are likely to run parallel services – for example, a DSA compliant version of X and another that is consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment.
 
Elon Musk seemed willing to abandon Brazil after that country banned X for failing to de-platform the account of former president Jair Bolsonaro. (Though Musk’s company is now very much back in business there.) But the EU is a much bigger market with a lot more monetizable users.
 
As Weingarten documents, the punishment of media companies abroad for speech that is well within the bounds of the First Amendment is a growing trend – not just in the EU but also in countries like the UK and Australia. And Weingarten reserves no small amount of criticism for the Biden Administration’s silence – and even capitulation – in the face of such foreign censorship.
 
Bills like the No Censors on our Shores Act, which could “punish foreign individuals and entities that promote or engage in the censorship of American speech,” offer one potential solution to foreign censorship creep. So do articles like Weingarten’s, which provide a much-needed diagnosis of our speech-related ailings and failings.

​The Cato Institute is challenging the FBI and Department of Justice in court to demand transparency regarding the government’s warrantless surveillance practices under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeks the release of records on how well the FBI is complying with restrictions placed on the use of this controversial program.
 
Section 702 allows U.S. agencies to monitor communications between foreigners abroad, but it has also been used to capture the communications of Americans, leading to allegations of overreach and privacy violations. Despite bipartisan efforts in Congress to reform or even dismantle Section 702, the public has been kept in the dark about whether any meaningful changes have occurred.
 
Cato has been stonewalled in its efforts to obtain information that could reveal the extent of this surveillance. As Cato Senior Fellow Patrick Eddington pointed out: “When the FBI stonewalls public records requests about a massive surveillance program that gobbles up billions of communications yearly — including yours and mine — it’s violating the law… A law its agents and managers are sworn to uphold.” This case is about more than just documents; it’s about shedding light on potential abuses of power and ensuring that the law protects ordinary citizens from unwarranted government surveillance.
 
The lawsuit raises an essential question about the balance between national security and civil liberties. Without transparency, it's impossible to know whether surveillance programs are being misused or if they adequately protect Americans’ privacy. Cato’s case is a crucial step toward uncovering whether the FBI is following the legal limits placed on Section 702 or if it continues to overreach under the cover of secrecy.
 
If successful, this case could force the government to reveal whether it is truly adhering to the law in its use of FISA's broad surveillance powers. At stake is the privacy of millions of Americans whose communications could be intercepted without their knowledge or consent.
 
This case deserves attention from everyone who values privacy and accountability. PPSA is proud to support Cato’s efforts to push for a future where government overreach is kept in check and individual liberties are safeguarded. We look forward to further developments in this case.

In the Paris Olympics this summer, USA’s Noah Lyles edged out Kishane Thompson of Jamaica to win the gold in the 100-meter race by 0.005 seconds, or 5 milliseconds. That’s far less than the 10th of a second, or 100 milliseconds, that it takes for the human eye to blink.
 
Now imagine if someone had snuck lead linings into the soles of Lyles’ shoes or put itching powder in his nylon vest. When a race comes down to such a slender margin, the slightest change can tip the scales.
 
A legislative version of the 100-meter dash occurred in mid-April when the U.S. House of Representatives voted 212-212 to require the FBI and other government agencies to get a warrant before inspecting the communications of Americans that get caught up in foreign surveillance programs. The warrant requirement for FISA Section 702 finally lost by a single tie-breaking vote.
 
Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute we now know that the Department of Justice did, in fact, put lead linings in the shoes of surveillance reformers.
 
Here’s what happened: In its FOIA, Cato sought audits of Section 702 programs that would show potential abuses of that program and set a deadline for March 29. On March 15, the Justice Department informed D.C. Circuit Judge Tanya Chutkan that it would be “impracticable” to have a response ready by March 29. At that time, Congressional debate was heating up. It wasn’t until July 23 that Cato finally received responsive records.
 
Though heavily redacted, the records contained two shocks.
 
The first is that one person at the FBI conducted 122 improper queries – and that the investigation into these searches were stymied when this individual abruptly left the FBI.
Had Eddington been provided this and other data from Justice’s FOIA response by March 29, he writes in The Orange County Register, “I would have immediately shared those audits and findings contained within with the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, along with any other interested House or Senate committees or Members, to help inform their deliberations over whether to renew the 702 program or let it die.”
 
The second shock is that Cato’s analysis of the 702 audits show that their declassification review was completed ten days before a Justice Department lawyer told Judge Chutkan that it would be “impracticable” to complete these audits before March 29. The work had already been done.
 
Cato is now filing a new FOIA that will target records on how this existing FOIA case was actually handled. In the meantime, Eddington writes, “every judge on the federal bench needs to reevaluate any presumption of regularity by executive branch officials when dealing with cases that involve government surveillance threats to the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.”
​

​This year, the coalition of surveillance reformers in Washington, D.C., mounted the most spirited, bipartisan campaign in legislative history.
 
The reform coalition fought to require warrants for FISA Section 702, which authorizes the government to surveil foreign threats on foreign soil but is often used to spy on Americans. The House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would forbid the warrantless collection of Americans’ personal, digital information.
 
How did we do? The Section 702 fix was lost to a single, tie-breaking vote in the House. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act remains stuck behind last-minute business in the Senate.
 
It is easy for surveillance reformers to feel like Sisyphus, rolling legislative stones up Capitol Hill only have them come tumbling back down. But national reformers should take heart from the example set by Utah, which proves that surveillance reform is popular and that reasonable compromises can be set into law.
 
Start with geofence warrants, which use a reverse search technique to pluck the identities of criminal suspects out of pools of data extracted from a given area. The federal Fifth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal have taken starkly opposite views over whether geofence warrants can be allowed. The Fifth Circuit finds them to be inherently unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit finds them to raise no Fourth Amendment issues at all.
 
Meanwhile, the intrusion of government snooping grows. Google reports that requests for geofence warrants grew by 9,000 in 2019 to 11,500 in 2020. That number is surely much higher today.
 
When the U.S. Supreme Court inevitably wades into this issue to resolve the circuit split, the Justices would well to consider the example set by Utah. Last year, Utah passed HB57, which balances law enforcement’s protection of public safety with the privacy rights of Utahans in law enforcement’s use of geofencing.
 
Leslie Corbly of the Libertas Institute in Utah reports that as a result of this new law, police must now submit requests for geofence data to a judge for a warrant application. This new law also mandates that warrant applications must “include a notification to judges regarding the nature of a geofence search by way of a map or written description showing the size of the virtual geofence.” Results from the search must be specified and reported to the court, including not just the identification of criminal perpetrators, but also people not involved in a crime.
 
Armed with enough information to evaluate the merits of a warrant request, judges remain involved with geofence warrants throughout the process. Finally, state law enforcement agencies must report the number of geofence warrants requested, the number approved by a judge, the number of investigations that used information obtained through a geofence warrant, and the number of electronic devices used for this collection.
 
Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center reports that Utah has “chipped away at the surveillance state,” passing laws limiting surveillance of all kinds. These include:
 

• License Plate Readers: In 2013, Utah put modest limits on Automatic License Plate Readers, keeping this data out of the market for digital information and a requirement for a warrant or disclosure order for state police to access it.

 

• Warrants for Data: Utah’s 2014 Electronic Information Privacy Act makes any electronic data obtained by law enforcement without a warrant inadmissible in a criminal trial. In addition to state-collected information, that law imposes the same constraint on data derived from the NSA and super-secret fusion centers. In 2019, Utah expanded this law to ban warrantless access to data stored in the cloud. In 2021, the state again expanded this law to require police to get warrants to search data held by communication service provider networks.

 

• Drones: In 2014, Utah slapped a search warrant requirement on data obtained from a drone. In 2022, the state expanded restrictions on drone surveillance to also include “radar, sonar, infrared, or other remote sensing or detection technology.”

 

• Geofencing: And then in February 2023, Utah passed its limits and warrant requirements on geofencing.

 
Utah demonstrates to Congress and the Supreme Court that we can place limits on surveillance while accepting reasonable access to information agencies need to protect the public. Gary Herbert, a former governor of Utah who signed many of these measures into law, said “Utah is no longer a flyover state.” When it comes to surveillance reform, Utah is a state that should lead the nation.
 
And Utah should be an inspiration to reformers in Congress to keep pushing those boulders all the way to the top of the Hill.

​While partisan control of the U.S. Senate balances on a knife’s edge, also at stake is whether that body will have more surveillance reformers and protectors of privacy, or more defenders of the government surveillance status quo.
 
We find no partisan correlation between the reformers and the defenders. Some of the most liberal/progressive and conservative candidates support reform of government surveillance programs to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans and their privacy. The same diversity exists among those who stoutly defend the government’s supposed “right” to warrantlessly surveil Americans.
 
You can review the PPSA Scorecard to see how your Senators (and Representative) fare in our ratings. We rate candidates on a grading scale from F to A+ (see details below). Here we apply these grades to eight of the closest or most-watched races for the U.S. Senate in 2024. We usually rate only the incumbent in each race because most opponents either have no voting record to score or, if an opponent was previously a Member of Congress, his or her votes are usually too far in the past to be relevant.

​***Not pictured above is Former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D) who scored a D the 116th Congress (2019-2021).

We should note that the last Senate candidate has an exceptionally troubling record on privacy and government surveillance. Rep. Adam Schiff, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman, is now running for the open Senate seat in California and polls show him with a comfortable lead. Should Schiff come to represent all the people of California, we hope he will “see the light” and become an advocate for his constituents’ privacy. 
 
In all races, voters, volunteers and campaign donors select their candidates by their stances on many positions. PPSA hopes that, in the coming election, you will consider your candidates’ stance on vital issues of surveillance and privacy. These include:

• The Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, a measure that passed the House this year that would restrict government purchasing of Americans’ most sensitive and personal data by data brokers

 

• A commitment to vote for a requirement for warrants when government agencies look at Americans’ personal communications caught up under programs authorized by FISA Section 702. This measure comes up for debate when Section 702 authority faces renewal in 2026.

 

• The House-passed PRESS Act, which would place reasonable limits on the ability of federal prosecutors to rifle through reporters’ notes and expose their sources. Such laws work well in 49 states, balancing the needs of public safety with those of a free society.

 
Again, please refer to our Scorecard for the records of other Members.
 
As the 20th century Chicago columnist Sidney J. Harris observed: “Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”
 
Here are the details of our grading system:
 
“A+” = Members who voted for every major pro-privacy amendment or bill
“A” = Members who voted for privacy on 80 to 99 percent of the votes
“B” = Members who voted for privacy on 60 to 79 percent of the votes
“C” = Members who voted for privacy on 40 to 59 percent of the votes
“D” = Members who voted for privacy on 20 to 39 percent of the votes
“F” = Members who voted for privacy on 0 to 19 percent of the votes

​The year is far from over and the U.S. House of Representatives has already had a banner year on privacy and surveillance reform.
 
The House passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would curb the purchases of Americans’ data by government agencies. It also passed the PRESS Act, which gives reporters and their sources protection from the prying of eyes of prosecutors. Finally, the House came within one vote of passing a measure to require the government to obtain a warrant before accessing Americans’ personal communications caught up in the global trawl of foreign surveillance programs authorized by FISA Section 702.
 
But will the House of the 119th Congress be able to improve on these bold, pro-privacy stands? In our PPSA Scorecard we rate how all representatives (and senators) have voted on pro-privacy amendments or bills. Below are incumbents’ ratings from the 22 closest House races:

​​Here is how evaluated these Members by their votes:

• “A+” = Members who voted for every major pro-privacy amendment or bill
• “A” = Members who voted for privacy on 80 to 99 percent of the votes
• “B” = Members who voted for privacy on 60 to 79 percent of the votes
• “C” = Members who voted for privacy on 40 to 59 percent of the votes
• “D” = Members who voted for privacy on 20 to 39 percent of the votes
• “F” = Members who voted for privacy on 0 to 19 percent of the votes

 
PPSA hopes that in the coming election, you will consider your candidates’ stance on vital issues of surveillance and privacy. Please refer to our Scorecard for the records of other Members. And don’t be shy about expressing your views on privacy and surveillance reform with your candidates.
 
As Abraham Lincoln said: “If the people turn their backs to a fire they will burn their behinds, and they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

​The phrase “national security” harks back to the George Washington administration, but it wasn’t until the National Security Act of 1947 that the term was codified into law. This new law created the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and much of the apparatus of what we today call the intelligence community. But the term itself – “national security” – was never defined.
 
What is national security? More importantly, what isn’t national security?
 
Daniel Drezner, a Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy professor, writes in Foreign Affairs that it was the Bush-era “war on terror” that put the expansion of the national security agenda into overdrive. Since then, he writes, the “national security bucket has grown into a trough.”
 
The term has become a convenient catch-all for politicians to show elevated concern about the issues of the day. Drezner writes: “From climate change to ransomware to personal protective equipment to critical minerals to artificial intelligence, everything is national security now.” He adds to this list the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025’s designation of big tech as a national security threat, and the 2020 National Security Strategy document, which says the same for “global food insecurity.” We would add to that the call by politicians in both parties to treat fentanyl as a matter of national security.
 
While some of these issues are clearly relevant to national security, Drezner’s concern is the strategic fuzziness that comes about when everything is defined as a national security priority. He criticizes Washington’s tendency to “ratchet up” new issues like fentanyl distribution, without any old issues being removed to keep priorities few and urgent.
 
For our part, PPSA has a related concern – the expansion of the national security agenda has a nasty side effect on Americans’ privacy. When a threat is identified as a matter of national security, it also becomes a justification for the warrantless surveillance of Americans.
 
It is one thing for the intelligence community to use, for example, FISA Section 702 authority for the purpose for which Congress enacted it – the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil. For example, if fentanyl is a national security issue, then it is appropriate to surveil the Chinese labs that manufacture the drug and the Mexican cartels that smuggle it. But Section 702 can also be used to warrantlessly inspect the communications of Americans for a crime as a matter of national security. Evidence might also be warrantlessly extracted from the vast database of American communications, online searches, and location histories that federal agencies purchase from data brokers.
 
So the surveillance state can now dig up evidence against Americans for prosecution in drug crimes, without these American defendants ever knowing how this evidence was developed – surely a fact relevant to their defense.
 
As the concept of national security becomes fuzzier, so too do the boundaries of what “crimes” can be targeted by the government with warrantless surveillance. “Trafficking” in critical minerals? Climate change violations? Repeating alleged foreign “disinformation”?
 
When Americans give intelligence and law enforcement agents a probable cause reason to investigate them, a warrant is appropriate. But the ever-expanding national security agenda presents a flexible pretext for the intelligence community to find ever more reason to set aside the Constitution and spy on Americans without a warrant.
 
Drezner writes that “if everything is defined as national security, nothing is a national security priority.” True. And when everything is national security, everyone is subject to warrantless surveillance.

​Imagine this scenario: It’s early evening, and you and your special someone are on the couch preparing to binge-watch your favorite streaming show.
 
Ding-dong.
 
You answer the door and, as you hoped, it is the dinner delivery person. He hands you your prepaid, pre-tipped meal and you start to shut the door when the delivery worker puts his foot down, blocking you.
 
He snaps a picture over your shoulder and asks: “Why is the wall over your couch bare? It should have a picture of the Dear Leader. I now have no choice but to report you.”
 
This fantastical scenario of a police state enlisting food delivery workers as auxiliary police is taking place, for real, in the People’s Republic of China, according to disturbing reports from Radio Free Asia.
 
Beijing recently posted a directive: “We will hire a group of online delivery personnel with a strong sense of responsibility to serve as part-time social supervisors and encourage them to take part in grassroots governance through snapshots and snap reports …”
 
Radio Free Asia reports that this program is being expanded in China’s annexed territory of Tibet, where food delivery workers are being recruited to perform “voluntary patrol and prevention work.” In addition, Chinese police are requiring Tibetans to revise their personal passwords on their social media accounts, link them to their personal cellphones and identity cards, and make it all accessible to the government. Police are also stopping Tibetans in Lhasa to check their cellphones for virtual private networks, or VPNs, that allow users to get around the “Great Firewall of China,” the government’s restrictive controls on the internet.
 
We can shake our heads and laugh. But the fundamental principle of coopting private-sector industries for internal surveillance is one that is gaining purchase in our own country. The federal government isn’t so crude as to turn the Domino’s pizza delivery guy into a spy. But federal agencies can extract Americans’ personal data from FISA Section 702, even though this program was enacted by Congress not to spy on Americans, but to surveil foreign threats on foreign soil. Prosecutors in the United States can extract information about witnesses and criminal defendants from telecoms and service providers of emails, cloud computing, and online searches, then gag those same companies with a non-disclosure order, which keeps them from ever informing their customers they were surveilled.
 
The good news is that more and more Members of Congress are awakening to the threat of a home-grown American surveillance state. The recent reauthorization of Section 702 sets up a debate over the reach of this program in early 2026. The House passed a measure called the NDO Fairness Act, which would limit non-disclosure orders, putting the onus on the Senate to follow suit.
 
The field of surveillance is one area in which public-private partnerships can go very wrong. Unlike China, however, America is still a democracy with a Congress that can counter expansive government threats to our privacy.

​U.S. intelligence agencies justify tens of thousands of warrantless backdoor searches of Americans’ communications by claiming an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “defensive” purposes.
 
In testimony to Congress, FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that such defensive searches are absolutely necessary to protect Americans in real time who may be potential victims of foreign intelligence agents or cyberattacks. On this basis, the FBI and other agencies every year conduct tens of thousands of warrantless “backdoor” searches of Americans’ communications with data extracted from programs authorized by FISA Section 702 – even though this program was enacted by Congress not to spy on Americans, but to authorize U.S. agencies to surveil foreign spies and terrorists located abroad.
 
Noah Chauvin, Assistant Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law, in a 53-page paper neatly removes every leg of the government’s argument. He begins with the simple observation that there is no “defensive” exception in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, an analogous claimed exception for “community caretaking” was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2021 decision on Caniglia v. Strom, holding that the government could not enter a home without a warrant based on the simple, non-exigent claim that the police needed to check on the homeowner’s well-being. Whether for community caretaking or for surveillance, the “we are doing this for your own good” excuse does not override the Fourth Amendment.
 
In surveillance, the lack of constitutional validity makes the government’s position “a political argument, not a legal one.” Chauvin adds: “It would be perverse to strip crime victims of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections – a person should not lose rights because they have been violated.”
 
It is apparently on the basis of such a “defensive search,” for example, that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill). In that case, the FBI was concerned that Rep. LaHood was being unknowingly targeted by a foreign power. If the FBI can secretly violate the rights of a prominent and respected Member of Congress, imagine how blithely it violates your rights.
 
While making these sweeping claims of violating the Fourth Amendment to protect Americans, “the government has provided almost no public information about how these defensive backdoor searches work.” Chauvin adds: “The government has claimed it uses backdoor searches to identify victims of cyberattacks and foreign influence campaigns, but has not explained how it does so, saying only that backdoor searches have ‘contributed to’ or ‘played an important role in’ intelligence services.”
 
Also unexplained is how the government identifies potential American victims, or why it searches for victims instead of potential perpetrators. Nor does it reveal its success rate at identifying potential victims and how that compares to traditional methods of investigation. Finally, Chauvin asks: “Would obtaining permission before querying a victim compromise the investigation?”
 
It is a matter of settled law that any American can give informed consent to waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights. “It seems particularly likely,” Chauvin writes, “that would-be victims will grant the government permission to perform defensive backdoor searches.” One can easily imagine a long list of companies – from hospitals to cloud providers – that would grant such blanket permission.
 
So why not just do that?
 
Finally, Chauvin appeals to Congress not just to remedy this backdoor search loophole for Section 702. He proposes closing this loophole for Americans’ digital data that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies purchase from third-party data brokers, as well as for Executive Order 12333, a non-statutory surveillance authority claimed by the executive branch.
 
At the very least, Congress should demand answers to Chauvin’s questions about how defensive searches are used and how they work. He concludes, “the government’s policy preferences should never override Americans’ constitutional rights.”

​We are about 160 days away from the next presidential inaugural.
 
If Donald Trump returns to the presidency, he will bring with him an innate skepticism of federal surveillance. This is because his campaign and transition (and by extension himself) were the targets of four surveillance orders issued by the secret FISA Court in 2016 and 2017 that were based on a concocted intelligence report and forged document created by an FBI lawyer (later convicted of a felony).
 
But Trump may not have the surveillance skepticism lane to himself. Despite Vice President Kamala Harris having served in a very pro-surveillance administration, her background also reflects skepticism of federal surveillance. This is especially true of FISA Section 702, an authority enacted by Congress to surveil foreign threats located abroad but has come to be also used as a domestic spying authority.
 
As a senator in 2017, Harris co-sponsored an amendment with her fellow Californian and leading Democrat, the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that would have required federal agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant before the FISA Court to review the contents of Americans’ emails. Did service in the Biden Administration, which opposed warrants, change Vice President Harris’ thinking, or would she revert to her Senate position?
 
We cannot be sure what a President Harris or a President Trump would do in a political and geopolitical environment that is much different from the landscape of 2017. But one useful metric for the next administration would be to know how many “U.S. persons” – or people located inside the United States – have had their communications collected under FISA Section 702.
 
Jonathan Mayer, a professor at Princeton University, served as Harris staffer in the Senate. Last year, Politico’s John Sakellariadis reported that Mayer and his research assistant Anunay Kulshrestha used cutting edge cryptographic techniques to estimate how much U.S. person information is collected by under Section 702.
 
Mayer’s math produces only a partial data set. It also doesn’t count data on people inside the United States who communicate or cooperate with foreign spies or terrorists, which would make them legitimate targets of Section 702. But if fully fleshed out, this form of analysis could give a ballpark idea of how extensively Section 702 databases uses spy techniques that result in gathering massive amounts of private information about thousands, if not millions, of average Americans.
 
Of course, the intelligence community could simply tell us. But the intelligence community, in perhaps a too-clever-by-half response, says that separating out who is and isn’t an American in the database would be exactly the kind of privacy intrusion that groups like ours protest. PPSA holds that if such a count were quarantined only for the explicit purpose of making such a count, it would harm no one’s privacy and serve the purpose of illuminating the nature of Section 702 for policymakers when it comes up for reauthorization again in the spring of 2026.
 
“One of the best ways to understand the risk of incidental collection to U.S. persons is to have a sense of data contained through the authority,” says Travis LeBlanc, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board member.
 
There are, however, simpler ways to get at the real number. Congress could demand it by the end of this session. Failing that, a President Trump or a President Harris could simply release that number by executive order.
 
When a surveillance authority hoovers up the private data of Americans, at the very least we have a right to know how many Americans have had their privacy compromised.

As part of their responses to PPSA’s FOIA requests, the Department of Justice and Department of State recently produced their own derivative classification guides. These protracted documents have hundreds of different classification rules, which might explain part of the prolific growth in derivative classifications that PPSA has previously reported on.
 
But even among this maze of rules, one item stands out: Government classification rules show that the use of or application for a FISA warrant, in any case, is automatically classified as “secret,” a level of protection supposed to be reserved for when a release can be “expected to cause serious damage to national security" if made public. This means the use of FISA in any case will, at a minimum, remain locked away for 25 years. And worse, these qualify for an exception to automatic declassification, and so the government can extend those blackouts indefinitely.
 
“The use of FISA warrants issued against any American for any reason is secret,” said Gene Schaerr, PPSA general counsel. “And given previous scandals, a multitude of abuses could well be hidden in these blanket classifications.”
 
It is easy to understand why the government would want to classify many FISA warrants. Revealing them could expose ongoing efforts to track Chinese spies, counter Russian saboteurs, and catch possible Iranian assassins. There is also something to the customary government concern about protecting “sources and methods.” But does it make sense for the government to hide every FISA warrant? After all, these guides show that federal agents already make the determination to classify other potentially more important information on a case-by-case basis, including government passwords, safe combinations, and attempted or successful cyberattacks on systems containing national security information.
 
Schaerr said:
​
“As we saw in the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, the rights of all Americans can be implicated when the FISA process is abused. At the very least, this ‘classify first, ask questions later’ approach calls for the House to follow the example of the U.S. Senate and to allow for more House staffers to receive security clearances that enable them to advise House Members on the soundness of the government’s use of FISA warrants. This knowledge gap calls out for more Congressional oversight.”

​As Congress debated Section 702 – the authority within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows U.S. intelligence agencies to surveil foreign threats located abroad – the FBI solemnly informed lawmakers that the use of Section 702 is essential to allowing the bureau to catch domestic terror plots. In fact, the FBI claimed Section 702 was used to derail a “potentially imminent terrorist attack” against critical U.S. infrastructure.
 
FBI Director Christopher Wray doubled down on this point in a speech on April 9, saying that “only by querying that U.S. person’s identifiers in our 702 collection did we find important intelligence on the seriousness and urgency of the threat.” FBI officials repeated that claim in an interview with Politico.
 
These are apparent references to Brandon Clint Russell, a neo-Nazi founder of the self-styled “Atomwaffen Division” – charged with conspiring to attack electrical substations across Maryland. Yet, contrary to the agency’s repeated claims that their review of Section 702 data was essential to identifying him and the risk he posed, the FBI’s affidavit filed in the criminal case does not even mention Russell’s alleged communications with foreign targets of Section 702. And the absence of such information indicates that the FBI knew enough about him to seek a warrant without using its Section 702 database as a surveillance tool. 
 
“There they go again,” said Gene Schaerr, PPSA general counsel. “It is rank dishonesty to tell Congress one thing and the courts another.”
 
Critics of Section 702 have long criticized the use of this authority as a way for the government to conduct “backdoor searches.” The FBI rejects that term but celebrates the use of Section 702 data to do precisely that, to use the global database as a predicate to develop domestic leads. These queries of Americans’ communications allow the government to develop investigative leads pulled out of global intercepts. It is a backdoor search because defendants often never learn about the origin of their case in court. In this case, however, there seemed to be abundant independent evidence to investigate Russell.
 
“The filing suggests that even if the FBI performed a backdoor search, it was inconsequential,” Schaerr said. “The court filing indicates that the government had enough information to investigate – read the Wikipedia page of Brandon Russell – so why didn’t they just get a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment?”
 
And more important than the FBI’s failure to seek a warrant in this one case, this episode unfortunately illustrates the FBI’s willingness to lie to Congress – and by extension to the American people – to get the legislation they want. The FBI shouldn’t be surprised that no one in Congress takes their “sky is falling” cries seriously the next time around.

PPSA's senior policy advisor, Bob Goodlatte, and general counsel, Gene Schaerr, explain in Just Security on why it’s imperative that intel agencies listen to bipartisan concerns re: surveillance reform. Surveillance abuses degrade and threaten the vital mission these agencies must carry out. Additionally, they explain how the intel agencies' alienation of Americans and congressional representatives is dangerous for both the Constitution and national security.

​PPSA announced today the filing of an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case in which X Corp., formerly Twitter, objects to surveillance and gag orders that violate the First Amendment and pose a threat to the Fourth and Sixth Amendments as well.
 
When many consumers think of their digital privacy, they think first of what’s on their computers and shared with others by text or email. But the complex, self-regulating network that is the internet is not so simple. Our online searches, texts, images, and emails – including sensitive, personal information about health, mental health, romances, and finances – are backed up on the “cloud,” including data centers like X Corp.’s that distribute storage and computing capacity.
 
Therein lies the greatest vulnerability for government snooping. The growth of data centers is prolific, rising from 2,600 to 5,300 such centers in 2024. And with it, so have government demands for our data.
 
When federal agencies – often without a warrant – seek to access Americans’ personal data, more often than not they go to the companies that store the data in places like these data centers. For years, this power involved large social media and telecom companies. The power of the government to extract data, already robust, increased exponentially with the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 in April, which included what many call the “Make Everyone a Spy Act.” This provision defines an electronic communication service provider as virtually any company that merely has access to equipment, like Wi-Fi and routers, that is used to transmit or store electronic communications.
 
On top of that, the government then slaps the data center or service provider with a Non-Disclosure Order (NDO), a gag order that prevents the company from informing customers that their private information has been reviewed. One such company – X Corp. – has been pressing a constitutional challenge against this practice regarding a government demand for former President Trump’s account data. PPSA has joined in an amicus brief supporting X’s bid for certiorari, asking the Court to consider the constitutional objections to government conscription of companies that host consumers’ data as adjunct spies, while restraining their ability to speak out on this conscription.
 
In the case of X, the government has seized the company’s records on customer communications and then slapped the company with an NDO to force it to shut up about it. The government claims this secrecy is needed to protect the investigation, even though the government itself has already publicized the details of its investigation. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, this is an Orwellian practice.
 
PPSA’s amicus brief informed the Court that the gag order “makes a mockery of the First Amendment’s longstanding precedent governing prior restraints. And it will only become more frequent as third-party cloud storage becomes increasingly common for everything from business records to personal files to communications …”
 
The brief informs the Court: “NDOs can be used to undermine other constitutionally protected rights” beyond the First Amendment. These rights include the short-circuiting of Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless searches and Sixth Amendment rights to a public trial in which a defendant can know the evidence against him.
 
Partial solutions to these short-comings are winding their way through the legislative process. Sen. Mark Warner, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, introduced legislation to narrow the scope of businesses covered by the new, almost-universal dragooning of businesses large and small as government spies – though House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner is opposing that reasonable provision. Last year, the House passed the NDO Fairness Act, which requires judicial review and limited disclosures for these restraints on speech and privacy.
 
As partial solutions wend their way through Congress, this case presents a number of well-defined concerns best defined by the Supreme Court.