August, 05 2020, 12:00am EDT
![Demand Progress](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012642/origin.jpg)
Adam Schiff Sought to Allow for Domestic Surveillance by Selling Out Dreamers During PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Congressional Intelligence Committees' Actions Suggest Dragnet Domestic Surveillance without Congressional Authorization
WASHINGTON
Today, a coalition of groups led by Demand Progress Education Fund sent a letter to House and Senate leadership detailing several extraordinary efforts by House intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former Senate intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) to potentially allow for dragnet internet surveillance under the PATRIOT Act.
As detailed in the letter, during the ongoing debate over whether to reauthorize three expired Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Schiff altered a privacy measure related to government surveillance of internet activity to ensure it did not protect certain immigrants, such as recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Activists fear that this was part of an effort to create a loophole to bless dragnet surveillance of internet activity, potentially affecting everyone in the United States. In sum, the efforts helped the FBI and NSA avoid disclosing to Congress whether the government is conducting such dragnet surveillance, and to evade a Congressional decision on whether such dragnet internet surveillance is lawful.
The FISA authorities in question, including Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, sunsetted on March 15, 2020, but, as detailed in the letter, this surveillance may be continuing.
The letter, signed by Americans for Prosperity, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, FreedomWorks, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, and others, is available here (pdf).
The following statement can be attributed to Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel for Demand Progress:
Throughout the 2020 PATRIOT Act reauthorization fight, Schiff has run point for Bill Barr to make sure Congress doesn't know what the law it is considering means, including whether it allows the FBI and NSA to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' internet activity.Schiff most recently provided for dragnet internet surveillance by cutting Dreamers and many other immigrants out of a proposed protection, which, in context, appears to have served as a loophole to protect something else: potential undisclosed surveillance of Americans' internet browsing and search histories.
The consequences of Schiff's actions are inescapable: In trying to hand the Trump administration Section 215, he repeatedly sabotaged efforts to protect privacy. This is dangerously bad law and dangerously bad oversight.
Ironically, if Schiff has been trying to sneak ratification of such surveillance through Congress, he has unwittingly demonstrated that he knows Congress wouldn't support it.
Demand Progress Education Fund and several other organizations called for transparency on May 7, but have not received an answer. Several members of Congress have pressed the issue further:
- May 20, Senator Wyden -- who famously prompted then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper to deny that the government was collecting records on "hundreds of millions of Americans" just months before the Snowden revelations began -- questioned whether dragnet surveillance of internet activity would be captured in public transparency reporting. He has not received an answer.
- July 21, Senators Leahy and Lee asked critically important, related questions in a letter to Attorney General Barr and Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe. They have requested an answer by August 7.
- July 22, the Senate intelligence committee released questions from Senator Wyden to the nominee for general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including whether Section 215 can be used for the collection of internet activity. Senator Wyden was once again refused an answer.
- July 28, Representative Lofgren challenged Attorney General Barr to disclose the legal authority upon which the government is basing domestic deployment of advanced surveillance techniques against protesters. Barr refused to provide a substantive answer.
Although Congress has not endorsed the use of Section 215 for warrantless internet dragnets, several pieces of information detailed in the organizations' new letter suggest it may have occurred or be occurring nonetheless.
Claims of surveillance authority under Executive Order 12333 also of concern
Moreover, although Congress has not endorsed distinct executive branch claims of authority that would effectively permit domestic mass surveillance under claimed inherent executive power, Chairman Schiff recently included the following rhetorical nod to such claims in the House's still-pending Intelligence Authorization Act:
although all elements of the intelligence community are authorized under Executive Order 12333 to provide assistance to law enforcement that is "not precluded by applicable law," activities that may be appropriate in the context of routine criminal investigations may nevertheless be inappropriate in the context of law enforcement response to protest or civil disturbances.
According to Congress.gov, this is the only time the phrase "not precluded by applicable law" has been included in legislation. The phrase comes directly from EO 12333 (Section 2.6, "Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities"), which enshrines the executive branch's own interpretation of its authority to conduct surveillance -- an interpretation that sees virtually no limit to what records the Trump administration can collect about people in the United States.
A longstanding pattern of surveillance overreach
Government surveillance practices that are based on legal interpretations that stretch -- or break -- the bounds of the law are not unusual. Over recent decades, the government has repeatedly relied on such flawed, secret legal interpretations to start illegal, domestic mass surveillance programs of unknowable impact. In 1992, during Bill Barr's first tenure as Attorney General, he personally authorized a DEA surveillance program, the "first known effort to gather records on Americans in bulk" -- and did so without legal review. That program operated for over 20 years before the public learned of its existence.
Stellarwind, a notorious program for which the DEA's bulk collection was a "precursor," was initiated in 2001 and operated for most of a decade in direct contradiction to FISA and the Constitution. After the public learned about Stellarwind, it too was shuttered -- while the government secretly shifted bulk collection of Americans' phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, creating a program that would also be shuttered once exposed by Edward Snowden.
Demand Progress Education Fund and the FreedomWorks Foundation have released numerous materials about Section 215 at www.Section215.org, including a graphic depiction of the government's unlawful collection of records since 2001.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Not in Our Name': Hundreds Arrested at Jewish-Led Protest Ahead of Netanyahu Speech
"The Israeli government is using U.S funding and weapons to slaughter and starve Palestinians in Gaza," said one peace advocate. "Americans—including Jewish Americans—are disgusted by our own government's complicity in this genocide."
Jul 24, 2024
Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested inside a U.S. House building on Tuesday while protesting the American government's continued support for Israel's assault on Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's forthcoming speech to Congress.
The protest was led by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and joined by members of several other organizations, including IfNotNow, Democratic Socialists of America, and Shoresh, a group of anti-Zionist Israelis based in the U.S.
JVP said 400 protesters—including more than a dozen rabbis—were arrested at the peaceful sit-in at the Cannon House Office Building rotunda. Protesters wore shirts that read "Not in Our Name" and "Jews Say Stop Arming Israel."
"For nine months, we've watched in horror as the Israeli government has carried out a genocide, armed and funded by the U.S.," said Stefanie Fox, JVP's executive director. "Congress and the Biden administration have the power to end this horror today. Instead, our president is preparing to meet with Netanyahu and congressional leadership has honored him with an invitation to address Congress. Enough is enough."
President Joe Biden and Congress "must listen to the people," Fox added. "We need an arms embargo now to save lives."
Jane Hirschmann, a daughter of Holocaust survivors and member of JVP, said that "the Israeli government is using U.S. funding and weapons to slaughter and starve Palestinians in Gaza."
"Americans—including Jewish Americans—are disgusted by our own government's complicity in this genocide," said Hirschmann. "The only way to reach a cease-fire and build a just future is for the U.S. to stop sending weapons to Israel now."
"Instead of platforming a war criminal, Congress should be imposing an arms embargo and using its leverage to force Netanyahu to end the bombing and bloodshed."
Netanyahu's visit to Washington, D.C. comes as the death toll from Israel's large-scale assault on Gaza nears 40,000 after almost 10 months of relentless bombing that has decimated much of the enclave's infrastructure and displaced 90% of its population. Earlier this week, Israel's military ordered the evacuation of another area previously designated as a safe zone and killed dozens of Palestinians in a fresh round of attacks.
Netanyahu has addressed Congress more than any other world leader. As The Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor noted Wednesday, "The first time Netanyahu addressed Congress was nearly three decades ago in 1996, when he and his right-wing allies had just come to power in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, whose efforts toward forging peace with the Palestinians that Netanyahu had opposed."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) formally invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint meeting of Congress in late May, just days after it became clear that Israeli forces used U.S.-made bombs in a devastating attack on a camp of displaced Palestinians.
"It is utterly shameful that U.S. lawmakers would invite war criminal Netanyahu to address Congress," JVP communications director Sonya Meyerson-Knox said in a statement after Tuesday's protest. "We are hundreds of American Jews calling on our elected leaders to stop funding and fueling this genocide."
In addition to grassroots protests against Netanyahu's visit—which are set to continue ahead of and during his speech—dozens of Democratic lawmakers are planning to boycott the prime minister's address, which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Following his speech to Congress, Netanyahu is planning to meet with President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday before traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to become the Democratic presidential nominee following Biden's exit from the 2024 race, has opted to attend a previously scheduled event in Indianapolis instead of presiding over Netanyahu's remarks.
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), one of the progressive lawmakers boycotting Netanyahu's speech, said in a statement Tuesday that "by bestowing Prime Minister Netanyahu with a joint address, Congress is not only continuing to green-light genocide; it is actively celebrating the man at the forefront of that genocide."
"Instead of platforming a war criminal, Congress should be imposing an arms embargo and using its leverage to force Netanyahu to end the bombing and bloodshed that has already killed over 39,000 Palestinians and failed to ensure the safe release of the vast majority of hostages, all while decimating schools, hospitals, homes, and humanitarian convoys," Bush added.
In remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also called Netanyahu a war criminal and said it is a "disgrace" that he was invited to speak to Congress.
"Netanyahu is a right-wing extremist and a war criminal who has devoted his career to killing the prospects of a two-state solution and lasting peace in the region," said Sanders. "He should not be welcomed to the United States Congress. On the contrary, his policies in Gaza and the West Bank should be roundly condemned and his right-wing extremist government should not receive another nickel from U.S. taxpayers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tens of Thousands Call for Federal Marijuana Decriminalization
"When it comes to the DOJ's proposal to reschedule marijuana, public opinion could not be clearer," said a campaigner with Drug Policy Alliance, which analyzed public comments on the pending change.
Jul 23, 2024
Shortly after the public comment period for the Biden administration's proposed rule to reschedule marijuana closed, a reform group on Tuesday released an analysis showing that the majority of submissions advocate for federal decriminalization.
When President Joe Biden pardoned U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents convicted of simple federal marijuana possession in October 2022, he also ordered the departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services to review how cannabis is treated under the Controlled Substances Act.
Marijuana is currently Schedule I, the federal law's most restrictive category, despite dozens of states allowing adult recreational or medicinal use. In May, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is part of the DOJ, proposed a shift to Schedule III and initiated the public comment period that ended Monday.
"Participation in public comment processes gives the American public a chance to speak from personal experience and provide feedback on proposed legal changes—and it gives the federal government an opportunity to adjust their proposals to reflect public opinion," said Cat Packer of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which reviewed submissions.
"When it comes to the DOJ's proposal to reschedule marijuana, public opinion could not be clearer," added Packer, DPA's director of drug markets and legal regulation. "Rescheduling is simply not enough."
As DPA detailed in a statement, after analyzing the 42,910 public comments, the group found:
- 69.3% or 29,750 of comments support descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level;
- 42.4% or 18,207 commentsmention the need for federal marijuana reform to advance racial justice or social equity; and
- 24% or 10,327 comments were submitted through a public comment tool hosted by United for Marijuana Decriminalization (UMD), a coalition that DPA convenes. These comments were the result of months of grassroots outreach to communities that have been impacted by marijuana criminalization.
"The people are demanding the Biden administration do more to deliver on the marijuana reforms that communities deserve," Packer said, pointing to previous promises from Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee to face former Republican President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election.
Packer highlighted that nearly half of the comments "recognize that ending federal criminalization is key to achieving racial justice and social equity," and "this is something that the Biden administration has repeatedly identified as a priority in their marijuana reform efforts."
"However, under Schedule III, communities of color would still face disproportionate harms and lifelong consequences from federal marijuana criminalization," she explained. "Under Schedule III, people could still be jailed or deported for marijuana violations, even in states where it is legal. Under Schedule III, people could lose their jobs, their housing, their... food stamp benefits, or even lose custody of their children for marijuana violations."
Earlier this month, DPA and Human Rights Watch released a 91-page report detailing how the U.S. War on Drugs has impacted the lives of immigrants, "punishing people with deep connections to the United States, where they have formed families, attained education, and built their lives."
Packer argued Tuesday that "if the Biden administration wants to be responsive to public opinion and live up to their own stated values of racial justice and repair, marijuana must be federally decriminalized and additional actions must be taken to end the lifelong collateral consequences that result from marijuana criminalization."
"This is a galvanizing moment for our movement for drug policies grounded in health, equity, and reinvestment," she stressed. "Even if marijuana is ultimately rescheduled through this process, there are additional actions that President Biden and Congress can take. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue working with our allies to urge President Biden to take a whole government approach to advance equity in federal marijuana policy and mitigate the harms of criminalization."
"That means expanding pardons and commutations, protecting state marijuana programs, and directing federal agencies to cease punishing people for marijuana use," she said. "We know that the people and the evidence are on our side. It is time that our federal government listened."
Despite support from top figures including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), there is little hope that the current divided Congress would decriminalize marijuana. As Marijuana Momentreported shortly before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was voted into his role last year, he "has consistently voted against cannabis-related legislation."
The cannabis industry analytics firm Headset on Tuesday also reviewed public submissions for the new proposal and noted that "this comment period has shattered previous DEA records, surpassing even the highly contentious 2020 telemedicine rules that garnered approximately 38,000 comments."
"To put this into perspective, that's roughly equivalent to the entire population of Juneau, the capital city of Alaska," the firm highlighted. "It's as if every resident of a small state capital took the time to voice their opinion on this crucial issue."
Headset found that 92.45% of comments were in favor of changing cannabis' schedule, with 61.7% of them advocating for descheduling and 38.3% supporting a shift to a less restrictive category. Just 7.55% wanted to retain Schedule I.
"Those supporting rescheduling emphasized potential medical benefits, increased research opportunities, and alignment with state laws," Headset said. "Proponents of descheduling, the largest group, advocated for complete legalization, citing social justice concerns, economic opportunities, and personal liberty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Woah!': FTC Applauded for Launching Inquiry Into Surveillance Pricing
"Firms that harvest Americans' personal data can put people's privacy at risk," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. "Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices."
Jul 23, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday launched an investigation into surveillance pricing and requested information from eight companies on the practice.
The FTC inquiry will look at the effect of surveillance pricing—using data on consumers' behavior or characteristics to manipulate the price for them as individuals—on privacy, competition, and consumer protection.
The agency asked Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase, Accenture, and McKinsey for information on the practice, as well as four less well-known companies that service major corporations.
"Firms that harvest Americans' personal data can put people's privacy at risk," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement. "Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices."
"Americans deserve to know whether businesses are using detailed consumer data to deploy surveillance pricing, and the FTC's inquiry will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen," she added.
1. Firms harvest a trove of Americans’ personal data, from your browsing history to your biometrics. Now firms could be using this data to target you with an individualized price.
Today @FTC launched an inquiry into these surveillance pricing tactics. https://t.co/G4uc8lHWOV
— Lina Khan (@linakhanFTC) July 23, 2024
Progressive advocacy groups, which have long considered Khan to be one of their strongest allies in the Biden administration, and which argue that discriminatory pricing is unfair, celebrated the FTC's announcement.
"We're thrilled to see the FTC crack down on the dystopian practice of surveillance pricing," Lee Hepner, legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. "It's chilling to think that companies have so much control over our lives that they can leverage personal data they've harvested—including your location, demographic, and shopping history—to turn our habits against us and hike up prices on essential goods. But it's already happening."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens also praised the FTC move, warning that "a personalized price might sound nice, but it is actually a three-part corporate strategy to spy on you, isolate you, and overcharge you."
"Today's investigation is an important step in cracking down on the methods big corporations use to spy on consumers to rip them off," Owens said in a statement.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, a director at Demand Progress Education Fund, said in a statement that Tuesday's announcement was "another strong sign that the FTC is fighting for consumer power over corporate power."
Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University who has helped lead the opposition to surveillance pricing, reacted with excitement on Tuesday.
"Woah!" she wrote on social media. "The FTC is going there! So excited to see the FTC launching a full study into how companies use data to serve different prices to different people. We know the incentive and capacity is there, but the reality of surveillance pricing has been a triple-locked black box!"
Advocates of surveillance pricing sometimes call it personalized pricing and argue that it efficiently allocates resources. Such pricing questions are the subject of great interest among business school academics, especially at elite institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, according to a detailed article in The American Prospect last month.
A crackdown on the practice could conceivably have support across the political spectrum. Stock guru Jim Cramer of CNBC—a frequent and vociferous critic of Khan—praised the FTC's announcement on air on Tuesday, while expressing disbelief that he was doing so.
7/ Even @jimcramer agrees that surveillance pricing is not an honest or ethical way to treat customers.
“How could you live with yourself?” if you’re a business that uses this strategy, he asked this morning.
“That is a great report. I agree with [@FTC].” pic.twitter.com/23HEDk8Yqf
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) July 23, 2024
All five FTC commissioners, including two Republicans, voted to move forward with the investigation, which will focus on intermediary firms—"the middlemen enabling firms to algorithmically tweak and target their prices," according to a blog post the FTC also published Tuesday.
The requests for information don't indicate that the eight firms engaged in wrongdoing, but rather that they can be useful sources of information, an unnamed FTC official toldThe Hill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular