The Senate Has a New Plot to Thwart NSA Spying

A reworked bill in the Senate being introduced this week is renewing confidence among anti-surveillance crusaders still hollering for reform.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 17: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) talks to reporters after a Democratic Senate policy luncheon, on Capitol Hill, September 17, 2013 in Washington, DC. He was asked questions about gun control and yesterday's Navy Yard shooting.
National Journal
Dustin Volz
July 28, 2014, 11 a.m.

More than a year after Ed­ward Snowden’s leaks ig­nited a furi­ous de­bate over the prop­er scope of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, Wash­ing­ton may fi­nally be ready to fun­da­ment­ally re­define the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s broad spy­ing powers.

Key sen­at­ors have been work­ing with the White House, tech com­pan­ies, and pri­vacy groups to rally be­hind a new bill that is ex­pec­ted to be in­tro­duced Tues­day.

Bar­ring last-minute changes or a sud­den break­down in ne­go­ti­ations, the forth­com­ing le­gis­la­tion—the cul­min­a­tion of months of post-Snowden deal-mak­ing—likely rep­res­ents the best chance yet at NSA re­form in an oth­er­wise his­tor­ic­ally grid­locked Con­gress. The meas­ure is un­likely to earn a vote be­fore Au­gust re­cess, but it could go straight to the floor when Con­gress re­con­venes in Septem­ber and land on the pres­id­ent’s desk some­time this fall.

The bill, ac­cord­ing to re­cent drafts that cir­cu­lated late last week, would ef­fect­ively end the gov­ern­ment’s abil­ity to col­lect bulk metadata on Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords and ush­er in a series of new pri­vacy and trans­par­ency meas­ures de­signed to pre­vent ab­uses at the na­tion’s in­tel­li­gence agen­cies.

Cham­pioned by Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Patrick Leahy, the new meas­ure is a beefed-up ver­sion of the USA Free­dom Act that passed the House in May. The lower cham­ber’s of­fer­ing was watered down on its way to the floor be­cause of pres­sure from the White House, prompt­ing a num­ber of power­ful tech and civil-liber­ties groups to drop their sup­port.

At the time, Leahy said he was “dis­ap­poin­ted” that the House re­moved “mean­ing­ful re­forms” in­cluded in the ori­gin­al lan­guage of the Free­dom Act, and he vowed to work over the sum­mer to re­store some of them.

The Ver­mont Demo­crat’s ef­forts, for the mo­ment, ap­pear to have paid off. Leahy’s new Free­dom Act, ac­cord­ing to mul­tiple people who have seen re­cent drafts, would lim­it the amount of call-re­cords data the NSA can col­lect by tight­en­ing the defin­i­tion of what can be con­sidered a tar­get. The House’s le­gis­la­tion, crit­ics said, con­tained vague lan­guage that the NSA could have ex­ploited to define en­tire ZIP codes or oth­er broad se­lect­ors as an ap­pro­pri­ate “tar­get.”

Re­cent drafts of Leahy’s bill would re­quire the gov­ern­ment to be more trans­par­ent about how much data it is col­lect­ing—and what per­cent­age of that be­longs to Amer­ic­ans. It would also cre­ate a pan­el of ad­voc­ates to ar­gue pri­vacy and civil-liber­ties con­cerns be­fore the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court, which is tasked with ap­prov­ing the in­tel­li­gence com­munity’s sur­veil­lance or­ders and has been cri­ti­cized by re­form pro­ponents as act­ing like a rub­ber stamp on bulk data col­lec­tion.

All of those changes are in ad­di­tion to the baseline changes that passed the House, which would bar the gov­ern­ment from re­tain­ing bulk U.S. phone metadata—the num­bers and time stamps of calls but not their ac­tu­al con­tent. In­stead, phone com­pan­ies would keep those re­cords and be re­quired to hand them over to the NSA and oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies only after the gov­ern­ment earned ap­prov­al for data searches from the FISA Court.

Fan­fare around Leahy’s bill rose over the week­end. On Monday, The New York Times ed­it­or­i­al board wrote a gush­ing re­view of the meat­i­er USA Free­dom Act, call­ing it a “break­through against the growth of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance power.”

But sur­veil­lance crit­ics aren’t cel­eb­rat­ing just yet. Many are still lick­ing their wounds after cer­tain pro­vi­sions in the ori­gin­al Free­dom Act were gut­ted in the House.

“If the bill in­tro­duced looks like drafts cir­cu­lat­ing, it will have con­sid­er­able sup­port from tech com­pan­ies and pub­lic-in­terest groups,” said Har­ley Gei­ger, seni­or coun­sel at the Cen­ter for Demo­cracy & Tech­no­logy. But Gei­ger quickly tempered his en­thu­si­asm, not­ing, “The Sen­ate is hard to pre­dict.”

Back­ing from the ad­min­is­tra­tion for the cur­rent pro­pos­al, however, could go a long way to min­im­ize res­ist­ance from na­tion­al se­cur­ity hawks such as Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein, who has been an ar­dent de­fend­er of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance since Snowden’s leaks began last June.

The Cali­for­nia Demo­crat, ac­cord­ing to mul­tiple sources, has been at­tempt­ing to push a data-re­ten­tion man­date that would re­quire phone com­pan­ies to keep cus­tom­er data for a cer­tain amount of time that would ex­ceed cur­rent re­quire­ments set at 18 months. Mul­tiple pri­vacy ad­voc­ates said such a man­date would amount to a “pois­on pill” and would likely prompt a cas­cade of groups to drop their sup­port for the Free­dom Act.

Also un­clear is where key law­makers in the House stand. Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, who au­thored the House’s ori­gin­al Free­dom Act, sup­ports the Sen­ate’s changes, an aide said. But House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bob Good­latte, a Vir­gin­ia Re­pub­lic­an who helped shep­herd the pre­vi­ous Free­dom Act through the lower cham­ber, has yet to in­dic­ate how he feels about the Sen­ate lan­guage.

“Once the Sen­ate acts, we will closely ex­am­ine the changes made,” a Ju­di­ciary aide said.

But oth­ers re­main con­fid­ent that if the Sen­ate over­comes op­pos­i­tion from a Fein­stein-led co­hort of de­fense hawks, the meas­ure will find little res­ist­ance in the House.

“I have not seen any­thing in that draft that strikes me as dif­fi­cult to ad­apt in the House,” said one House Demo­crat­ic staffer close to the NSA ne­go­ti­ations.

Amid the politick­ing, sur­veil­lance crit­ics are quick to point out that more could be done with Leahy’s bill, such as re­quir­ing a war­rant for “back­door” searches of Amer­ic­ans’ In­ter­net data in­cid­ent­ally col­lec­ted dur­ing for­eign sur­veil­lance, an idea that passed the House last month as an amend­ment to the an­nu­al de­fense ap­pro­pri­ations bill on a 293-123 vote. Sen. Ron Wyden has long ad­voc­ated for a bill that would close the so-called back­door loop­hole, but re­cent drafts of Leahy’s com­prom­ise did not in­clude such a pro­vi­sion.

And the le­gis­la­tion would do little to rein in the Re­agan-era Ex­ec­ut­ive Or­der 12333, which many have ar­gued is far more power­ful than either Sec­tion 215 of the USA Pat­ri­ot Act or Sec­tion 702 of the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act, which are the fo­cus of the Free­dom Act. Last week, the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board said it would began ex­amin­ing 12333, which al­lows the NSA to col­lect for­eign in­tel­li­gence without a war­rant—and “in­cid­ent­ally” scoop up com­mu­nic­a­tions data of Amer­ic­ans. It has been only nom­in­ally up­dated since its cre­ation.

“This [Leahy] bill is a par­tial fix,” CDT’s Gei­ger said. “It does not fix everything, or all of the great many prob­lems that are as­so­ci­ated with gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×