Congress can protect individual rights without compromising national security
[link removed]

American democracy is at stake in the 2024 election, John. Your support helps us fight voter suppression, block election sabotage, and protect nonpartisan election officials. Thanks to a generous donor, your gift to the Brennan Center will be matched.



Will you make a contribution today to double your impact?

[link removed]



DONATE

[link removed]



This week, I’m turning The Briefing over to my colleague Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, to explain a big fight in Congress over the government’s surveillance powers.

—Michael Waldman

It’s a basic constitutional principle: law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to listen to your phone calls or read your emails. Agencies, however, have found a workaround. An arcane law, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 2008 and is set to expire at the end this year. Congress should not renew it without adding important safeguards for Americans’ rights. The good news: on this issue, lawmakers from both parties are similarly up in arms — and are even working together for change.

Section 702 lets the government collect the communications of non-Americans located abroad without a warrant. But because Americans talk to people outside the country, the surveillance inevitably sweeps in our private phone calls, emails, and text messages, too — information that the government would normally need a warrant to access.

Congress foresaw this problem: it directed

[link removed]

intelligence agencies to “minimize” the retention and use of Americans’ information and to certify that they are not spying on Americans. But instead, these agencies routinely run electronic searches of the data for the purpose of finding and reviewing Americans’ communications. Last year alone, the FBI performed

[link removed]

more than 200,000 of these “backdoor” searches.

Most of the time, the only safeguard is an FBI rule that searches must be reasonably likely to produce foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime. That’s skimpy protection, far short of the probable cause the government needs to obtain a warrant. But FBI agents have disregarded even that low standard, engaging in “persistent and widespread

[link removed]

” violations, according to the special court that oversees foreign intelligence surveillance.

There have been alarming abuses. FBI agents have searched for the communications of Black Lives Matter protesters

[link removed]

, members of Congress

[link removed]

, journalists

[link removed]

, crime victims

[link removed]

, political donors

[link removed]

, and “Middle Eastern

[link removed]

” men, among many others.

The volume and frequent abuses of backdoor searches have provoked bipartisan outrage in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have vowed not to reauthorize Section 702 without “significant reforms

[link removed]

.” But the misuse of Section 702 is only one part of a larger problem. As I explained in testimony

[link removed]

before the House Judiciary Committee in July, there are other laws, as well as gaps in the law, that are increasingly enabling warrantless surveillance of Americans. For instance, the government can access some of the same information it obtains through backdoor searches — and evade legal privacy protections — by simply purchasing the information from data brokers, all without a warrant.

We need a comprehensive solution that allows intelligence agencies to protect us while curbing warrantless surveillance.

The Government Surveillance Reform Act of 2023

[link removed]

, introduced by Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate and Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the House, would be the most significant advancement

[link removed]

of Americans’ privacy rights since FISA itself was enacted in 1978. If it became law, the bill would require the government to obtain a warrant before searching data obtained under Section 702 for Americans’ communications, thus closing the backdoor search loophole. It would also strengthen judicial oversight of surveillance, place limits on executive orders that authorize warrantless collection of Americans’ information, and prohibit the government from purchasing information it would otherwise need a warrant, court order, or subpoena to obtain.

In addition, the House Judiciary Committee will vote this week on whether to advance the bipartisan Protecting Liberty and Ending Warrantless Surveillance Act, which similarly would close the backdoor search and data broker loopholes and strengthen judicial oversight.

These two bills represent genuine reform. There are competing proposals pending in Congress, however, that fall far short of that standard.

Last week, the leaders of the Senate intelligence committee introduced their own bill to reauthorize Section 702. The bill, along with an analogue pending in the House, would place restrictions on a vanishingly small fraction of backdoor searches and would not prevent

[link removed]

any of the most egregious abuses. Worse, the bills would actually expand surveillance in some respects, including loosening restrictions on the surveillance of immigrants.

Members of Congress and the public should not be distracted by these phony reform proposals. Congress has an opportunity to strengthen protections for Americans’ privacy while safeguarding our national security. It must take it.





Shielding Voters from the Harms of AI

Artificial intelligence tools can too easily be used to create deceptive campaign advertising and other communications designed to influence how voters cast their ballots. As we enter the deepfake era in elections, policymakers must act to prevent manipulated media from being used to undermine elections and disenfranchise voters. The latest installment in our AI and Democracy series

[link removed]

outlines the importance of mitigating the harms of AI-generated deepfakes and the most urgent considerations leaders should keep in mind when drafting regulations. Read more

[link removed]

Enriching Our Science-Poor Congress

Congress’s scientific expertise has declined dramatically following the loss of thousands of staffers and key support agencies that lawmakers rely on to get the technical information they need to craft legislation. This lack of scientific understanding has hindered policymaking and resulted in costly blunders. A new Brennan Center report

[link removed]

proposes ways for Congress to reverse this decline and improve its policymaking on critical science and tech issues, including AI and climate change. “Congress can fill this gap itself, and it must,” Maya Kornberg and Martha Kinsella write in The Hill. Read more

[link removed]

A Path to Fair Sentencing

During an oral argument last week, Supreme Court justices voiced respect for acquittals. Their remarks are at odds with the Court’s long-standing refusal to consider the constitutionality of acquitted conduct sentencing — the practice of making a person serve prison time for crimes that a jury found they didn’t commit. In a State Court Report piece, Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot calls attention to the states that are outlawing the practice and adopting fairer sentencing guidelines of their own accord. Read more

[link removed]





News

Ames Grawert on the mismatch between public perception and reality on crime // WALL STREET JOURNAL

[link removed]

Elizabeth Howard on threats to election officials // MINNESOTA REFORMER

[link removed]

Yurij Rudensky on the push for redistricting reform in Ohio // OHIO CAPITAL JOURNAL

[link removed]

Michael Waldman on the Electoral College // NEW YORK TIMES

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]