Content deleted Content added
link fix |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Pancho507 - 22007 |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{Redirect|FISA}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2013}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| shorttitle = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
| longtitle = An Act to authorize electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence information.
| acronym = FISA
| nickname =
Line 41 ⟶ 43:
}}
The '''Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978''' (
FISA was enacted in response to revelations of widespread privacy violations by the federal government [[Presidency of Richard Nixon|under
"
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4), irrespective of whether the person is inside the United States;
Line 65 ⟶ 67:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: [[Birch Bayh]], [[James O. Eastland]], [[Jake Garn]], [[Walter Huddleston]], [[Daniel Inouye]], [[Charles Mathias]], [[John L. McClellan]], [[Gaylord Nelson]], and [[Strom Thurmond]].
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by [[United States Senate#Committees|Senate Committees]] into the legality of domestic [[Intelligence (information gathering)|intelligence]] activities. These investigations were led separately by [[Sam Ervin]] and [[Frank Church]] in 1978 as a response to President [[Richard Nixon]]
The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.{{wikisource|FISA Amendments Act of 2008}}
Line 76 ⟶ 78:
=== Section 702 ===
Following the controversy over [[Stellar Wind]], Congress later legalized a form of that program in Section 702.
==Provisions==
The subchapters of FISA provide for:
* Electronic surveillance ({{usctc|50|36|I}})
* Physical [[Search and seizure|searches]] ({{usctc|50|36|II}})
Line 102 ⟶ 105:
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]],<ref name="reportfiscunderseal">{{USC|50|1802(a)(3)}}, Requirement of the Attorney General's to file reports under seal on warrantless surveillance to the FISC</ref> and report on their compliance to the [[U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]] and the [[U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]].<ref name="reportcongresscompliance">{{USC|50|1802(a)(2)}}, Requirement of the Attorney General's to report on compliance with warrantless surveillance requirements to Congress</ref>
Since {{usc|50|1802}}(a)(1)(A) of this Act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2),
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress".<ref name="war exception">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1811- 50 U.S.C. § 1811] – Authorization during time of war</ref>
====With a court order====
{{
Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FIS court.<ref name="warrant">{{usc|50|1805}}(a) Electronic surveillance with a court order</ref> This is called the traditional intelligence collection, because it is "the targeted monitoring of a suspected clandestine operative of a foreign power."<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find [[probable cause]] that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"<ref name="20090612BelferRosenbach" /> inside the United States<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy">{{cite news |last1=McCarthy |first1=Andrew C. |title=Unmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/michael-flynn-unmasking-real-story-is-when-he-was-not-masked-in-the-first-place/ |access-date=May 18, 2020 |publisher=National Review |date=May 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200518200652/https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/michael-flynn-unmasking-real-story-is-when-he-was-not-masked-in-the-first-place/ |archive-date=May 18, 2020}}</ref> and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.<ref name="20090612BelferRosenbach">{{cite web |author1=Eric Rosenbach |author2=Aki J. Peritz |title=Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community |url=https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf |publisher=Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University |access-date=18 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160716041444/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2016|date=June 12, 2009}}</ref> In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to U.S. persons.<ref name="minimization">{{usc|50|1801}}(h) Minimization procedures definition</ref><ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> If the foreign power's suspected agent communicates with Americans, the communications of U.S. citizens are incidentally intercepted even though they are not the targets of the surveillance.<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" />
Depending on the type of surveillance, approved orders or extensions of orders may be active for 90 days, 120 days, or a year.<ref name="duration">{{usc|50|1805}}(d) Duration of order; extensions; review of circumstances under which information was acquired, retained or disseminated</ref> FISA warrants require renewal depending on the type of surveillance and type of warrant either every 90 days (if targeting a U.S. person) or 120 days (if targeting a non-U.S. person).<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.justsecurity.org/45255/fisa-warrants-paul-manafort-muellers-investigation/ |title=What the FISA Warrants Against Paul Manafort Tell Us About Mueller's Investigation|date=2017-09-23|work=Just Security|access-date=2018-05-01|language=en-US}}</ref>
===FISA court===
Line 119 ⟶ 123:
Proceedings before the FISA court are ''[[ex parte]]'' and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected. The [[USA Freedom Act]] (Section 402), however, requires the government to declassify and publicly release "to the greatest extent practicable" each order, decision and opinion of the court if it contains a "significant construction or interpretation of law."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048/text|title=Text - H.R.2048 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): USA FREEDOM Act of 2015|last=F.|first=Sensenbrenner|date=2015-06-02|website=www.congress.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref>
FISC meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for [[search warrants]]. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1980rept.html|title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1980 Annual Report}}</ref> This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006.<ref>https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2006rept.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> In the period 1979–2006, a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/stats/default.html|title=EPIC - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2017|
Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]. The Court of Review is a three-judge panel. Since its creation, the court has come into session twice: in 2002 and 2008.
Line 127 ⟶ 131:
===Telephone metadata===
In the 2020 case, ''[[United States v. Moalin]]'', the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that the federal government violated FISA, and possibly the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans.<ref>https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/13-50572.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>
Line 138 ⟶ 141:
==Constitutionality==
===Before FISA===
In 1967, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that the requirements of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. ''[[Katz v. United States]]'', 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of [[national security]]. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in ''[[United States v. U.S. District Court|United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon]]'', 407 U.S. 297 (1972), where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment
A plurality opinion in ''Zweibon v. Mitchell'', 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a "foreign power or their agent", and "absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional."
===Post-FISA===
There have been very few cases involving the [[constitutional]]ity of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In ''United States v. Duggan'', 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984), the [[defendant]]s were members of the [[Irish Republican Army]]
In the ''United States v. Nicholson'', 955 F. Supp. 588 (E.D. Va. 1997), the defendant moved to suppress all [[evidence (law)|evidence]] gathered under a FISA order
However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court of Appeals, opined differently
==Criticism==
{{POV section|date=January 2014}}
K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of
John R. Schmidt, associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton, expressed a need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs.<ref>"[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed A historical solution to the Bush spying issue]," ''Chicago Tribune'' (February 12, 2006) {{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> He recalled early arguments made by then-Attorney General [[Edward Levi]] to the [[Church Committee]] that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets" may be required. In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."
Line 164 ⟶ 167:
==Amendments==
===USA PATRIOT Act===
The Act was amended in 2001 by the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.
Line 174 ⟶ 176:
On March 16, 2006, Senators [[Mike DeWine]] (R-OH), [[Lindsey Graham]] (R-SC), [[Chuck Hagel]] (R-NE), and [[Olympia Snowe]] (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/dewine031606.html|title=Dewine, Graham, Hagel and Snowe Introduce the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cdt.org/security/20060324dewinebill.pdf|title=Dewine Bill as introduced}}</ref> under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator [[Arlen Specter]] (R-PA) introduced the [[National Security Surveillance Act of 2006]] ({{USBill|110|S.|2453}}),<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://information-retrieval.info/docs/SpecterFloorStmt.pdf|title=Specter Floor Statement}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://information-retrieval.info/docs/NSAfinal.pdf|title=Specter Bill as introduced}}</ref> which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html Specter Offers Compromise on NSA Surveillance], ''The Washington Post'', June 9, 2006</ref> for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs". On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] (D-CA) introduced the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act]] of 2006 ({{USBill|110|S.|3001}}) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
All three competing bills were the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings throughout the summer.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html#fisa4|title=Intelligence: Congress: 2006 Hearings}}</ref> On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.<ref>[https://fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/09/conflicting_bills_on_warrantle.html Conflicting Bills on Warrantless Surveillance Advance in Senate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130414170236/http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/09/conflicting_bills_on_warrantle.html |date=April 14, 2013 }}, Secrecy News, September 14, 2006</ref>
On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative [[Heather Wilson]] (R-NM) introduced the [[Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act]] ({{USBill|110|H.R.|5825}}). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006, the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wilson.house.gov/NewsAction.asp?FormMode=Releases&ID=1309 |title=House Passes Wilson FISA Bill |access-date=June 1, 2016}}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}, Press Release, September 29, 2006.</ref>
Line 180 ⟶ 182:
===Protect America Act of 2007===
{{Main|Protect America Act}}
On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA ([https://web.archive.org/web/20071222101804/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1927/show S. 1927]) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The [[Protect America Act of 2007]] ({{USPL|110|55}}, {{USBill|110|S.|1927}}) was then signed into law by [[George W. Bush]] on August 5, 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34143.pdf|title=P.L. 110-55, the Protect America Act of 2007:Modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act|last=Bazan|first=Elizabeth|publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]|date=February 14, 2008|access-date=April 29, 2008}}</ref>
Line 187 ⟶ 190:
A summary of key provisions follows. The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:
* There are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
* The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
Line 222 ⟶ 226:
In a September 10, 2007 address at a symposium on modernizing FISA held at [[Georgetown University Law Center]]'s National Security Center, [[Ken Wainstein|Kenneth L. Wainstein]], [[Assistant Attorney General of the United States|Assistant Attorney General for National Security]], argued against the current six-month [[sunset provision]] in the Protect America Act of 2007, saying that the broadened surveillance powers the act provides for should be made permanent. Wainstein proposed that internal audits by the Office of the [[Director of National Intelligence]] and the [[United States Department of Justice National Security Division|National Security Division of the Justice Department]], with reporting to select groups of Congressmen, would ensure that the expanded capability would not be abused.<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Ryan Singel |title=Government Promises to Self-Audit Spying to Make Powers Permanent |magazine=Wired|date=September 11, 2007 |url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/government-prom.html |access-date=September 11, 2007}}</ref>
Also on September 10, DNI [[John Michael McConnell|Mike McConnell]] testified before the [[Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs]]. He mistakenly claimed that the Protect America Act had helped foil a major terror plot in Germany
Speaking at [[National Security Agency]] headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President [[George W. Bush]] urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks".<ref>{{cite web |author=Anne Broache |title=President Bush rallies for immortal spy law changes, telco protection |publisher=CNET News.com |date=September 12, 2007 |url=http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9781991-7.html |access-date=September 20, 2007}}</ref>
On October 4, 2007, the bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee of the [[Constitution Project]], co-chaired by [[David Keene]] and [[David D. Cole]], issued its "Statement on the Protect America Act".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/Statement%20on%20PAA1.pdf|title=May 21, 2007<!-- Bot generated title -->|date=April 5, 2023 }}</ref> The Statement urged Congress not to reauthorize the PAA, saying the language of the bill "runs contrary to the tripartite balance of power the Framers envisioned for our constitutional democracy, and poses a serious threat to the very notion of government of the people, by the people and for the people". Some in the legal community have questioned the constitutionality of any legislation that would retroactively immunize telecommunications firms alleged to have cooperated with the government from civil liability for having potentially violated their customers' privacy rights.<ref>{{cite web |author=Anthony J. Seebok |title=Is It Constitutional for the Senate to Retroactively Immunize From Civil Liability the Telecoms That Provided the Government with Information About Customers' Communications? |publisher=FindLaw Writ Legal News and Commentary |date=January 29, 2008 |url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/sebok/20080129.html |access-date=February 7, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080302033755/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html |archive-date=March 2, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the [[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]] journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry found significant flaws in the technical implementation of the Protect America Act which they said created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by the government.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Steven M. Bellovin |author2=Matt Blaze |author3=Whitfield Diffie |author4=Susan Landau |author5=Peter G. Neumann |author6=Jennifer Rexford |title=Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act |journal=Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Security and Privacy |volume=6 |pages=24–33 |date=February 5, 2008 |url= http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf |doi=10.1109/MSP.2008.17 |s2cid=874506 |access-date=February 5, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080227135042/http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf |archive-date=February 27, 2008 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
Line 234 ⟶ 238:
On October 18, 2007, the House Democratic leadership put off a vote on the proposed legislation by the full chamber to avoid consideration of a Republican measure that made specific references to [[Osama bin Laden]]. At the same time, the [[Senate Intelligence Committee]] reportedly reached a compromise with the White House on a different proposal that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.<ref>{{cite news |author=Eric Lichtblau |title=Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies |work=The New York Times |date=October 18, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18nsa.html?pagewanted=print |access-date=October 18, 2007}}</ref>
On November 15, 2007, the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] voted 10–9 along party lines to send an alternative measure to the full Senate other than the one the intelligence committee had crafted with the White House
On the same day, the House of Representatives voted 227–189 to approve a Democratic bill that would expand court oversight of government surveillance inside the United States while denying immunity to telecom companies
{{wikisource|Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate}}
In February 2008, the Senate passed the version of the [[FISA Amendments Act of 2008|new FISA]] that would allow telecom companies immunity. On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss related information. On March 14, the House voted 213–197 to approve a bill that would ''not'' grant telecom immunity – far short of the 2/3 majority required to override a Presidential veto.<ref>{{cite news |author=Jonathan Weisman |title=House Passes a Surveillance Bill Not to Bush's Liking |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 15, 2008 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html?hpid=topnews |access-date=March 28, 2008}}</ref> The Senate and House bills are compared and contrasted in a June 12, 2008 report from the [[Congressional Research Service]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34533.pdf|title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3773, S. 2248 as Reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and S. 2248 as Reported Out of the Senate Judiciary Committee|last=Bazan|first=Elizabeth|publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]|date=February 8, 2008|access-date=April 29, 2008}}</ref>
On March 13, 2008, the House of Representatives held a secret, closed door meeting to debate changes to the FISA bill.<ref>Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]] of Ohio debates secret house meeting {{YouTube|Z3Ixpapbd7M|Somethings fishy!}}. (2008-11-11). Retrieved on 2013-08-15.</ref>
Line 246 ⟶ 251:
{{Main|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008}}
The [[FISA Amendments Act of 2008]] passed by the [[United States Congress]] on July 9, 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote Summary, Vote 00168, 100th Congress, 2nd Session|date=July 9, 2008}}</ref> The amendments added a new Title VII to the Act, which was slated to expire at the end of 2012 pending reauthorization;<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/laws/fisa-amendments-act-2008|title=Legal Resources {{!}} Intelligence Committee|website=www.intelligence.senate.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> Congress subsequently extended the provision to December 31, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/us/politics/senate-votes-to-extend-electronic-surveillance-authority-under-fisa.html|title=Senate Votes to Extend Electronic Surveillance Authority|last=Pear|first=Robert|date=2012-12-28|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The 2008 amendments gave telecoms immunity, increased the time allotted for warrantless surveillance, and adds provisions for emergency eavesdropping. On June 20, 2008, the House of Representatives passed the amendment with a vote of 293 to 129.<ref name="Kane">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/20/ST2008062001087.html |title=House Passes Spy Bill; Senate Expected to Follow|first=Paul|last=Kane|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2008-06-21}}</ref><ref name="House">{{Cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml|title=Final Vote Results For Roll Call 437, June 20, 2008}}</ref> It passed in the Senate 69 to 28 on July 9, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168|title=Vote Summary On A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.|publisher=senate.gov|date=2008-07-09}}</ref> after a failed attempt to strike Title II from the bill by Senator Dodd.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164 |title=Vote Summary On Dodd Amendment (No. 5064) to Strike Title II|publisher=senate.gov|date=2008-07-09}}</ref> On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed it into law.
===2015 USA Freedom Act===
Line 255 ⟶ 259:
After months of congressional hearings and some public controversy,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/open-letter-our-community-congresss-vote-extend-nsa-spying-eff-executive-director|title=An Open Letter to Our Community On Congress's Vote to Extend NSA Spying From EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn|last=Cohn|first=Cindy|date=2018-01-18|work=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=2018-01-31|language=en}}</ref> following a short-term extension of three weeks,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/key-nsa-surveillance-programs-reauthorization-hits-roadblock-in-congress/2017/12/20/0640980e-e5b7-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html|title=Key NSA surveillance program's reauthorization hits roadblock in Congress|last=Demirjian|first=Karoun|date=2017-12-20|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Congress passed a six-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008,<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text|title=Text - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards, accountability, and oversight of acquisitions of foreign intelligence, to extend title VII of such Act, and for other purposes.|last=Hatch|first=Orrin|date=2018-01-19|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> which was signed into law in January 2018.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017/|title=Statement by the President on FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|access-date=2018-01-31|via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first1=Ashley|last1=Parker|first2=Philip|last2=Rucker|first3=Josh|last3=Dawsey|access-date=2018-02-02|title=Trump's 'ping-pong' on surveillance law sets off a 101-minute scramble|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-ping-pong-on-surveillance-law-sets-off-a-101-minute-scramble/2018/01/11/748026ec-f6ef-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html|newspaper=Washington Post|date=2018-01-11|issn=0190-8286|via=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref>
Beginning in late 2016, the government initiate efforts to persuade Congress to extend the surveillance authority in Title VII of the Act, which, pursuant to the 2008 and 2012 amendments, was slated to expire on December 31, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/us/politics/congress-surveillance-nsa-privacy.html|title=Fight Brews Over Push to Shield Americans in Warrantless Surveillance|last=Savage|first=Charlie|date=2017-05-06|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> [[Tom Cotton]], a Republican Senator from Arkansas, introduced a bill to permanently extend the provisions of Title VII with no changes, but the bill did not advance, as many in Congress were seeking reforms to address privacy concerns.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/congress-braces-for-tense-debate-on-surveillance-law|title=Congress Braces for Tense Debate on Surveillance Law|last1=Ratnam|first1=Gopal|date=2017-09-11|work=Roll Call|access-date=2018-05-05|last2=Ratnam|first2=Gopal|language=en}}</ref> The [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary]] introduced an extension bill with significant proposed reforms,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/us/politics/fisa-warrantless-surveillance-law-reauthorization-debate.html|title=Lawmakers Want Limits on Wiretaps Despite Trump Administration Objections|last=Savage|first=Charlie|date=2017-09-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-seek-to-impose-new-limit-on-nsa-spy-power/2017/10/04/7296989a-a873-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html|title=Bipartisan group of lawmakers seeks to impose new curb on U.S. government spy power|last=Nakashima|first=Ellen|date=2017-10-04|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> as did the [[United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]], but ultimately a version of the extension with less significant reforms was advanced by [[United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]], and in effect that version, through a complex series of amendments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/actions?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22FISA+amendments%22%5D%7D&r=5|title=Actions - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards, accountability, and oversight of acquisitions of foreign intelligence, to extend title VII of such Act, and for other purposes. |last=Orrin |first=Hatch |date=2018-01-19 |
FISA Section 702 allows the National Security Agency to conduct searches of foreigners' communications without any warrant. The process incidentally collects information from Americans.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Volz |first1=Dustin |title=Trump signs bill renewing NSA's internet surveillance program |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK |website=[[Reuters]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 20, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Matishak |first1=Martin |title=Trump signs surveillance extension into law |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/trump-surveillance-extension-351136 |website=[[Politico]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Haynes |first1=Danielle |title=Trump signs FISA law amid speculation over intelligence memo |url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/19/Trump-signs-FISA-law-amid-speculation-over-intelligence-memo/4291516400093/ |website=[[UPI]] |access-date=June 27, 2019}}</ref><ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> Section 702 of FISA more specifically "brings under [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|FISC]] jurisdiction various intelligence-collection programs that target categories of non-Americans outside the United States. These foreigners also communicate with Americans, so the latter are incidentally intercepted."<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 extends Section 702 for six years, to December 31, 2023, and most notably included new restrictions on querying surveillance databases, prohibited the resumption of certain types of collection about a target that were not directly addressed to or from that target, unless Congress approved such collection within 30 days of having been notified of the resumption, and provided for additional reporting by the Executive Branch of surveillance activities.<ref>{{cite web |title=Text - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22FISA+amendments%22%5D%7D&r=5 |website=Congress.gov |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=27 September 2019 |date=1 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.
The January 2018 law also made unauthorized removal and retention of [[Classified information in the United States|classified information of the United States government]] a [[felony crime]] punishable by five years imprisonment and/or a fine.<ref name=BumpAugust>{{cite news |last1=Bump |first1=Phillip |title=Citizen Trump may have broken a law that President Trump made a felony |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search-surveillance-law/ |access-date=August 12, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=August 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.
▲FISA Section 702 allows the National Security Agency to conduct searches of foreigners' communications without any warrant. The process incidentally collects information from Americans.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Volz |first1=Dustin |title=Trump signs bill renewing NSA's internet surveillance program |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK |website=[[Reuters]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 20, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Matishak |first1=Martin |title=Trump signs surveillance extension into law |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/trump-surveillance-extension-351136 |website=[[Politico]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Haynes |first1=Danielle |title=Trump signs FISA law amid speculation over intelligence memo |url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/19/Trump-signs-FISA-law-amid-speculation-over-intelligence-memo/4291516400093/ |website=[[UPI]] |access-date=June 27, 2019}}</ref><ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> Section 702 of FISA more specifically "brings under [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|FISC]] jurisdiction various intelligence-collection programs that target categories of non-Americans outside the United States. These foreigners also communicate with Americans, so the latter are incidentally intercepted."<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 extends Section 702 for six years, to December 31, 2023, and most notably included new restrictions on querying surveillance databases, prohibited the resumption of certain types of collection about a target that were not directly addressed to or from that target, unless Congress approved such collection within 30 days of having been notified of the resumption, and provided for additional reporting by the Executive Branch of surveillance activities.<ref>{{cite web |title=Text - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22FISA+amendments%22%5D%7D&r=5 |website=Congress.gov |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=27 September 2019 |date=1 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|title=FISA: 702 Collection - Summary: The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|date=2018-01-18|work=Lawfare|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122214954/https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|archive-date=2018-11-22|author=Emma Kohse}}</ref> Many privacy and civil liberties advocates argued that the reforms enacted by the extension bill were inadequate,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|title=Coalition Letter Opposing the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en}}</ref> but their arguments were successfully opposed by the government.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-governments-ability-to-fight-terrorism-is-in-peril/2017/12/14/e4da9dd6-e0e8-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html|title=Opinion {{!}} The government's ability to fight terrorism is in peril|last=Brand|first=Rachel|date=2017-12-14|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-surveillance-law-needs-reauthorizing--and-tightening-too/2017/10/08/796a74a8-aa11-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html|title=Opinion {{!}} This surveillance law needs reauthorizing — and tightening, too |author=Editorial Board|date=2017-10-08|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
▲The January 2018 law also made unauthorized removal and retention of [[Classified information in the United States|classified information of the United States government]] a [[felony crime]] punishable by five years imprisonment and/or a fine.<ref name=BumpAugust>{{cite news |last1=Bump |first1=Phillip |title=Citizen Trump may have broken a law that President Trump made a felony |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search-surveillance-law/ |access-date=August 12, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=August 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.is/tjAAF |archive-date=August 11, 2022}}</ref>
Pursuant to the most recent reauthorization in 2017, Section 702 of FISA
=== Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act of 2024 ===
▲=== Proposed 2023 reauthorization ===
On April 10, 2024, [[Donald Trump]] urged Congress to "kill FISA" based on claims of FBI surveillance during his [[Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|2016 presidential campaign]], leading libertarian Republicans to join progressive Democrats in opposing Section 702's reauthorization on privacy-related grounds. To secure its passage, [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|House Speaker]] [[Mike Johnson]] reduced the reauthorization to two years, rather than the typical five-year term, to allow Trump to veto a hypothetical 2026 reauthorization if he wins the [[2024 United States presidential election|2024 presidential election]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |last2=Broadwater |first2=Luke |date=2024-04-20 |title=Senate Passes Two-Year Extension of Surveillance Law Just After It Expired |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/senate-passes-surveillance-law-extension.html |access-date=2024-04-22 |work=[[The New York Times]] |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> After Congress rejected various privacy-related amendments to minimize the gap in Section 702 authorization, the Senate approved the bill by a 60–34 vote with bipartisan support, and President [[Joe Biden]] signed the two-year reauthorization on April 20, 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |date=20 April 2024 |title=Biden Signs Reauthorization of Surveillance Program Into Law Despite Privacy Concerns |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1246076114/senate-passes-reauthorization-surveillance-program-fisa |access-date=22 April 2024 |work=[[NPR]]}}</ref>
▲Pursuant to the most recent reauthorization in 2017, Section 702 of FISA is set to expire by the end of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-12 |title=NSA director pushes Congress to renew surveillance powers |url=https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-us-republican-party-surveillance-donald-trump-aa98d51e59d02a1361833d1a4f431e23 |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> At the beginning of 2023, several Biden administration officials began urging Congress to renew the provision, including National Security Advisor [[Jake Sullivan]], Attorney General [[Merrick Garland]], Director of National Intelligence, [[Avril Haines]], and NSA Director [[Paul M. Nakasone]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-02-28 |title=US officials make case for renewing FISA surveillance powers |url=https://apnews.com/article/fisa-surveillance-intelligence-espionage-terrorism-congress-80f88dde705d578f7535ae167d90a90d |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> Federal authorities and other advocates have argued that Section 702 is critical to national security, whereas critics have reaffirmed ongoing concerns about privacy and civil liberties.<ref name="Savage"/> Several lawmakers, particularly among House Republicans, have called for any reauthorization to be contingent on several reforms,<ref>{{Cite web |title=House GOP group prepping for surveillance renewal fight |url=https://therecord.media/house-gop-intel-group-prepping-for-surveillance-renewal-fight |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=The Record |first=Martin |last=Matishak |date=October 4, 2022}}</ref> including limiting the scope of who can be investigated, requiring a warrant for surveillance in all instances, and restricting the amount of time collected data can be stored.<ref name="Sabin"/>
==See also==
{{Portal
* [[Church Committee]]
* [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]]
Line 272 ⟶ 278:
* [[Operation Minaret]]
* [[Project Shamrock]]
* [[Watergate]]▼
* ''[[United States v. U.S. District Court|United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon]]''
* [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]
** [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]
▲* [[Watergate]]
==References==
Line 286 ⟶ 292:
==External links==
{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct-article.ogg|date=2017-11-27}}▼
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1449/uslm/COMPS-1449.xml Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1449/pdf/COMPS-1449.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-1449
*{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html |title=The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ |access-date=2005-12-21 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060303211716/http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html |archive-date=March 3, 2006 |df=mdy }} ▼
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13936/uslm/COMPS-13936.xml FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13936/pdf/COMPS-13936.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-13936 details]) in the GPO Statute Compilations collection
* [http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ EPIC FISA page] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070912161703/http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ |date=September 12, 2007 }}▼
▲* {{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html |title=The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ |access-date=2005-12-21 |url-status=
▲* [http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ EPIC FISA page] ({{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070912161703/http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ |date=September 12, 2007 }})
* [https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] resources from the Federation of American Scientists
* [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34279.pdf The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues], Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2008
Line 299 ⟶ 307:
* {{ExecutiveOrder|12949}} – Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
* David Alan Jordan, [https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol] – ''Boston College Law Review'', Vol. 47, 2006
* [[K. A. Taipale]], [http://ssrn.com/abstract=959927
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070825205004/http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/ Plural Politics Protect American Act Plainspeak Legal Primer]
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf |date=October 30, 2007 |title=Guide to lawful intercept legislation around the world }}
Line 307 ⟶ 315:
* [https://fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/secret.html Secret House meeting on FISA]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs"], by [[Arlen Specter]], ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', Volume 56, Number 8. May 14, 2009
▲{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct-article.ogg|date=2017-11-27}}
{{Presidency of Jimmy Carter}}
{{US Intelligence Reforms}}
{{Patriot Act}}
Line 314 ⟶ 322:
[[Category:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|Act]]
[[Category:1978 in international relations]]
[[Category:American intelligence gathering law]]
[[Category:
[[Category:
[[Category:United States federal criminal legislation]]▼
[[Category:Privacy of telecommunications]]
[[Category:Signals intelligence]]
[[Category:
▲[[Category:Mass surveillance]]
[[Category:
| |||