The Cato Institute hosted a day-long conference on government surveillance and privacy issues. This portion included a panel discussion analyzing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and various National Security Agency surveillance programs.
Among the witnesses testifying were officials from the FBI, Justice Department and National Security Agency (NSA). The USA Freedom Act, enacted in June 2015, extended several expiring government surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act including the roving wiretap, business records and lone wolf provisions. Intelligence officials called on Congress to renew the NSA's call records program, which gathers information on incoming and outgoing domestic text messages and phone calls to aid the government during terrorism investigations.
The House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). ... Representatives from the Justice Department, FBI, and National Security Agency provided testimony on their agencies' use of the provisions and urged lawmakers to reauthorize the programs.
National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers participated in a discussion on the pending renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows surveillance on foreign citizens under specific circumstances. Admiral Rogers talked about some of the ways Section 702 authorities had been helpful to the intelligence community in thwarting terrorist plots, and the safeguards in place to prevent accidental surveillance of American citizens, which is disallowed under the statute.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). ... Among the witnesses were counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the National Security Agency (NSA), representatives from the FBI and Justice Department, a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who served in the Obama administration.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Director of National Intelligence Director Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Admiral Michael Rogers, and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified at a hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Professor Friedman argued that law enforcement agencies, whether it's the local police or the FBI or NSA, are allowed to operate in secret in determining how to police citizens. He also said that new technologies have changed policing significantly and that technology providing wide surveillance and tracking makes us all suspects.
National Security Agency, a case challenging the National Security Agency's (NSA) mass interception and searching of Americans' international internet communications. ... The issue concerned the NSA's "upstream" surveillance program which searched communications such as emails, chats, and web-browsing traffic as it traveled back and forth between the U.S. and foreign entities on the "internet backbone," a network of high-capacity cables, switches, and routers that carry Americans' domestic and international internet communications. On May 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Wikimedia Foundation has standing to challenge the NSA's mass interception of Americans' international internet communications.
House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-CA) discussed the committee report approved that day on the investigation into the activities of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who leaked U.S. military documents and information about NSA surveillance and data collection in 2013.
Mohamed Mohamud, a case challenging the National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless surveillance program. ... Mohamed Mohamud was appealing his conviction and challenging the government's use of the NSAsurveillance program that collects information from online communications and the international phone calls of Americans without a warrant. This was the first time an appeals court would decide if a defendant's constitutional rights had been violated by the NSA's surveillance program.