emptywheel

Speier says concerns about large-scale incidental collection of Americans' comms and use of those coms in non-nat sec investigations & prosecutions, cites privacy groups' letter that says bill is a step-back on privacy. Bill shared w her office less than 24hrs ago. That's NUTS.

Thank you @RepSpeier for defending Americans' privacy, calling for stronger protections to address privacy community's concerns, and for stating your opposition to this troubling bill.

It is utter nonsense when Republicans on HPSCI say they are concerned about oversight of unmasking since they don't give a whit about warrantless searches of Americans' communications that occur w such regularity that the FBI says it literally cannot count.

.@RepSwalwell just said he would support the bill without the unmasking provision. This is very very bad. He voted to report out an actual reform bill in HJud and just said he'd also happily vote to EXPAND surveillance, not just under 702, but under ALL of FISA.

Can you explain to me how HPSCI expands surveillance? The stuff I saw in the letter is already done (and the informant stuff has been public for years).

1. It codifies practice that goes beyond current law (thus expanding the law if not actual practice) and 2. (even more concerningly) It literally expands who can be targeted under all of FISA w/the FP and AFP definition amendments.

OK, agree the hacking is an expansion. But you do agree that both use against informants (which has been approved by FISC and unclassified for years) and use of Tor (underlying FISC ruling unclassified) are already in place?

And given that they're already in place and approved by FISC, affirmatively approving in HPSCI only immunizes challenges from defendants (who won't get notice under SJC in any case)?