FISA: 702 Collection

In 2008, Congress passed a set of updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), including Section 702 which authorized warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the country. However, documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that 702 was being used far more heavily than many expected, serving as the legal basis for the collection of large quantities of telephone and Internet traffic  passing through the United States (and unlike 215, including content rather than just metadata). Still, as 702 only permits overseas collection, most criticism of the provision has come from abroad. But many domestic privacy advocates also worry that large amounts of American communication are being swept up “incidentally” and then used as well.

Latest in FISA: 702 Collection

FISA: 702 Collection

Closing Section 702 “Backdoor Search Loophole” Also Means Companion Reforms to Use Restrictions

In order to be effective at protecting privacy and due process rights, closing the backdoor search loophole must also be paired with additional restrictions on using Section 702 data for domestic criminal investigations.

Surveillance

Surveillance Policy in a Trump Administration

Last week, co-authors Michèle Flournoy, Richard Fontaine, and I released a Center for a New American Security report on the future of surveillance policy. This post will examine what our approach can offer the new administration, given what its incoming members have said about surveillance issues and the commitments that the President-elect himself has made on the campaign trail.

FISA: 702 Collection

Why the 9th Circuit Was Right in Mohamed Mohamud, and a Startling Thing It May Have Gotten Wrong

Earlier this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a long-awaited opinion in U.S. v. Mohamed Mohamud. The opinion has gotten some bounce, with pieces by Orin Kerr in the Post and by Jennifer Daskal and Elizabeth Goitein in Just Security. Thus far, reviews have been largely critical. But the critics are mistaken: the Court got it right.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle