Sunsetting A Few Parts Of The PATRIOT Act May Be Symbolic And Good, But It Won't Really Change Much By Itself

from the we-need-reform dept

As you likely know, barring some sort of last minute deal this weekend (which is a distinct possibility) a few sections of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire (or, as the cool kids are saying: “sunset”). It is not — as some have falsely claimed — the entire PATRIOT Act ending. It just a few pieces — with most of the publicity focused on Section 215, which had been the rationale for the bulk phone records collection that was the first big leak from the Snowden documents. There’s been a bit of a debate among some about whether or not this sunset is really that important, beyond the clear symbolism of finally killing off part of the PATRIOT Act. Two of the people I most respect on privacy and surveillance issues — Jennifer Granick and Julian Sanchez — have come down on seemingly different sides of the issue, so it seemed worth comparing what they had to say (and realizing that they’re really not that far off from each other). Granick takes the position that letting the provisions sunset is important and a big deal. She admits that it’s still limited:

If Congress does nothing, section 215 will sunset. And this is exactly what reformers should be asking for. The fact is, sunset is the only thing that will definitely stop massive spying under section 215. It won?t stop mass surveillance more generally, but killing the law that NSA and FBI have abused for years is the first step.

But, still, she says, it’s important and will have an impact. In particular, she notes that while basic reform — a la the USA Freedom Act — might have made sense before, “the political winds have shifted.” In particular, she points to the the big 2nd Circuit appeals court ruling that noted that Section 215 never really authorized the bulk records collection program in the first place — along with a growing number of elected officials who appear to believe the intelligence community has gone too far. Her fear, is that if we passed something like the USA Freedom Act, it will take away any chance at real reform, whereas sunsetting may force the issue:

Americans want real, not symbolic change. Sixty percent of likely voters from both political parties believe the rules on surveillance have to become more restrictive. Groups that were heavily involved in the USAF compromise negotiations are concerned that if it doesn?t pass, if 215 sunsets, civil liberties advocates will have to struggle to ensure that something worse than USAF doesn?t become law. But there?s a clear and present danger that if USAF passes, everyone will pat themselves on the back for a job well done, suspicionless domestic spying will continue, the amazing and expansive Second Circuit opinion will be mooted, and it?ll be suspicionless spying as usual until the next big surveillance provision, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act sunsets at the end of 2017, and we?re in the same position again. The truth is, this struggle to be a robust democracy in the face of the threat of terrorism, is here to stay, regardless of what happens in the next week or so.

So, let?s don?t just do something, let?s stand here. Let?s let 215 sunset. It was unthinkable a month ago. Today it?s likely. In combination with the Second Circuit opinion, the sunset will, irrefutably, put laws on the books that will end domestic dragnets. Then, let?s get serious. Let?s have hearings, really understand all the spying being done in our name, how the information is being used. Let?s set up real, comprehensive, robust checks and balances, starting with declassifying interpretations of law and changing the role of the FISA judges.

On the flip-side, however, we have Sanchez, who argues that the benefits to sunsetting Section 215 are massively overstated. He highlights how the intelligence and law enforcement communities have a number of other authorities under which they have collected similar “bulk” records, and that they would likely shift to pretty quickly after Section 215 goes away.

But while “Sunset the Patriot Act” makes for an appealing slogan, the fact remains that the vast majority of the Patriot Act is permanent?and includes an array of overlapping authorities that will limit the effect of an expiration.

While section 215 covers business records, section 214, also known as the “pen register/trap & trace” authority, covers the acquisition of communications ?metadata? (things like dialed phone numbers and email or Internet Protocol addresses) in real time.

Years before the current version of the NSA telephone program under 215 was born, the government employed similar arguments to persuade the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to bless a bulk program vacuuming up international internet metadata under the aegis of section 214. Though that program was ended in 2011?likely at least in part because NSA was able to obtain much of the same data by collecting it overseas, with fewer restrictions?the authority is permanent.

Also permanent are National Security Letters or NSLs, which that allow the FBI to obtain a more limited range of telecommunications and financial records without even needing to seek judicial approval. Unsurprisingly, the government loves these streamlined tools, and used them so promiscuously that the FBI didn?t even bother using 215 for more than a year after the passage of the Patriot Act. Inspector General reports have also made clear that the FBI is happy to substitute NSLs for 215 orders when even the highly accommodating FISC manages a rare display of backbone. In at least one case, when the secret court refused an application for journalists? records on First Amendment grounds, the Bureau turned around and obtained the same data using National Security Letters.

Even worse, there’s actually something of a “grandfather clause” that will let the NSA keep on keeping on anyway:

Even 215 itself doesn?t really expire when it expires. In theory, the law reverts to a pre?Patriot Act version of the business records authority that is restricted to records that “pertain” to a suspected foreign agent or terrorist?language the government is sure to read as broadly as possible. But thanks to a little-noticed grandfather clause in the law, the current souped-up version of the law, which covers any records ?relevant? to an authorized national security investigation, will remain available for investigations already open at the time of sunset, as well as new investigations into offenses committed before the sunset. Since the FBI routinely maintains massive ?enterprise? investigations covering entire terror groups, which can continue for years if not decades, we can expect section 215 to have a lengthy afterlife.

In short: sunsetting may be symbolic, but it won’t really change much on its own. Sanchez points out that what we really need is real reform — and his fear is that by focusing so much on championing the “sunset,” people advocating for such a solution may miss out on then adding the necessary surveillance reforms that are needed beyond that:

…the celebration may not only be premature, but counterproductive if the impending expiration is perceived as a substantial victory in itself. Some legislators and activists are now so fixated on the symbolism of sunsetting “the Patriot Act” that they?re even urging opposition to broader reforms.

Sanchez readily admits that the USA Freedom Act isn’t perfect either, but that it does have many features that are important:

That?s not to say that the USA Freedom Act is by any means an ideal alternative, or that its critics shouldn?t use the sunset of 215 as leverage to push for stronger reforms. USA Freedom, for instance, doesn?t even touch massive surveillance within the United States under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, or the even more massive spying enabled by Executive Order 12333, a Reagan-era order that covers surveillance conducted outside the United States. But the Freedom Act does at least cover the full range of Patriot Act authorities that employ the “relevance” standard, preventing a tricky shell game that simply moves collection from expired authorities to permanent ones.

The way USA Freedom seeks to do this is also hardly perfect: The law creates a streamlined process for obtaining specific telephone records from multiple phone carriers (addressing objections that a massive NSA database was the only way to avoid the cumbersome necessity of serving many companies with orders for records stored in incompatible formats) and requires that, across all these authorities, “specific selection terms”?like a phone number or billing address?be used to identify the particular records sought. That means instead of evaluating whether an entire database might be ?relevant? when considered in aggregate, the court would have to consider whether the government had demonstrated the relevance of the particular records corresponding to a set of selection terms.

Both are very interesting reads — and while they appear to be taking the opposite viewpoint, they really are a lot closer than they may appear on the surface. Both are advocating for the need for real surveillance reform, going beyond just this program. Both recognize that sunsetting Section 215 is largely symbolic. Where they differ is in their thinking about how best to get there. Sanchez worries that the sunset will be seen as “mission accomplished” and real reform won’t occur. Granick fears the same “mission accomplished” feeling with the too weak USA Freedom Act.

To be honest, they both may have a point. The common message remains there, however: we need real surveillance reform to stop an awful lot of bad activity on the part of the intelligence (and law enforcement) community. Sunsetting Section 215 is a possible step. USA Freedom is another possible step. Either one, on their own, is not nearly enough.

That said, the fact that either are seriously on the table is a huge step forward on its own. For years, surveillance has only expanded. And we’re actually at a rare point in history where things are going to go the other way. Now we just need to make it meaningful in creating something that goes beyond either just sunsetting or just USA Freedom.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sunsetting A Few Parts Of The PATRIOT Act May Be Symbolic And Good, But It Won't Really Change Much By Itself”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Does it really matter?

The government has proven time and time again it’s going to do what it wants to, laws be damned. Even if something they do is found to be illegal, no one is ever punished for it

That is not entirely true. For the most part, they will play inside the rules. They will stretch the definition of those rules, but that’s why strong reform is needed that limits their ability to do so.

The stories of the intelligence community actively breaking the law are very rare.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Does it really matter?

Why break a law, when there is no penalty for “mis-interpreting” it in a way that lets you break it legally.

As long as the Agency is immune to the consequences of misinterpreting the laws, it will simply pretend the laws say exactly whatever it is they want the laws to say and carry on as if the laws do not pertain to their actions at all….

…and that is only with actions that the public has been made aware of through exposure by whistle blowers, or what is discerned through analysis of FOIA documents and the like, and then painstakingly proven as fact.

All of the other secret programs that the public is unaware of, will continue to operate at 110% efficiency without oversight and without any concern whatsoever for what any law might state, as long as they remain secret.

All the law can do is give folks a better reason to bitch about the actions of the agency, after they are exposed by a whistle blower – at which point the Agency will simply claim its secret interpretation of the laws make the newly exposed criminal activities, 100% legal, once again.

It will do absolutely nothing to prevent or stop the agency from doing precisely what it wants to do, or slow in any fashion the global surveillance of all communications that leads to blackmail and coercion by the Agency, which the taxpayer is paying for.

To believe that a law can stop the lawless, or those above the law, is as foolish as believing that politicians are honest men and women doing their best to aid the public and make the world a better place for all.

It also makes you a part of the problem and an obstacle to a solution.

Anonymous Coward says:

Chipping away at the PAT RIOT Act one section at a time. It may be symbolic, but it just feels so damn good I don’t care. I don’t believe for a moment that “bulk collection”, aka mass spying, will ever stop. That’s why non-backdoored encryption and secure hardware devices to run that encryption on is so important. When it comes to privacy, technology trumps politics every single time. Bar none.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is great news. It looks like Rand Paul is going to face a showdown with the Patriot Act. In a news article that just surfaced, Rand Paul says that he will not allow a vote on either an extension of the current law or for The Patriot Act. He plans on forcing the expiration of The Patriot Act and any extensions of the provisions found inside the law.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Rand Paul "will not allow"...

Perhaps my fellow readers forget. When the majority leaders wants to prevent his peer from speaking, none shall speak. When he wants to prevent legislation from passing, none shall pass. This even if committee has blessed it in full.

Rand Paul can speak because strawman.

Section 215 will be reauthorized. Not because it’s lawful (2nd circuit decision). Not because it was approved by the House. Because that is how the hand that strokes the other hand is rewarded.

So we have all day today (Saturday) and most of tomorrow (Sunday) to SPECULATE on “Oh wouldn’t it be nice if…” but then they’ll reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT’s sunset sections (including 215) and there will be POMPOUS AGGRANDIZING speeches about how this is IMPORTANT AND VITAL for our SECURITY.

Except we read techdirt and know that none of this ever contributed to security or prevented any terrorist event. It just takes away our rights and gives money to assholes. I hope you don’t mind my one frank word here. Please withhold judgment for 36 hours… by which time you’ll either think I’m an idiot and have no faith in our elected “leaders”… or you’ll be wanting to use similar language.


GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It simply does not matter what the outcome of new legislation is.

The Owners of the Surveillance State can make ANY law appear to be a law that supports their activities, no matter what those activities happen to be, simply by secretly re-interpreting the wording of the law, exactly as they did the wording of the US constitution, to allow them to practice all of these once illegal activities, legally, in the first place.

They also do not have to admit that numerous undisclosed redundant 215 type programs are operating secretly behind the scenes, until someone else blows the whistle on each one of them. These operations are unaffected by any laws, new or old, as long as they remain secret.

As they are discovered and exposed, The Surveillance Hydra of the 5 Eyes will simply create 2 more identical secret operations to replace them.

Consider, had Snowden not exposed the programs we know of today, they would all be operating at full steam without any of us being one iota the wiser.

Regardless of what the new legislation states is illegal or not, the programs that gather dirt on all Americans and very likely all humans, will continue unabated, unfettered, and will escalate as fast as technology allows.

And the beauty of it all – to the members of the Ownership Society – is that YOU; the white, English-speaking taxpayers of the 5-Eyes nations, will foot the bill for everything.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...