NY Times
After a recent inspector general report about the F.B.I.'s Russia investigation, it has been revealed that the process used to obtain and renew court permission to wiretap Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is heavily flawed. FISA was enacted in order to regulate domestic surveillance for national security investigations. However, under FISA, most targets do not know their privacy is being invaded and are not allowed to know which evidence is used against them in court.
Much of the criticism of FISA is due to the low rejection rate for approval granted combined with the errors and omissions in the evidence presented in court. This failure to follow policy has raised the question of what actually goes into many wiretap cases since they are rarely audited and challenges the validity of the FISA system. As a result, many believe some sort of reform must occur in order for it to continue.
What do you think about such an issue concerning national security? Do you think reform is necessary? If so, what sort?
6 comments:
This is some background info I found to help me understand this better… In 2016, the FBI opened a secret investigation to try and look into the possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. The FBI officials claimed it as an urgent priority case. However, as a huge, 400+ page report has emerged this week, a conflicting account shows that the FBI may not have actually pursued the investigation as urgently as they claimed. The investigation was slowed down at a few times. I feel like another issue about this topic is how the FBI messed up. Like it took 7 weeks for the reports about Trump-Russia links from British intelligence to reach the FBI, then there was a delay after that. The investigation of Paul Manafort (Trump’s campaign manager) took a long time as well. So, I’m not understanding why these investigations by the FBI are taking so long.
I think national security has always been somewhat of a controversial topic; people both want their privacy, but also, laws need to be enforced and it's important to have evidence. The line between national security and privacy invasion is pretty hazy, and seems to move depending on where it is being used. I think that the amount of time poured into this investigation is pretty exaggerated, and really, the situation is just frustrating in general. I think this is also an example of where the checks and balances system is not being upheld; different agencies need to complete their jobs efficiently, and it is understandable that this would be difficult if the agency was missing resources or authority. In this situation, at least to my knowledge, that doesn't seem to be the case. It appears the FISA is simply not functioning properly, whether that be due to corruption or other factors. I'm not sure if total reform is necessary, but changes should definitely be made to ensure the FISA isn't skimping out on providing information that may be important.
National security is certainly a very messy topic. As Olivia mentioned, people want both security and privacy and it is difficult for the government to give people both. I personally think it is wrong for FISA to simply be able to take people's information and not tell them what they are taking and then for them to use it as evidence. This is a serious violation of privacy and because we still do need security, I think a regulation must be enacted in which the data is transparent. The people know what the FISA is seeing and the FISA tells people what information they have. Obviously, this will create issues with people not wanting FISA to have certain information but at least now they know so this solution solves one problem.
The major problem here is that there are numerous errors and omissions in these applications by F.B.I. agents, yet the people who have authority to prevent this from happening have repeatedly allowed inaccuracies in these reports. But, if conducted properly, I think that surveillance under FISA can be helpful in protecting national security. Although it is difficult to enact reform around the issue of national security as the secrecy behind it may make it difficult to be sufficiently changed, it is important for there to be major reform if the F.B.I continues to conduct surveillance under FISA. I think that more safeguards should be put in place to prevent its abuse.
I believe national security is of utmost importance to most Americans, and in many ways, fueling the political polarization that is occurring within this country. More specifically, I think the flawed investigative tactics used by the FBI agents, particularly when it came to the omission of facts for wiretap renewal, will only fuel arguments against government regulations on other unrelated topics. If the government can’t do its job both truthfully and efficiently, then there is no reason to expect the public to be in support of large government action on social or economic issues. As Sarah pointed out, I do think that when its conducted properly, FISA can be a vital tool in protecting the American people. I think complete transparency from the government could be dangerous especially when it comes to national security (at the same time we shouldn’t be arresting people on unjust monitoring through illegal wiretapping). Hopefully the FBI will be less inept when it comes to exercising their duties, and I hope the conservative party doesn’t take this as an opportunity to spin public opinion against government regulation and trust overall.
Moore's law refers to the observation that the number of transistors in computer chips doubles every year, effectively halving the cost of computers. Technology moves fast; the government does not. The government can obtain technology to surveil its citizens, but cannot pass regulations fast enough to keep its surveillance in check. This reminds me of the Palmer Raids, if fact, this is essentially the same thing, except privacy is being invaded through them means of technology rather than through physical force.
Post a Comment