The U.S. Congress this week began committee hearings to examine the extension of three controversial Patriot Act amendments, due to expire Dec. 31, 2009. While the Obama administration and Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended renewal of the provisions, congressional lawmakers are proposing additional checks and balances to curb FBI and intelligence agency powers.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said that, “Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed.”
Mr. Feingold is part of a group of Democratic senators who have proposed a Patriot Act reform bill called the JUSTICE Act.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that he doesn’t believe “there have been any abuses to date” under the Patriot Act provisions.
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) addressed the relevant three provisions—the “roving” wiretaps, the “lone wolf” amendment, and section 215 dealing with business records—and spoke of concerns over a lack of “sufficient constitutional protections against the vast authorities it granted to the government.”
A roving wiretap does not restrict a court order to a specific phone line but attaches it to the subject, allowing law enforcement to follow him or her regardless of the communication device used (land line, cellular phone, computer, and so on).
The lone wolf provision amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)’s definition of a foreign agent to include any person (other than a U.S. citizen) who “engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore.” It does not require a definitive tie to a specific foreign government or terrorist organization.
The third provision deals with section 215 of the Patriot Act, also known as the “library records” provision, which allows the FBI to collect business records and personal information of U.S. residents.
NSLs do not require court approval, and an individual that receives an NSL from the FBI may not reveal the fact. The FBI only needs to deem information relevant to an investigation to be able to obtain it using NSL powers, lowering the standard of probable cause, according to critics.
“I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of National Security Letters (NSLs),” Mr. Leahy said. “They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law.”
The International Federation of Library Associations, critical of perceived unchecked FBI powers, stated in an August, 2009 report that, “Upholding user privacy is one of the highest ethical principles in librarianship.” The report was an account of Connecticut librarian George Christian’s dealings with an FBI NSL information request.
In 2005, the advocacy group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented a consortium of libraries in Connecticut which had received an NSL from the FBI, and challenged the constitutionality of the NSL gag order. A district court ruled the gag order unconstitutional, and the government dropped its request for records—and the legal battle—in 2006.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said that, “Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed.”
Mr. Feingold is part of a group of Democratic senators who have proposed a Patriot Act reform bill called the JUSTICE Act.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that he doesn’t believe “there have been any abuses to date” under the Patriot Act provisions.
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) addressed the relevant three provisions—the “roving” wiretaps, the “lone wolf” amendment, and section 215 dealing with business records—and spoke of concerns over a lack of “sufficient constitutional protections against the vast authorities it granted to the government.”
A roving wiretap does not restrict a court order to a specific phone line but attaches it to the subject, allowing law enforcement to follow him or her regardless of the communication device used (land line, cellular phone, computer, and so on).
The lone wolf provision amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)’s definition of a foreign agent to include any person (other than a U.S. citizen) who “engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore.” It does not require a definitive tie to a specific foreign government or terrorist organization.
The third provision deals with section 215 of the Patriot Act, also known as the “library records” provision, which allows the FBI to collect business records and personal information of U.S. residents.
National Security Letters
Mr. Leahy addressed the use and abuse of National Security Letters (NSL)—written demands by the FBI, sent to Internet service providers, financial institutions and others to accquire an individual’s confidential records.
NSLs do not require court approval, and an individual that receives an NSL from the FBI may not reveal the fact. The FBI only needs to deem information relevant to an investigation to be able to obtain it using NSL powers, lowering the standard of probable cause, according to critics.
“I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of National Security Letters (NSLs),” Mr. Leahy said. “They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law.”
Library Records
Assistant Attorney General David Kris, speaking to the Senate Committee, said that the aquisition of business records under Section 215 were “used to support important and highly sensitive intelligence collections” and that FBI abuses in the collection of sensitive personal information “such as the use of public libraries” had simply “not occurred.”
The International Federation of Library Associations, critical of perceived unchecked FBI powers, stated in an August, 2009 report that, “Upholding user privacy is one of the highest ethical principles in librarianship.” The report was an account of Connecticut librarian George Christian’s dealings with an FBI NSL information request.
In 2005, the advocacy group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented a consortium of libraries in Connecticut which had received an NSL from the FBI, and challenged the constitutionality of the NSL gag order. A district court ruled the gag order unconstitutional, and the government dropped its request for records—and the legal battle—in 2006.
