House Passes Bill To Limit NSA Spying - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Government // Open Government

House Passes Bill To Limit NSA Spying

Bill would stop NSA bulk collection of phone bill data, but privacy advocates say it lacks teeth.

5 Online Tools Uncle Sam Wants You To Use
5 Online Tools Uncle Sam Wants You To Use
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

The US House of Representatives passed a bill by a substantial majority on May 22 that would prohibit the federal government from the bulk collection of metadata on Americans' telephonic and electronic communications and put in place tighter controls on government access to such information.

"With today's vote, the House approved the first significant rollback of government surveillance since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978," said key lawmakers who backed the bill in a joint statement released Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee. "While this is not a perfect bill, the USA Freedom Act is an important step in the right direction."

House passage of the USA Freedom Act (H.R. 3361) comes almost a year after the National Security Agency spying scandal broke in June 2013. The bill was introduced on October 29, 2013, by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Civil liberties groups and a number of technology giants originally supported the bill, but they recently withdrew their support on the grounds that the bill was gutted in last-minute negotiations with the White House.

[Cisco's CEO complains of alleged NSA interception of networking gear. Read: NSA Reports Prompt Chambers To Ask Obama For Changes.]

In addition to its prohibition on bulk collection of data, the bill increases protection of Americans' privacy by stipulating that details of call records can only be collected on a continuing basis after approval has been received by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

To help ensure Americans' privacy, the bill would require the federal government to take steps to minimize the acquisition of Americans' business records and prevent the government from retaining such information.

The bill boosts oversight of federal intelligence gathering programs by providing judicial review of government efforts to minimize collection of business records. At the same time, the bill would establish a panel of experts to ensure the FISA court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of Americans.

Importantly, the bill requires the government to disclose the number of requests made for call detail records and requires the Administrative Office of the US Courts to publicly report on an annual basis the number of FISA orders issued, modified, or denied by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The bill would give technology companies new ways to report data concerning requests for customer information made under FISA by allowing them to inform their American and foreign customers when they receive national security requests.

Sensenbrenner expressed some disappointment that the bill passed did not have the force of the original one.

"While I wish it more closely resembled the bill I originally introduced, the legislation passed today is a step forward in our efforts to reform the government's surveillance authorities," he said in a statement. "It bans bulk collection, includes important privacy provisions and sends a clear message to the NSA: We are watching you."

While some groups have withdrawn their support for the bill in the wake of amendments that they feel diluted the strength of the original version, others see it as a step in the right direction that affords citizens and businesses essential protections.

"The legislation is a step towards ending the broad intelligence gathering that angers so many Americans," said Daniel Castro, senior analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "While it does not go as far as most advocates would like in limiting certain types of government surveillance of communications, the bill does make an effort to curtail bulk collection of personal data."

Others were harsher in their assessment.

"The ban on bulk collection was deliberately watered down to be ambiguous and exploitable," said Harley Geiger, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We withdrew support for USA Freedom when the bill morphed into a codification of large-scale, untargeted collection of data about Americans with no connection to a crime or terrorism."

NIST's cyber security framework gives critical-infrastructure operators a new tool to assess readiness. But will operators put this voluntary framework to work? Read the Protecting Critical Infrastructure issue of InformationWeek Government today. 

William Welsh is a contributing writer to InformationWeek Government. He has covered the government IT market since 2000 for publications such as Washington Technology and Defense Systems. View Full Bio

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Ninja
5/28/2014 | 12:32:30 PM
Re: Compromising
I tend to agree with you Joe Limiting NSA's activities means stabilizing the economy a little bit. It's hard for a company like Amazon to start up it s business operations in a country that many people view USA as an enemy. They will suspect that the company through creating its data centre in that country they would be relaying information to the NSA and this will not go hand in hand with business.
the devil
the devil,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/24/2014 | 11:46:11 PM
Re: Compromising
User Rank: Apprentice
5/24/2014 | 5:03:16 PM
Re: Compromising
You're WAY oversimplifying the situation....Amazon, IBM, etc. are ALREADY worldwide companies with data centers all over the world.  Just because a data center is overseas, do you think that makes it so the NSA cannot make a request of a company doing (lots) of business in the U.S., to turn over records of converstations between U.S. residents and suspected overseas terrorists?  The data could be stored on a server in Timbuktu, but the company would have to provide the info to NSA, unless it had no presence in the U.S.A., which isn't going to happen anytime soon......another consideration is, we have friendly countries worldwide, and this is more than just NSA, don't you think the British, French, etc., have the same type of organization, and don't you think they just may be sharing it with NSA and vice versa (e.g., they're working together)???  Boy, news agencies really try to blind people to the reality of the situation, trying to oversimplify things to stir up anomosity with the NSA....
Charlie Babcock
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
5/23/2014 | 7:02:12 PM
Who's watching who?
Sen. Sensenbrenner says his bill sends "a clear message to the NSA: 'We are watching you.'" I hope he stays on his best behavior because it's probably the other way around.
User Rank: Strategist
5/23/2014 | 11:53:29 AM
Pervasive economic credibility
I agree that our economic realities depend on our credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. While the US does represent a disproportionate market share in terms of worldwide consumption of consumer goods, it has fallen short in protecting consumer rights, especially in the area of privacy. This necessarily has an economic effect, take for example European tolerance of US (corporate) policy.

It is one thing to collect bulk data, and another to protect and inure. Using Rumsfeldian logic we cannot be sure where government control of bulk data will lead, but we can observe how it has impacted other countries.

Now we just need a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United so that the premise of egalitarian principles can once again act in our stead. Why? Try researching BHA and BHT food additives as an example.
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
5/23/2014 | 10:37:35 AM
The problem with passing compromise bills is it then becomes nigh impossible to get the other side/interests to agree to what you really want down the line.  (In their minds, they've already given in.)

The problem with not passing compromise bills is that, once in a while, it's the best you can get.

That said, forget privacy and the individual for a moment.  It's in the best interest of the country to limit NSA surveillance measures in a serious, major, meaningful way if for no other reason than economics.  Foreign customers have fled from the US market; some are refusing to do business with any cloud provider that cooperates with PRISM.  Meanwhile, cloud heavies like IBM, Amazon, and are scrambling to build data centers abroad.  And that potentially represents offshore earnings that will likely not be repatriated for tax purposes.  (Remember the Apple hearings?)
Top 10 Data and Analytics Trends for 2021
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  11/13/2020
Where Cloud Spending Might Grow in 2021 and Post-Pandemic
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  11/19/2020
The Ever-Expanding List of C-Level Technology Positions
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  11/10/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Current Issue
Why Chatbots Are So Popular Right Now
In this IT Trend Report, you will learn more about why chatbots are gaining traction within businesses, particularly while a pandemic is impacting the world.
Flash Poll