I'm not sure I track the debate here, but it is misleading to imply this law altered "abouts" collection. NSA ceased the practice because technical compliance was infeasible. It remains infeasible today. If circumstances change, NSA would have to go to the court to restart.
-
Some had advocated for making it illegal for NSA to restart the practice even if technical circumstances changed, it was operationally desirable, and the FISC agreed it had adequate assurances. But as far as I can tell, the House bill as passed preserves status quo.
Can you point to where, in law, abouts collection was ever affirmatively permitted before?
-
-
You mean the numerous orders in which the FISC signs off on the practice as lawful (notwithstanding compliance issues)? I'm sure you can locate those faster than I can.
-
OK. Let's take a step back. Can you point to where, in the Constitution, the secret FISA Court created in 1978 was granted the authority to write and pass laws?
-
There is a big difference -- particularly if ever challenged in court -- between having the FISC authorize programs that few members of Congress get full briefing on and having Congress authorize something in plain view. Surely you understand that?
-
Article II? Judiciary Act of 1789?
-
Sez the guy who has assured me FISA is currently not implemented as its original drafters intended?
-
Also, let me lay this down: I am at least as fearful of Rosemary Collyer being given unilateral authority to make law as I am Jeff Sessions; I actually trust that Sessions will consult a few competent people.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.