Section 702 has supplied extraordinary insight into foreign dangers, including military threats, theft of American trade secrets, terrorism, hacking and fentanyl trafficking. In 2022 intelligence from 702 helped the government find and kill the Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, one of the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11. Almost 60 percent of the articles in the president’s daily intelligence briefing include information from Section 702.
Although Section 702 can be used only to target foreigners abroad, it does include Americans when they interact with foreign targets. Not only is such incidental collection inevitable in today’s globalized world; it can be vital to U.S. security. If a terrorist or spy abroad is communicating with someone here, our government must find out why.
Some of what is found via Section 702 is therefore sent from the National Security Agency to the F.B.I. The F.B.I., which investigates threats to national security in the United States, can then check that database for Americans under investigation for national security reasons.
Some of the bill’s critics argued that the F.B.I. should be required to obtain a warrant from a special FISA court before using the information collected under 702 when investigating Americans who may be involved in terrorism, espionage or other national security threats. But requiring such a warrant would have been unnecessary and unwise.
Getting a FISA court order is bureaucratically cumbersome and would slow down investigations — especially fast-moving cybercases, in which queries have proved especially useful. It would cause agents to miss important connections to national security threats. And because this information has already been lawfully collected and stored, its use in investigation doesn’t require a warrant under the Constitution.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@9LQKRXR2wks2W
Some government surveillance does keep us safer not safe. Finding the right balance between individual privacy and protection of the common good is the challenge.
The surveillance we are talking about is simply not compatible with the reading of the 4th amendment. Currently, the government is listening in on every conservation you are having on your devices. They've inserted little holes in even encrypted means of communication to listen in. That's not compatible with the 4th amendment. The government claims that it uses the information gathered for law enforcement / crime prevention instead of legal proceedings, but the 4th amendment makes no such distinction.
We got here because of terrorism. And we haven't even added facial recognition and the other surveillance that corporations are using on us and giving the information to the government.
@BaboonBertPatriot2wks2W
Losing our privacy and fourth amendment protections is to keep us safe? Ya, right. Anyone feel safer? More like the powers that be want to be able to control any outbreak of actual thinking and democratic expression. There is not one instance, not one, where intrusive government surveillance saved citizens lives but there are plenty of examples of oppression.
The Government nearly ALWAYS uses safety to justify the erosion of freedom. But without freedom, what is there left to keep safe? These authors present an absolutely unacceptable position that flies in the face of the 4A. It’s even more scary that they argue for warrantless searches of Americans after admitting that it was abused by the FBI and even used for political reasons. Sorry—but forgive me for scoffing at the “trust us, we won’t do it again” argument. Truly scary.
Only tyranny will keep us safe. How shamelessly dystopian. (But of course we've already accepted constant surveillance by Silicon Valley, so what's a little more for the government?)
This is not an extraordinarily dangerous time for Americans. Physically speaking, if I had to guess, it's just about one of the safest times.
The United States is nothing like Israel. "Powerful nations..." I mean, we're comparing David and Goliath here. Israel is about as powerful as a mouse compared to the United States, and it has had hostility with its neighbors since its inception. The United States is a gigantic, continent-spanning nation with weaker allies to the north and south.
@FluentBobcatLibertarian2wks2W
Good Lord, this one's a whopper! Sure, living in a police state keeps us safe. Being under constant surveillance is a swell way to live! Just ask Winston Smith and Julia.
Security is always the hook. People give up privacy for perceived security.
But convenience has turned out to be a hook as well! Why go through the bother of using your TV remote, when your TV is "smart" enough to change channels via a voice command? Sure, everything you say is being monitored, but hey, speaking is so much easier than moving one's thumb, right?
Folks, privacy is its own reward! You don't have to be doing nefarious things to want to be left alone and unmonitored.
@P4rtyAndyDemocrat2wks2W
I totally agree. Any rights we have should be subordinated for "safety". We know that law enforcement never (more like always) abuses any power they are given. The ends always justify the means. Just imagine how "safe" we could be if we just nullified the 4th Amendment in its entirety instead of gradually carving it into Swiss cheese as we've been doing!
"Civil libertarians argued that the surveillance bill erodes Americans’ privacy rights and pointed to examples."
Well, no. It doesn't erode "privacy rights." That's a rhetorical trick to make these dangerous and unconstitutional laws more palatable to readers inclined to support the security state and military-industrial complex. These laws erode actual rights that Americans have and are described in the Constitution - specifically those in the fourth amendment against unwarranted search and seizure, and those in the fifth amendment against self incrimination.
@LobbyistLionPatriot2wks2W
"Government Surveillance Keeps us Safe" is such an absurd title I thought it was a joke and it would be an opinion against the unlawful searches of Americans (as authorized by FISA -- and continues to be authorized despite "safeguards" that were added), but then I read "national security under the bush administration" and was not surprised.
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
