Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a well-known privacy eagle who has served on the Senate Intelligence Committee since 9/11, calls the new rules “one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions in government surveillance authorities in history.”
According to the efforts of ACLU and other organizations, new businesses that can actually be considered new businesses are a clear step. “Without this basic transparency, the law may continue to allow national national security services surveillance on domestic soils that threaten the civil liberties of all Americans,” the organizations wrote in a letter to Gabbard this week.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
In addition to urging Gabbard to decrypt details about the coverage of the 702 program, the ACLU and others are currently urging Gabbard to release information to quantify how many Americans have been eavesdropped on by their own administration “by chance”. Intelligence officials have long claimed that doing so is “impossible” because any analysis of eavesdropping would involve an unfair government access to them, effectively violating the rights of these Americans.
However, these privacy groups point to a 2022 study published at Princeton University, which details a way to effectively solve the problem. “The intelligence community refuses to generate the required estimates that undermine trust and weakens the legitimacy of Article 702,” the groups said.
Gabbard has reportedly eased his stance against government espionage while working to secure a new position as director of the U.S. intelligence agency. For example, during the 116th Congress, Gabbard introduced legislation to attempt to completely remove the Section 702 program, which is considered “the crown jewel” or U.S. intelligence gathering, and is even more enormous for maintaining foreign threats abroad, including terrorist organizations and threats to cybersecurity, which is greater than those traditional campaigns.
In fact, Gabbard’s new perspective made her more aligned with mainstream reformers when he begged for the position in January. For example, in response to questions from the U.S. Senate in confirmation, Gabbard supported the idea of asking the FBI to obtain an arrest warrant before visiting the 702 program to sweep Americans.
From former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, a former House Intelligence Committee chairman, has long opposed the National Security Eagles killings demanded by the warrant, as there are traditionally all directors of the FBI. “This guarantee requirement has been strengthened [intelligence community] By ensuring the inquiry is targeted and reasonable,” Gabbard wrote in late January in response to Senate questions.
Last spring, the Section 702 program was reauthorized, but lasted only two years. Early discussions about re-authorization of the plan will be discussed again as early as this summer.
Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, is one of the organizations involved in lobbying efforts, noting that Gabbard has a long history in supporting civil liberties and referring to her recent statement on “encouraging” of the covert surveillance program. “Congress needs to know, the public should know, what Section 702 is using, and how many Americans are sweeping through this surveillance,” Witka said.
“Section 702 has been repeatedly used to conduct unauthorized surveillance of Americans, including journalists, activists and even members of Congress,” added Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy adviser at ACLU. “Decrypting critical information and providing long-term expired basic data on the number of people gathered under this surveillance is an important step towards increasing transparency with the next re-authorization approach to debate.”
