U.S. intelligence gathering needs accountability and transparency

COURTESY TO THE BELLINGHAM HERALDAugust 26, 2013 

The revelations of secret government surveillance programs earlier this year were deeply troubling. Specifically, the bulk collection of the personal phone records of millions of Americans, whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing or not, has raised serious constitutional concerns.

The disclosure of these programs revealed just how little the American public knows about what their government is doing in the name of national security. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have joined with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, many of whom have supported and even drafted the original Patriot Act, to scrutinize the legal bases for these programs. My position is that the bulk collection of phone records of millions of Americans is inconsistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act.

That is why I voted in support of an important amendment to the defense appropriations bill last month. The amendment, sponsored by Michican Reps. Justin Amash, R., and John Conyers, D., made this basic claim: If there's no reasonable connection between you and an ongoing investigation, the government shouldn't seize your phone data.

The amendment would have prevented the bulk collection of sensitive information on innocent Americans, while ensuring law enforcement and our national security agencies still have the tools necessary to conduct targeted investigations against suspected terrorists.

The Amash-Conyers amendment was modeled on the bipartisan LIBERT-E Act, which I have cosponsored. This bill provides that the government may use Section 215 of the Patriot Act to access Americans' records only if the government presents to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court specific and articulable facts that show the data is related to an individual who is the subject of an ongoing national security investigation.

The LIBERT-E Act also requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court's opinions to be made more transparent. As the court has issued far-reaching opinions interpreting the legal authorities provided by the Patriot Act, it's been frustrating that the court has operated almost completely in the dark.

With technology having dramatically changed the way we communicate, our expectations of privacy and the legal framework to protect our privacy have become out of sync. As a former technology executive and entrepreneur, I am keenly aware of the deep concerns that have been expressed by both consumers and U.S. tech companies alike. Lawmakers must examine how technology is impacted by and interacts with the government's surveillance programs.

The public is eager for a national conversation on how to strike the right balance between privacy and national security. I'm glad that the President has said publicly that he believes a debate is necessary. However, for this conversation to be meaningful, Congress and the public must be provided with information about how the government is using its surveillance authorities.

To this end, I have also cosponsored bipartisan legislation, the Surveillance Order Reporting Act, to allow companies to disclose the number of surveillance orders they receive and how many people are affected. Companies are currently barred from disclosing even basic information about the requests they receive, despite a growing chorus of technology firms who have called for this greater transparency.

The blanket collection of metadata on millions of Americans suggests that the balance of national security and civil liberties has been disrupted. In conducting this sort of surveillance, the executive branch is threatening existing principles of privacy that have been enshrined in our constitution.

I want to be clear, I support giving our national security agencies the tools necessary to target suspected terrorists. What's key is that these actions must be targeted. That is the sort of authority that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was designed to grant.

Working with my colleagues in Congress, I urge further scrutiny of these programs and consideration of legislation that will create more transparency and rein them in. Now that some of these programs are no longer in the dark, we must ensure that our intelligence programs have meaningful oversight, accountability and transparency.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D., represents the 1st District that includes nearly all of Whatcom County outside Bellingham, plus portions of King, Snohomish and Skagit counties.

Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service