Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Who said the following:
I rise in strong opposition to S. 139, the “FISA Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 2017,” which reauthorizes Section 702 of FISA for six years without enacting adequate protections for our privacy.
Supporters of this measure want to convince us a new, incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. It does not.
Our right to privacy does not begin when the Department of Justice has a fully formed criminal case against us.
Nor does it begin when prosecutors enter our emails and text messages into evidence against us in court.
The Constitution guarantees far more than this. Our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for information it might find useful.
S. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. We therefore cannot—we must not—support this bill.
Make no mistake: S. 139 is not a “compromise.” The Judiciary Committee, the technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders were shut out of this conversation long ago.
S. 139 does not include a meaningful warrant requirement. The rule in this bill does not apply to most searches of the Section 702 database. It does not apply to a query for any information that “could mitigate a threat,” an exception that threatens to swallow the entire rule.
And as a result, S. 139 allows the FBI unfettered access to this information, for purely domestic cases, without a warrant.
Reply With Quote
