By Eric Tucker

The FBI and other government agencies should be required to get court approval before reviewing the communications of U.S. citizens collected through a secretive foreign surveillance program, a sharply divided privacy oversight board recommended on Thursday.

The recommendation came in a report from a three-member Democratic majority of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, an independent agency within the executive branch, and was made despite the opposition of Biden administration officials who warn that such a requirement could snarl fast-moving terrorism and espionage investigations and weaken national security as a result.

The report comes as a White House push to secure the reauthorization of the program known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is encountering major bipartisan opposition in Congress and during a spate of revelations that FBI employees have periodically mishandled access to a repository of intelligence gathered under the law, violations that have spurred outrage from civil liberties advocates.

Section 702 permits allow spy agencies without a warrant to collect swaths of emails and other communications from foreigners located abroad, even when those foreigners are in touch with people in the United States.

Officials in President Joe Biden's administration have said the program is essential for disrupting foreign terror attacks, espionage operations from Russia and China and cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. But many Democratic and Republican lawmakers say they won’t vote to renew Section 702 when it expires at the end of the year without major changes targeting how the FBI uses foreign surveillance data to investigate Americans.

The privacy board recommended that the program be renewed despite being divided about what reforms were needed. The board’s recommendation is for the government to implement as it considers reauthorization of Section 702 and doesn’t carry practical weight.

The opposition to reauthorization has united unusual bedfellows, bringing together civil liberties-minded Democrats who have long supported limits on government surveillance powers with Republicans still angry over what they see as abuses during the investigation into ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

A central point of contention is analysts' use of the foreign intelligence database to search for information about people, businesses or phone numbers located in the U.S. Those queries are permissible if there's reason to believe they will retrieve foreign intelligence information or, in the case of the FBI, evidence of a crime.

But a succession of unsealed court opinions in recent months have revealed FBI violations in how those queries have been done, including improper searches of Section 702 databases for information related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and the 2020 protests following the police killing of George Floyd. FBI officials say significant safeguards have since been imposed.

In a recommendation Thursday that critics say would impose a significant hurdle and mark a dramatic break from the status quo, three members of the board said executive branch agencies, with limited exceptions, should have to get permission from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to read the results of their database queries on U.S. citizens.

“The scale of U.S. person queries, the number of compliance issues surrounding U.S. person queries, and the failure of current law and procedures to protect U.S. persons compels the Board to recommend a new approach,” the report said.

Underscoring the blurred political lines of the debate, the two Republican members of the board joined the White House in objecting to the proposal as unduly burdensome. Those two members refused to sign on to the report issued by their colleagues and instead issued their own document lambasting some of the conclusions.

“Eliminating U.S. person queries, or making it bureaucratically infeasible to conduct them — as the Majority recommends — would effectively destroy the crucial portion of the program that enables the U.S. government to prevent, among other things, terrorist attacks on our soil,” they wrote.

Separately, the White House said that seeking a judge's permission to read through intelligence that's already been lawfully collected was legally unnecessary and would interminably slow national security investigations that require fast action.

“That is operationally unworkable and would blind us to information already in our holdings that, often, must be acted upon in time-sensitive ways in order to prevent lethal plotting on U.S. soil, the recruitment of spies by hostile actors, the hacking of U.S. companies, and more,” a National Security Council spokesperson said in a statement.

“We urge Congress to continue to work with us on alternative reforms that can strengthen Section 702 this reauthorization cycle without causing the type of detrimental effects to U.S. national security that this recommendation would generate,” the statement added.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board was formed in 2007 following a recommendation from the Sept. 11 commission, intended as a way to create checks and balances on the government's expanding spy powers. The five members are nominated by the president and receive Senate approval.

Share:
More In Politics
biden putin
Face to face for just over two hours, President Joe Biden and Russia’s Vladimir Putin squared off in a secure video call Tuesday as the U.S. president put Moscow on notice that an invasion of Ukraine would bring enormous harm to the Russian economy.
Instagram Rolls Out New Teen Safety Updates
Ahead of Instagram head Adam Mosseri's congressional hearing on the mental impact of the social platform on teens, the company announced a number of updates aimed at teen safety.
Evergrande Shares Sink as Real Estate Giant Nears Debt Default
Troubled Chinese real estate giant Evergrande is once again nearing the brink of collapse. Shares of Evergrande sunk to a new record low on Monday, closing down 20 percent, as debt default fears resurfaced. Drew Bernstein, co-chairman at consultancy MarcumBP, joined Cheddar's Opening Bell to discuss. He said U.S. investors have to understand that "there is no company in China that's too big to fail, that's for sure," and that the Chinese government will be prioritizing the social welfare of the populace. Bernstein did note that it would be a managed collapse in some form.
Breaking Down U.S. Diplomatic Boycott of 2022 Beijing Olympics
Joan Greve, a politics reporter at The Guardian US, joined Wake Up With Cheddar to break down the implications of the Biden administration announcing a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing games in response to allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims. She noted the significance of the move, assessing the already frayed relationship between the U.S. and China. "The Chinese have said that a boycott would be politically manipulative, and now they are actually threatening countermeasures," she said. "And that will certainly have an impact on the spirit of the games at the very least."
U.S. to Resume 'Remain in Mexico' Policy for Asylum-Seekers
The Biden administration has reached an agreement with the Mexican government to resume the "Remain-in-Mexico" policy under court order. By reinstating a Trump-era border policy, asylum-seekers will be forced to stay in Mexico until their U.S. immigration court date. The program is set to resume on Monday. Ryan Devereaux, a reporter for The Intercept, joins Cheddar News to discuss.
COVID-19 Causes Massive Backlog in Court Cases
COVID-19 is still battering the nation's criminal justice system, causing a massive backlog in cases and delaying verdicts for months on end. This, combined with the fear of crowded prisons during a pandemic, has prompted many defendants to plead guilty in exchange for time served or probation. Tina Luongo, attorney-in-charge of the Criminal Defense Practice, joined Cheddar to discuss the court backlog, the rise in plea bargains, and why this was an issue long before the pandemic.
High-Profile Cases Shine Light on Public Interest in 'Courtroom Drama'
With so many high-profile court cases taking over the media, from the trial over the murder of Ahmaud Arbery to the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse to the ongoing Elizabeth Holmes trial, Cheddar took a look at these cases and why there is such a big interest in them. Rachel Fiset, a white collar criminal defense lawyer and partner with Zeiback, Fiset, and Coleman, and Bryan Hance, attorney-at-law, professor, and academic program director of the pre-law and paralegal studies program at National University, joined Cheddar for a roundtable discussion on why there is so much public interest in so-called courtroom drama.
Load More