NSA REVELATIONS

Americans want controls on snooping

 

The Los Angeles Times

One year ago this month, Americans learned that their government was engaged in secret dragnet surveillance, which contradicted years of assurances to the contrary from senior government officials and intelligence leaders.

On this anniversary, it is more important than ever to let Congress and the administration know that Americans will reject half-measures that could still allow the government to collect millions of Americans’ records without any individual suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing.

It is time to end the dragnet — and to affirm that we can keep our nation secure without trampling on and abandoning Americans’ constitutional rights.

For years, in both statements to the public and open testimony before the House and Senate, senior government officials claimed that domestic surveillance was narrow in focus and limited in scope. In fact, the NSA has been relying on a secret interpretation of the USA Patriot Act to vacuum up the phone records of millions of law-abiding citizens. Under a separate program, intelligence agencies are using a loophole in the law to read some Americans’ emails without ever getting a warrant.

Dragnet surveillance was approved by a secret court that normally hears only the government’s side of major cases. It had been debated only in a few secret congressional committee hearings, and many members of Congress were entirely unaware it. When laws like the Patriot Act were reauthorized, a vocal minority of senators and representatives — including the three of us — objected, but the secrecy surrounding these programs made it difficult to mobilize public support.

And yet, it was inevitable that mass surveillance and warrantless searches would eventually be exposed.

When the plain text of the law differs so dramatically from how it is interpreted and applied, in effect creating a body of secret law, it simply isn’t sustainable. So when the programs’ existence became public last summer, huge numbers of Americans were justifiably stunned and angry at how they had been misled.

Benjamin Franklin once warned that a society that trades essential liberties for short-term security risks losing both. That is still true today, and even the staunchest defenders of mass surveillance concede that reforms are inevitable.

As an initial step, we have worked with our colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for a package of real and meaningful changes to the law that would promote the restoration of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms, while protecting national security.

• This includes overhauling domestic surveillance laws to ban the bulk collection of Americans’ personal information and closing the loophole that allows intelligence agencies to deliberately read Americans’ emails without a warrant.

• It includes reshaping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by installing an advocate who can argue for Americans’ constitutional rights when the court is considering major cases, and by requiring that significant interpretations of U.S. law and the Constitution be made public.

• And it would strengthen and clarify the government’s authority to obtain individual records quickly in genuine emergency situations.

These reforms would erect safeguards against the further erosion of our right to privacy, and ensure greater transparency and openness.

We are encouraged by the broad bipartisan support that this package of reforms has received and by the endorsements from both privacy advocates and business leaders in this country.

Accordingly, we are disappointed by the House of Representatives’ recent vote to approve a revised version of the USA Freedom Act, with nearly all of the essential reforms either watered down or removed.

Although the bill approved by the House is intended to end bulk collection, we are not at all confident that it would actually do so.

The bill would require the government to use a “selection term” to secretly collect records, but the definition of “selection term” is left vague enough that it could be used to collect all of the phone records in a particular area code or all of the credit card records from a particular state.

Meanwhile, the bill abandons nearly all of the other reforms contained in the Senate version of the USA Freedom Act, while renewing controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for nearly three more years.

This is clearly not the meaningful reform that Americans have demanded, so we will vigorously oppose this bill in its current form and continue to push for real changes to the law.

This firm commitment to both liberty and security is what Americans — including the dedicated men and women who work at our nation’s intelligence agencies — deserve.

We will not settle for less.

Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Rand Paul are U.S. senators from Oregon, Colorado and Kentucky, respectively. This article was originally published in The Los Angeles Times.

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
REID

    MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING

    Joy-Ann Reid: Why some fear the police

    If you’ve never feared the police — if you don’t get a dull ache in the pit of your stomach when you see red and blue flashing lights, even when you know you’re not doing anything wrong — consider yourself lucky.

  • FLORIDA POLITICS

    In Florida governor’s race, no limit on nastiness

    Gov. Rick Scott on Monday ramped up an asphalt agenda, calling for more lanes on Interstate 295 in Jacksonville and millions more for airports and seaports.

  •  
FRIEDMAN

    SYRIA

    Intervening in Syria comes with a price tag

    Hillary Clinton recently reignited the who-lost-Syria debate when she suggested that President Barack Obama made a mistake in not intervening more forcefully early in the Syrian civil war by arming the pro-democracy rebels. I’ve been skeptical about such an intervention — skeptical that there were enough of these “mainstream insurgents,” skeptical that they could ever defeat President Bashar Assad’s army and the Islamists and govern Syria.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category