Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: ALL (Electronic AND Surveillance) in: title or summary

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 121 - 150 (of 250) sorted by relevance sort by date

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): An Overview [March 10, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Introduction: "Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. FISA provides a statutory framework for government agencies to obtain authorization to gather foreign intelligence by means of (1) electronic surveillance, (2) physical searches, (3) pen registers and trap and trace devices (which record or decode dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information), or (4) the production of business records and other tangible things. Agencies typically request authorization for such activities from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a specialized court created by FISA to act as a neutral arbiter of agency requests for FISA orders."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Lobert, Joshua T.

2020-03-10
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire February 28, 2011 [February 10, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on February 28, 2011. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two amendments were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Although these provisions are set to sunset, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2011-02-10
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015 [June 16, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework by which government agencies may, when gathering foreign intelligence investigation, obtain authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical searches, utilize pen registers and trap and trace devices, or access specified business records and other tangible things. Authorization for such activities is typically obtained via a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a specialized court created to act as a neutral judicial decision maker in the context of FISA. Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, in part, to 'provid[e] enhanced investigative tools' to 'assist in the prevention of future terrorist activities and the preliminary acts and crimes which further such activities.' That act and subsequent measures amended FISA to enable the government to obtain information in a greater number of circumstances."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2011-06-16
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire May 27, 2011 [May 13, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on May 27, 2011. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two amendments were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Although these provisions are set to sunset, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2011-05-13
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire in 2009 [October 29, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on December 31, 2009. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Henning, Anna C.; Liu, Edward C.

2009-10-29
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Set to Expire in 2009 [March 16, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Several recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will sunset on December 31, 2009. H.R. 1467, introduced in the 111th Congress, would extend these three provisions until December 31, 2019. Section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA), also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, changed the rules regarding the types of individuals that could be targets of FISA-authorized searches. It permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism, without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT ACT amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT enlarged the scope of documents that could be sought under FISA, and lowered the standard required before issuance of a court order compelling the production of documents. While these provisions will cease to be prospectively effective on December 31, 2009, a grandfather clause permits them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2009-03-16
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire May 27, 2011

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on May 27, 2011. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligencegathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two amendments were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2011-05-20
Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the WHO African Region: Booklet Four: Sections 8 and 9

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This booklet comprises the following sections of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response Technical Guidelines: Section 8: Monitor, evaluate, supervise and provide feedback to improve surveillance and response; and Section 9: Electronic Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (eIDSR[).]"

World Health Organization

2019-03
Ghosts in the Machines?

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
The author cites law enforcement as a primary area where global information security can be enhanced. He calls for "the harmonization of national laws against computer attack, multinational cooperation in tracing attacks across national lines, international treaties on extradition of attackers, and a readiness to impose sanctions on those who protect attackers." He believes a willingness to share information on research and development, on attack indications and warnings, and on attack incidents and responses "can also improve the efficacy of each nation's protective measures." Computer attacks, if sufficiently systematic, may be war by other means -- hence "information warfare," as an overarching concept. But information warfare understood broadly -- attacking an adversary's information and decision processes -- is as old as warfare itself. Such tactics encompass psychological operations, attacks on an enemy's command apparatus, espionage and counter-espionage, and operations against adversary infrastructures and surveillance systems. During the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) there were incidents of propaganda operations, snipers targeting opposing generals and observers in hot-air balloons, marauders tearing up telegraph lines, cavalry pickets and counter-cavalry demonstrations -- all information warfare. World War II saw the advent of electronic warfare in the form of radar, electronic deception, radio-frequency jamming, codemaking, and computer-aided codebreaking. Two indicators may reveal a great deal about the true risk from systems attack. One is how people react to the year 2000 computer problem. Assume a large share of the world's information systems crash at midnight on December 31, 1999. Will panic and paralysis result, or will people quickly find ways of working around the problem or doing without information for awhile? If lawsuits erupt, what precedents will be established to assign responsibility to people for harm done if their systems fail? The other harbinger is of more recent origin. Were one to imagine the most plausible perpetrator of serious information warfare terrorism, it would be someone with nothing that can be held at risk (i.e., not a country), several hundred million dollars in hidden cash, an appreciation of technology, an international network of nefarious friends, and a vicious score (real or imagined) to settle with the United States or some other nation. Sound familiar? If it does, what happens in the next year may reveal whether powerful individuals or groups might try to bring a country to its knees through information warfare -- or whether they direct their efforts elsewhere.

United States. Department of State

Libicki, Martin C.

1998-11
Grand Challenges of Counter-Terrorism

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
In this document, Jay Davis presents what he considers to be the five greatest challenges in the War on Terrorism: "1) We will need to make the maximum use of electronic surveillance (communication and fiscal transfers, coordinated with the electronic and visual signatures of human movement into our country) to locate and interrupt terrorist cells before they can act. This is the highest leverage method, and one most difficult to couple with our society's values of privacy and avoidance of government abuse. 2) The second challenge is securing the materials and knowledge of weapons of mass destruction leaking from Russia, and detecting their development in countries that will not obey international norms. This requires protection and support in Russia, and all-source intelligence in the other places. 3) The third challenge is in developing response techniques for Consequence Management to minimize the effects of WMD terrorism (both operational tools and materials such as vaccines) and for attribution capabilities to support the real threat of retribution, hence strengthening deterrence. 4) The fourth challenge is in developing the sensors and detectors to protect places and events of high importance. 5) My fifth and final grand challenge is in the area of education, training and practice against scenarios. These are the least expensive tools but personally and organizationally the most threatening ones required. I put this at the end of my list because it is cheap but vital."

Center for Global Security Research

Davis, Jay

2001
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief [May 19, 2015]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This is an abbreviated version of an earlier report, CRS Report R40980, 'Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization'. Both discuss the legal background associated with the sunset of various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and of subsequent related legislation, although neither report seeks to track contemporary legislative developments. Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept email and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. […] Subsequent legislation made most of these changes permanent. However, a number of authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are still temporary. For example, subsequent legislation set June 1, 2015, as the expiration date for three such provisions (the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA). Additionally, provisions added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, relating to the use of foreign intelligence tools to target individuals while they are reasonably believed to be abroad, will expire on December 31, 2017."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.; Doyle, Charles

2015-05-19
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues [December 7, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The current legislative and oversight activity with respect to electronic surveillance under FISA has drawn national attention to several overarching issues. This report briefly outlines three such issues and touches upon some of the perspectives reflected in the ongoing debate. These issues include the inherent and often dynamic tension between national security and civil liberties, particularly rights of privacy and free speech; the need identified by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Admiral Mike McConnell, for the Intelligence Community to be able to efficiently and effectively collect foreign intelligence information from the communications of foreign persons located outside the United States in a changing, fast paced, and technologically sophisticated international environment, and the differing approaches suggested to meet this need; and limitations of liability for those electronic communication service providers who furnish aid to the federal government in its foreign intelligence collection. Two constitutional provisions, in particular, are implicated in this debate -- the Fourth and First Amendments."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bazan, Elizabeth B.

2007-12-07
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues [December 14, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The current legislative and oversight activity with respect to electronic surveillance under FISA has drawn national attention to several overarching issues. This report briefly outlines three such issues and touches upon some of the perspectives reflected in the ongoing debate. These issues include the inherent and often dynamic tension between national security and civil liberties, particularly rights of privacy and free speech; the need identified by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Admiral Mike McConnell, for the Intelligence Community to be able to efficiently and effectively collect foreign intelligence information from the communications of foreign persons located outside the United States in a changing, fast paced, and technologically sophisticated international environment, and the differing approaches suggested to meet this need; and limitations of liability for those electronic communication service providers who furnish aid to the federal government in its foreign intelligence collection. Two constitutional provisions, in particular, are implicated in this debate -- the Fourth and First Amendments."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bazan, Elizabeth B.

2007-12-14
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues [Updated February 8, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The current legislative and oversight activity with respect to electronic surveillance under FISA has drawn national attention to several overarching issues. This report briefly outlines three such issues and touches upon some of the perspectives reflected in the ongoing debate. These issues include the inherent and often dynamic tension between national security and civil liberties, particularly rights of privacy and free speech; the need identified by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Admiral Mike McConnell, for the Intelligence Community to be able to efficiently and effectively collect foreign intelligence information from the communications of foreign persons located outside the United States in a changing, fast paced, and technologically sophisticated international environment, and the differing approaches suggested to meet this need; and limitations of liability for those electronic communication service providers who furnish aid to the federal government in its foreign intelligence collection. Two constitutional provisions, in particular, are implicated in this debate - the Fourth and First Amendments."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bazan, Elizabeth B.

2008-02-08
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [June 16, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. […] Subsequent legislation made most of these changes permanent. However, a number of authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are still temporary. Three such provisions (the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA) are set to expire on June 1, 2015. Additionally, provisions added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, relating to the use of foreign intelligence tools to target individuals while they are reasonably believed to be abroad, will expire on December 31, 2012."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Doyle, Charles; Liu, Edward C.

2011-06-16
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [March 2, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. [...] Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2011: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The 111th Congress replaced an earlier expiration date with the 2011 date. Before that change was made, the impending expiration prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. [...] This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Doyle, Charles; Henning, Anna C. . . .

2010-03-02
Wiretap Report 2012

Show summary Open resource [html] (open full abstract)
"This is the annual report to Congress concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications required by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, § 802, Pub. L. No. 90-351 and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2519(3). Section 2519(3) requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) to report the number of federal and state 'applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications pursuant to this chapter and the number of orders and extensions granted or denied pursuant to this chapter during the preceding calendar year,' along with a summary and analysis of data required to be filed with the AO. This report does not include data on interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which the AO is not authorized to collect or report. […] The number of federal and state wiretaps reported in 2012 increased 24 percent from 2011. A total of 3,395 wiretaps were reported as authorized in 2012--1,354 authorized by federal judges and 2,041 by state judges. Compared to the applications approved during 2011, the number approved by federal judges increased 71 percent in 2012, and the number approved by state judges rose 5 percent. Two state wiretap applications were denied in 2012. In 24 states, a total of 120 separate local jurisdictions (including counties, cities, and judicial districts) reported wiretap applications for 2012. Applications in California, New York, and Nevada accounted for 69 percent of all applications approved by state judges. Seventy-seven federal jurisdictions submitted reports for 2012. The Northern District of Illinois authorized the most federal wiretaps (90), approximately 7 percent of total applications approved by federal judges."

United States. Administrative Office of the United States Courts

2013
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [December 23, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the Act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Henning, Anna C.; Doyle, Charles; Bazan, Elizabeth B.

2009-12-23
Use of Automated Ambulatory-Care Encounter Records for Detection of Acute Illness Clusters, Including Potential Bioterrorism Events

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
The advent of domestic bioterrorism has emphasized the need for enhanced detection of clusters of acute illness. We describe a monitoring system operational in eastern Massachusetts, based on diagnoses obtained from electronic records of ambulatory-care encounters. Within 24 hours, ambulatory and telephone encounters recording patients with diagnoses of interest are identified and merged into major syndrome groups. Counts of new episodes of illness, rates calculated from health insurance records, and estimates of the probability of observing at least this number of new episodes are reported for syndrome surveillance. Census tracts with unusually large counts are identified by comparing observed with expected syndrome frequencies. During 1996-1999, weekly counts of new cases of lower respiratory syndrome were highly correlated with weekly hospital admissions. This system complements emergency room- and hospital-based surveillance by adding the capacity to rapidly identify clusters of illness, including potential bioterrorism events.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)

Lazarus, Ross

2002-08
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Before and After the USA PATRIOT Act

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark upon America and an overshadowing feeling of vulnerability. They also created a determination to respond to the new national security threats they represented. Congress reacted to these threats by passing laws providing new tools to fight terrorism. Perhaps, the most controversial recent act of Congress is the United and Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 20011 (USA PATRIOT Act) and its impact upon the use of electronic surveillance and physical searches authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)2 to combat foreign threats. Some Americans fear the actions taken by Congress may infringe upon basic American liberties. Benjamin Franklin warned that " those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."3 The government must use its new tools in a way that preserves the rights and freedoms guaranteed by America's democracy, but, at the same time, ensure that the fight against terrorism is vigorous and effective. No American should be forced to seek safety over liberty. This article briefly examines FISA and the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act upon it.

United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Bulzomi, Michael J.

2003-06
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 113: A Bill to Amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to Cover Individuals, other than United States Persons, Who Engage in International Terrorism without Affiliation with an International Terrorist Group

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"CBO estimates that implementing S. 113 would not result in any significant cost to the federal government. Enacting S. 113 could affect direct spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. S. 113 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. S. 113 would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to expand the definition of "agent of a foreign power." Under the bill, this designation would include persons (other than U.S. persons) who engage in or prepare for international terrorist acts on their own. This would enable the Attorney General to use electronic surveillance to acquire information on such individuals. CBO expects that any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant because of the small number of cases likely to be affected. Any such additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 113 could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts (revenues), which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would be negligible because of the small number of cases involved."

United States. Congressional Budget Office

2003-03-14
HPSCI Memorandum Sparks Debate Over FISA Application Requirements [February 14, 2018]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The recent disclosure by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) of a declassified memorandum written by HPSCI majority staff has sparked a renewed conversation about the government's longstanding authority to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), as amended. [...] A central factual question that appears to be disputed by the competing memoranda is the degree to which information potentially undermining the FISA application's reliability was omitted from the application. Although CRS is not in a position to answer that factual question, this Sidebar endeavors to explain the legal requirements regarding the government's obligation to include countervailing information in FISA applications."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Liu, Edward C.

2018-02-14
Encryption and Evolving Technology: Implications for U.S. Law Enforcement Investigations [February 18, 2016]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Because modern-day criminals are constantly developing new tools and techniques to facilitate their illicit activities, law enforcement is challenged with leveraging its tools and authorities to keep pace. For instance, interconnectivity and technological innovation have not only fostered international business and communication, they have also helped criminals carry out their operations. At times, these same technological advances have presented unique hurdles for law enforcement and officials charged with combating malicious actors. Technology as a barrier for law enforcement is by no means a new issue in U.S. policing. In the 1990s, for instance, there were concerns about digital and wireless communications potentially hampering law enforcement in carrying out court-authorized surveillance. To help combat these challenges, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA; P.L. 103-414), which among other things, required telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement in executing authorized electronic surveillance."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Finklea, Kristin M.

2016-02-18
Proposed Change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Under S. 113 [Updated May 19, 2003]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Senate recently passed S. 113, a bill in the 108th Congress to extend the coverage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') to non-United States persons who engage in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism, without a showing of membership in or affiliation with an international terrorist group. FISA provides a means by which the government can obtain approval to conduct electronic surveillance (wiretap) and other searches with respect to a foreign power or its agents in order to obtain intelligence related to espionage, terrorism, or other matters involving national security."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Elsea, Jennifer

2003-05-19
Serial No. 109-20: Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act: Sections 201, 202, 223, of the Act that Address Criminal Wiretaps, and Section 213 of the Act that Addresses Delayed Notice: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, May 3, 2005

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the opening statement of Howard Coble: "Today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on criminal authorities for surveillance and search warrants. We are examining three sections of the PATRIOT Act that are sunsetting, and one section that is not, but has become controversial. Sections 201 and 202 of the PATRIOT Act create new wiretap predicates. Wiretap predicates are serious crimes enumerated in the Federal Criminal Code, but fall under one of the limited circumstances for which Congress authorized the use of a wiretap or electric surveillance. Sections 201 and 202 in no way change the strict limitations on when wiretaps may be used, as Congress dictated in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That Act outlines what is and what is not permissible with regard to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. Title III restrictions go beyond fourth amendment constitutional protections and include a statutory suppression rule to exclude evidence that was collected in violation of title III. Section 223 of the PATRIOT Act added additional safeguards against abuse by amending the Federal Criminal Code to provide for administrative discipline of Federal officers or employees, as well as for similar actions to be brought against the United States for damages by a person aggrieved by such illegal disclosures." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Howard Coble, Robert C. Scott, Michael J. Sullivan, Chuck Rosenberg, Heather Mac Donald, Bob Barr, and William E. Moschella.

United States. Government Printing Office

2005-05-03
Public Law 95-511: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"An Act [t]o authorize electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'."

United States. Government Printing Office

1978-10-25
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): An Overview

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978. This legislation was the Congressional response to the exposure during multiple Committee hearings of previous abuses of U.S. persons' privacy rights by certain components of the United States government. Those abuses had occurred, according to the government, as part of its efforts to counter purported threats to national security. Unquestionably, such threats existed in and before 1978; beyond peradventure, however, they pale in comparison to the threats to national security that the United States currently faces. Those threats bear the face of terrorism, primarily foreign but domestic as well. Though FISA is not a legally usable tool for combating domestic terrorism, its electronic surveillance and physical search authority are legal and very effective methods for monitoring the activities of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers while they operate within the United States. Increasingly, indeed, overwhelmingly, the current objective of such operational activities is to thwart terrorist acts. [...] In the face of the foregoing, it is no wonder then that our Congress has recently enhanced the ability of counter terrorism agents to use FISA in the effort to discover and thereby thwart acts of terrorism aimed at our country. The following is offered as an historical context in which to view FISA as well as a summary of how FISA has evolved over the past quarter century of its existence as a tool not just to thwart terrorism but more generally as an effective means to gather foreign intelligence."

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

McAdams, James G.
S. Hrg. 113-326; Serial No. J-113-18: Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 19, 2013

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This is the June 19, 2013 hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, the Judiciary Committee welcomes Robert Mueller for what is likely to be his final appearance before this panel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). […] As the FBI now prepares for its first change in leadership since the 9/11 attacks, we must continue to review closely the broad intelligence-gathering powers that Congress granted to the FBI in order to combat terrorist threats. The FBI has faced daunting national security challenges, but we must also ensure that they do not violate the privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. I have long said that protecting national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both. The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs illustrate the need for close scrutiny by Congress of the Government's surveillance activities. For years, I have been troubled by the expansive nature of the USA PATRIOT Act. These powerful law enforcement tools, including Section 215 orders, require careful monitoring and close oversight. That is why I authored legislation in 2009 that would have improved and reformed the PATRIOT Act, while increasing public accountability and transparency. My bill was reported by this Committee on a bipartisan basis in 2009 and 2011, and would help protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans, and strengthen oversight by the courts and Congress. I intend to re-introduce that bill tomorrow, and hope that Senators from both parties will join me in this effort to improve the PATRIOT Act and further protect the civil liberties of everyday citizens. The American people deserve to know how broad investigative laws like the PATRIOT Act are being interpreted and used to conduct electronic surveillance, particularly when it involves the collection of data on innocent Americans. The American people also deserve to know whether these programs have proven sufficiently effective to justify their breadth. Right now, I remain skeptical." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert S. Mueller.

United States. Government Printing Office

2014
Applications Made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court During Calendar Year 2014

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report is submitted pursuant to sections 107 and 502 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 19878 (the 'Act'), as amended, 50 U.S.C. section 1801 et seq., and section 118 of USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-177 (2006). In accordance with those provisions, this report provides information regarding all applications made by the Government during calendar year 2014 for authority to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes under the Act, all applications made by the Government during calendar year 2014 for access to certain business records (including the production of tangible things) for foreign intelligence purposes, and certain requests made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to national security letter authorities. In addition, while not required to do so by statute, the Government is providing information concerning the number of applications made during calendar year 2014 for authority to conduct physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

United States. Department of Justice. Office of Legislative Affairs

2015-04-20
Data Management Issues for Emerging Diseases and New Tools for Managing Surveillance and Laboratory Data

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Two primary data management functions can satisfy the laboratory data demands with multiple requirements in each function. The first function, internal laboratory data management, consists of entering test results and tracking specimens. The second, surveillance, includes gathering data and moving data beyond the electronic files of the laboratory to appropriate sites for analysis. A data management system should be able to perform these functions not only during an outbreak but throughout the period of surveillance as well."

Emerging Infectious Diseases

Martin, Stanley M.; Bean, Nancy H.

1995-10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9