Specter Bill Would Give President Strong Wiretapping Powers
Privacy advocates expressed dismay Mon. over a new draft of legislation that would make it easier for the executive branch to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant. The bill, sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chmn. Specter (R- Pa.), would extend the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which would get the ability to authorize a domestic surveillance program.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“It’s shocking that they would move forward with a bill that would entrench such authority in the immediate aftermath of evidence that the President has violated provisions” of the existing law, said ACLU Legislative Counsel Lisa Graves. The Specter bill clarifies that the FISA court has the “authority to review electronic surveillance programs and pass upon their constitutionality.” In effect, Graves said, this allows the executive branch to operate as it chooses: “The President can invent whatever procedures he wishes.”
“In reality, this bill authorizes… trolling through” electronic data, said Brittany Benowitz, attorney for the Center for National Security Studies. The new version of the bill takes away the power of district courts to review National Security Agency programs such as the surveillance reportedly conducted using telco consumer phone information (CD May 12 p1), she said. “Under the Administration’s theory, it doesn’t matter what legislation Congress passes,” she said: “Unless they [the Committee] withhold funding, it doesn’t matter what Congress does.”
The bill (S-2453) also would require significant congressional oversight of electronic surveillance programs. Every 180 days the Attorney General would submit a classified form detailing electronic surveillance activities to all congressional intelligence committee members. The report must include operational procedures, the number of communications subjected to the program, the identity, if known, of any U.S. citizen whose communications were intercepted, and a description of the information obtained.
The legislation would impose common-sense requirements so appropriate authorities can be kept informed, said PrivacyToday.com editor Rob Douglas. “This draft tries to make sense of what has been lacking,” which is meaningful congressional oversight, he said. “It’s clearly an attempt to put a legislative framework about what we know so far. If the President in fact violated the law this would not pardon him. It simply sets a good framework from which to move forward.”
Meanwhile, key Democratic lawmakers pushed for action. Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chmn. of the Privacy Caucus, sent a letter to FCC Chmn. Martin asking the Commission to investigate whether telcos broke privacy laws by providing “wholesale disclosure” of phone records to the govt. Markey asked Martin to outline a plan, “in detail, for investigating and resolving these alleged violations of consumer privacy.” He also asked for “detailed legal reasoning” of any Commission decision that the NSA program didn’t violate consumer privacy and enforcement isn’t necessary. An FCC spokesman said the agency is reviewing Markey’s request “carefully and will respond accordingly.”
Separately, FCC Comr. Copps said the FCC should start an inquiry into whether the agency violated Sec. 222 of the Communications Act, which requires carriers to protect the confidentiality of customer information. “We need to be certain that the companies over which the FCC has public interest oversight have not gone -- or been asked to go -- to a place where they should not be,” Copps said.
Sen. Boxer (D-Cal.) demanded immediate phone calls from the CEOs of Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth to explain what information was disclosed to the govt. “I believe you have an obligation to come clean with your customers and the public and address the serious questions that have been raised in light of this disclosure,” Boxer said in a letter to the CEOs last week.
Meanwhile, a group of Me. Verizon customers wants the Me. PUC to see if Verizon violated state account-privacy rules by giving the NSA access to customer phone data. The complaint was filed by 21 customers on behalf of all Verizon customers as news reports appeared around the country that NSA was collecting millions of Americans’ phone records. Under state law, the PUC must investigate utility complaints when at least 10 customers demand it. State lawmakers also have asked Verizon for answers on privacy. Portland state Rep. Herb Adams (D) said he wrote AT&T and Verizon asking if they've supplied Me. customer info to NSA, and for contact information where customers can direct privacy inquiries. Verizon doesn’t comment on national security matters, it said. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T have drawn heavy coverage in stories on NSA domestic surveillance and its collection of consumer records.