Senator Proposes Weak Warranteless Wiretap Safeguards

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) has submitted a bill that would place a tiny little safeguard on the government’s use of warrantless surveillance. David Kravitz of Wired’s Threat Level blog explains the details of that proposal, the full text of which can be found here.

“Keeping Americans safe versus protecting American’s privacy is a false choice. We have a moral and Constitutional duty to do both,” Merkley said in a statement. “We can ensure our government has the tools to spy on our enemies without giving it a license to intrude into the private lives of American citizens. ”

Among other things, Merkley’s proposal (.pdf) seeks to amend a section that generally requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to rubber-stamp terror-related electronic surveillance requests that ensnare Americans’ communications. The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

Under Merkley’s “Protect America’s Privacy Act,” if the secret FISA court rejects a spying request, the government “must immediately stop the information acquisition and that any information collected from Americans may not be used in legal proceeding.” What’s more, if data is collected on Americans, it cannot be accessed without a standard, probable-cause warrant.

Even that weak safeguard will almost certainly be voted down, if it gets a vote at all. The leadership of both parties and the Obama administration are all firmly opposed to any limits on executive power in this regard.

5 comments on this post.
  1. Reginald Selkirk:

    GOP Aims to Remove Net Neutrality, Ban Gambling, Porn From Net
    This is turning out to be one of the easiest decisions of my life.

  2. Chiroptera:

    Holy crap, that Merkley is dangerous.

    Don’t you people know that even questioning the utility and motives of our state security apparatus gives terrorists an advantage?

  3. Eric Ressner:

    “The leadership of both parties and the Obama administration are all firmly opposed to any limits on executive power in this regard.”

    I agree (sadly) with what you say about the Obama administration. I think, though, that unchecked executive power is not what motivates the leadership of both parties. Instead, they are firmly opposed to any action that might expose them to a whiff of a suggestion that they are “weak on terror,” no matter the constitutional merit of their action.

    Because you can just see the campaign ad. Merkley is a Democrat, so the whole party is already effectively tarred with the “weak on terror” label, and there is no sound-bite explanation that can get the tar off.

  4. Stevarious:

    I think, though, that unchecked executive power is not what motivates the leadership of both parties.

    It’s just a delightful little bonus, like discovering that your Christmas present is packed with crumpled up $100 bills instead of those little Styrofoam peanuts.

  5. Ace of Sevens:

    @1: The quoted part of the platform says nothing about banning Internet porn.

Leave a comment

You must be