The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Analysis, Pros and Cons

(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived there from, may disclose such contents to any other Federal Law Enforcement , intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence information, to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his duties.? This allows for a better sharing of information among the different division of federal, state and local law enforcement nationwide. In a large scale criminal investigation, proper communication and information sharing is vital. This act has allowed information to be disseminated to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, so they can effectively work together towards the goal of arresting terrorists, and preventing another terrorist attack. Another section of the USA PATRIOT ACT that Schmalleger (2003) quotes is Sec. 213. Authority for Delaying notice of the Execution of a Warrant. ?With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required,

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons. FISA contains policies associated with the process of gathering foreign intelligence by the intelligence community for national security reasons (Addicott & McCaul, 2008, p. 46-47). FISA also consisted of a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which had eleven unnamed federal judges who issued warrants regarding surveillance or searches for the intelligence community, and a court review board, which consisted of three federal judges who reviewed the actions of the secret court. After the passing of the Patriot Act by the Bush Administration, the NSA was essentially given full authority to collect information on citizens without a warrant, thereby circumventing the FISC, and Bush fully defended the NSA, stating “‘The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.’” (Schwartz 2009

Another pro of FISA, and the applicable amendments that followed, is the ability for electronic surveillance to be conducted without a court order for a designated length of time to better facilitate collection and streamline the process under USC. 1802, Sec 102. There are, of course, steps required by high ranking officials, the President and Attorney General, which must be taken to conduct such surveillance without a court order. Also, the criteria to conduct the surveillance is restricted specifically to communications exclusively between foreign powers and must not include “substantial likelihood” that the surveillance will acquire communications pertaining to a United States Person. [4] While the appropriate legal process should always be followed, this provision is necessary at times to bypass the lengthy legal process for obtaining a court order when time restrictions apply.

Constitution. Along with this expansion of surveillance powers is the "sneak and peek provision" (The USA-PATRIOT Act and the American response to terror; panel discussion, 2002). During a discussion panel in 2002, David E. Suchar discussed this provision stating the "sneak and peek provision, which allows the government to conduct secret searches of anyone, including citizens, without notifying the person that they have a search warrant and that the search is authorized". Suchar further stated this provision is "a very broad standard that probably could be met in a tremendous number of cases and not limited to fighting terrorism in any way, shape, or form" (The USA-PATRIOT Act and the American response to terror; panel discussion, 2002, para. 18). From a civil liberties perspective, the surveillance expansion provisions within the Patriot Act are troubling when considering the possibility of abuse, and the trouncing of fourth amendment rights.

Since the passing of FISA came after a widespread finding of warrantless wiretapping by a number of different government entities, Congress along with the Carter administration, needed to carefully craft a bill that not only reconciled national security needs to conduct domestic surveillance, but also continued to protect individual liberties such as that of the first and fourth amendments. The once top-secret Carter administration memos regarding FISA offer a first-hand glimpse at the thinking that went into

As the late Frank Herbert once said, “Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Federal electronic wiretapping and supervision dates to the Wiretap Act of 1968, and has only increased in the following decades. Organizations such as the National Security Agency have been empowered by FISA (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts) to bypass the authority of the Supreme Court in determining constitutional validity on searches. Government Surveillance is unjustified because it infringes upon personal freedoms, does not guarantee safety, and is not a vital necessity.

While many claim that the Patriot Act is an attack on Americans’ civil liberties, there is a strong case for the Act and the changes it brings. An article published in the Washington Post looks at the claims made by the ACLU and systematically pokes gaping holes in them. For one, the claim that NSLs can be issued without a judge’s approval is only partially true. While a normal search warrant is issued to law enforcement by a civilian judge, “the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court.”(Mac Donald, In Defense). The idea of a federal judge issuing an NSL to spy on someone who “wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy"(Mac Donald, In Defense) as the ACLU claims, is inconceivable. Another critique made by the ACLU is against the Act’s “Sneak and Peek” provision. While described as a blatant power grab by the government, there is a long precedent for the delay of notice regarding a search warrant. Especially when such a

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, prescribes procedures for physical searches and electronic surveillance of activities of foreign entities and individuals where a significant purpose of the search or surveillance (and the collection of information) is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”(Gilbert 4). This is the part where the Patriot Act and TSA meet this information states that any foreign immigrant that wants to come into the U.S will be background checked and must have a visa. This provides an understanding of the immigrants history as a backup for the best safety as a country. “While rules that pertain to U.S. government access to data and communications have received a lot of attention, most reports have omitted to indicate that most other countries also have laws authorizing government investigations for national security and other purposes.”(Gilbert 3). “These laws tend to provide the respective governments with similar, if not greater, powers of access to data and communication” (US Patriot Act 1). This shows that even other countries want our technology for their investigations to try and stop the criminals all together, but The “Patriot Act. This broad legislative policy gave the government investigative powers to fight against terrorism and subsequently targeted those in the Arab, Muslim” (Akiyama 1) by prejudging society, which raised problems after

The PATRIOT ACT is an act of congress that was introduced on October 26, 2001. The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006. On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge; the expanded use of national security letters, which FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. The Act allows federal officials greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. It gives the Secretary of the Treasury regulatory powers to combat corruption of US financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes; it more actively works to close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders; it establishes new crimes, new penalties and new procedural techniques for use against domestic and international terrorists. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional. The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes, some

The Patriot Act allowed the government to conduct searches that it had either previously been unable to conduct or that had been far more difficult. Included in the bill was the ability for the government to conduct secret searches, to collect data on individuals held by third parties as well as the new “roving wiretaps” and “lone wolf provision.” Section 213 allowed for secret searches, also called “sneak and peak” warrants which let government officials search a home or building without giving the subject prior notice, something that had long been required under common law. Critics of the law say that if a property owner is not present or aware of a search, they cannot point out inconsistencies with a warrant, leaving officers with unchecked

Moreover, the Patriot Act promotes information sharing among federal, state, and local agencies so that the process of information can be easier, which will hep increase the quality of intelligence products (Department of Justice, n.d.). The Patriot Act also allows federal agents to have a more active role in investigating cybercrimes that are usually carried out by terrorists and it also requires financial institution to report to federal authorities suspicious transactions that could be linked with money laundering as well as money counterfeit crimes (ACLU, 2017) (Congressional Digest, 2004). Although the Patriot Act helps reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and other crimes, it does have an impact on the privacy of law abiding citizens that have nothing to do with terrorism. For example, under the Patriot Act federal agents can easily

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

The FISC-issued warrants do not name a person as a suspect, they name a category. For example, it could be customers of Verizon, which includes 115 million people, it could be telephones and computers located at 721-725 Fifth Ave. in New York; that’s Trump Tower. It could be all electronic devices in the 10036 ZIP code: that’s midtown Manhattan. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the number of warrants issued by the court has more than doubled. In 2016, the Department of Justice has shown that the 1,457 requests made to the FISA court in 2015 for permission to conduct the electronic surveillance, and one was withdrawn by the court. The FISC did not deny any applications in a whole or in part.

Other provisions included giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the ability to share information, access wiretaps referred to “roving wiretaps” that would cover all of technology a suspect may own, access to records including banking, books, or any “any other items sought in connection with a terror investigation,” lowers the requirements to obtain a “wiretap or search order”, allows delayed notice to those whose home or office has been searched under the “sneak and peek” warrants and has “outlawed material support” to organizations considered terrorist groups (Abramson & Godoy, 2006, pp. 2-4).

In practice, the FISC system curtails the constitution, is appointed by a single person, and acts a simple bureaucratic box to tick. The judges of the FISC are appointed solely, without any approval, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts and the chief justices before him alone dictate the interpretation of the fourth amendment, a largely republican bias, “[John Roberts] appoints all FISA judges, drawn from the federal bench, and right now 10 of 12 were originally appointed by Republican presidents” (Walsh). Likewise, the warrants issued by FISC are not specific to individuals, organizations, or specific items to be found. They lack essential principles of law, such as probable cause and particularity, “indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment” (Payton). Moreover, the government effectively provides no contest to any NSA search or spying. According to statistics of court rulings, warrants and records requests over the court’s history were denied 0.03% of the time (Center). The current situation of surveillance oversight in the United States is dismal, reckless, and