Consider the misleading legislative name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which provides no real patient protections nor affordable health care for everyone. So why should we believe that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Improvements Act of 2013 (S. 1631) is not similarly mislead in order to provide Congress and the President with talking points to reduce the public’s outcry if they actually knew what was contained in this bill.

• First consideration: what part of “Foreign” does the government not understand when this legislation authorizes the NSA’s current practice of collecting bulk telephone records of hundreds of millions of innocent Americans located here in America and without any foreign intelligence contacts or connections?
• Second consideration: what part of “Foreign” does the government not understand when this legislation authorizes the NSA’s current practice of collecting bulk internet traffic of hundreds of millions of domestic Americans located here in America and without any foreign intelligence contacts or connections.

Not that I am opposed to the collection of information that has a “nexus” or connection to foreign intelligence or terrorist activities, such as browsing the known websites of foreign radicals, terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers. In cases of prosecution, this means having prior probable cause that can be judicially reviewed.

What I oppose is the bulk collection of all electronic records and the storage of these records in a repository for later use for purposes unintended when this legislation was being sold to the American people. The most chilling scenarios relating to the bulk collection and storage of electronic records that I can think of are:

1. Allowing access and uses of this data store for purposes unrelated to foreign intelligence or national security by unrelated governmental agencies involved in domestic law enforcement, healthcare, etc. now or sometime in the future. Once this information is collected, all context relating to the actual reasons behind such collected information is lost; thus innocent remarks or messages can make an innocent person appear guilty – possibly for private, political, or profitable reasons.
2. Looking back in the data archive to obtain information that may be used to blackmail or extort elected officials, government workers, corporate employees, or individuals.
3. Looking back in the data archive to obtain “proof of intent” to prove the “intent” element of a crime using unrelated information that appears to incriminate an innocent individual.
4. Looking back in the data archives to obtain “legal” sources to obtain the same information – sort of reverse engineering the sources by demanding that another party to the transaction reveal the data in question under duress or the penalty of prosecution. Some may refer to this as the “Elliot Spitzer” ploy where innocent parties are threatened with prosecution unless the suspect “voluntarily” complies with the investigator’s or prosecutor’s requests.
5. Allowing those who hold the “keys to the kingdom” to alter data for personal, political, and profit-related purposes.

Again, I do not mind the concept of data mining to discover foreign intelligence operations and/or safeguard national security. But, that acquiescence is not without caveats.

1. That the information is cryptographically secure from foreign or domestic intrusion attempts.
2. That strong, inerasable, access logs be maintained and that there is a mechanism for the public to review such records through a court-appointed “special master” or other intermediary with a duty to the person of interest rather than the government.
3. That all information retrieved is subject to legal review.
4. That there be significant penalties for any government employee, agent, contractor, or informant who accesses or releases protected information, or creates a false record, for personal, political, or profit-related purposes. And that these penalties make no provisions for protection under the color of authority, plea bargaining, parole, time off for good behavior – and are substantial enough to deter the misuse of data.
5. That there be no secret laws or rulings with regard to data collection and access. While the data may be classified, the rules governing its use and access, as well as the accountability of the persons charged with safeguarding the information, shall be publicly accessible. That there are no FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) or “Executive Exception” relating to the access, use, and disposition of the data.
6. That there be a formal records retention policy, similar to the statute of limitations, providing how and when collected information shall be destroyed and the manner and certification of its destruction. Again, with severe penalties for non-compliance with the law.
7. That no subsequent law, such as the Affordable Care Act, allow access to this data.
8. That specific, rather than general, guidelines be given regarding security, access, and logging – and not leaving these functions to the hyper-politicized heads of intelligence, law enforcement, or judicial agencies. If it sounds like I do not trust our government, given what we have seen under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, can you blame me?

So what is Diane Feinstein really proposing?

Like all progressive socialist democrats, Diane Feinstein’s bill should not be treated under the Nancy Pelosi rule: you have to pass it in order to find out what is in it. The bill must be a single purpose bill with no amendments not related to the bill. The bill must demand that if there are any technical corrections or amendments, the entire law must be repealed and reintroduced. And, that every legislator voting on this legislation, sign an affidavit that they have read and understood the bill, under penalty of perjury, prior to the vote. (If such a thing can be permitted among corrupt and lying politicians.)

So with this in mind, you may wish to read the proposed legislation for yourself.  While the bill is written in English, it does contain some degree of legalese and that some of the language suggests that loopholes and provisions for ignoring the law may already have been built into the legislation. Since this bill is still in progress, there are ample opportunities for the democrats and their sycophantic RINO allies to subvert the intent, meaning, and implementation of this legislation.

Bottom line …

Since this bill, like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was crafted behind closed doors by progressive socialist democrats operating in one of the least transparent, accountable, and untruthful administrations, this law needs to be carefully scrutinized by subject matter experts, such as those found at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (www.eff.org).

Sorry to say, I do not trust Diane Feinstein any more than I trust Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, or any of the other corrupt and complicit pols.

-- steve

Related articles

Feinstein's NSA bill shows she doesn't have a clue about intelligence reform | Michelle Richardson

Senate Legislation Legitimizes Lawless Surveillance

Senator Diane Feinstein Wants To Make NSA Spying On YOU A Law

Bill Proposed by Sen. Feinstein would Incriminate Anyone Who Would Speak Against Courts and NSA's Spying

Senate Legislation Legitimizes Lawless Surveillance

The Right to Privacy and New Data Analysis

Sen. Dianne Feinstein vs. Snowden & American Citizenry

Sen. Feinstein's Proposed Bill Would Incriminate Anyone Speaking Against NSA's Spying and Courts