The Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act faces its renewal in the United States Congress amidst new criticisms over the scope of surveillance and over the subsequent use of the information collected by federal agencies.
The debate focuses on three scenarios. Congress can reauthorize this provision with changes, maintain it without modifications, or let it expire. In that context, several civil liberties defense organizations demand that an extension without significant reforms not go forward.
The discussion focuses on the subsequent use of the data
The questioned mechanism stems from the activity of the National Security Agency, which collects complete conversations of surveillance targets located abroad and stores them. That storage, according to complaints, later allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access those communications under a logic described as finders keepers.
The main criticism points to the fact that the FBI can consult and even read the American part of those communications without the need for a judicial order. It is also warned that the people affected by that control may never come to know that they have been subject to that surveillance and that they have very few ways to find out.
Demand for reforms before any renewal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil liberties advocates have been trying for years to clarify in which cases data obtained through Section 702 is used as evidence against investigated individuals. Their position is clear. They reject a reauthorization without changes and demand substantial reforms.
"There is no excuse for any member of Congress to support a clean reauthorization of Section 702" - Electronic Frontier Foundation
"Anyone who votes to do so does not take your privacy seriously. Period." - Electronic Frontier Foundation
"The Congress cannot approve a clean extension" - Electronic Frontier Foundation
The organization has also asked citizens to contact their representative in Congress through its own tool to demand that a renewal without changes not be approved. The pressure is now focused on a legislative decision that will determine if the norm remains in force in its current form, if it incorporates additional limits, or if it finally lapses.