Skip to content
Subscribe

Bipartisan Secure Data Act Has Votes to Pass House, But Will Lawmakers Drag Their Feet?

Published:

Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill intended to protect Americans' privacy and online data.

In a press release, U.S. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) announced that the purpose of the Secure Data Act of 2015 is not to restrict the ability of intelligence agencies to collect data in general. However, they do intend to re-assert the role of Congress in regulating these activities:

"Congress has allowed the Administration's surveillance authorities to go unchecked by failing to enact adequate reform. . . . With threats to our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands of the intelligence community. But unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is indefensible. The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding public trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberty."

The bill is an attempt to specifically guard against backdoor searches, including those where "identifiers" such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses known to belong to Americans are employed to conduct the searches. For years, privacy advocates have denounced these types of searches as a way to skirt the law.According to

the Register, a UK-based tech site, "Under the proposed Secure Data Act, developers cannot be forced to insert security holes into devices and code." An ACLU lawyer quoted in the story said that the previous bill's success might indicate "that at least in the House they know how important it is to secure encryption efforts."

Massie, Lofgren, and Sensenbrenner tried to pass a similar version of the Secure Data Act near the end of the 113th Congress. The legislation passed with broad support, 293-123, but was not included in the omnibus bill that passed at the end of the session.

A Senate version of the Secure Data Act was introduced by Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in January. His bill is still waiting to move through the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Regaining the people's trust may be one of the harder obstacles when it comes to regulations on spying and surveillance. Polls have consistently shown that Americans do not approve of the current methods of surveillance and data collection.

Previous bills have passed Congress seeking to limit the power and authority of agencies like the National Security Agency. However, the final products were severely watered down versions of the initial legislation. Even extensively supported bills such as the previous Secure Data Act failed to get anywhere in both chambers of Congress.

Photo Credit: Jazzmany / shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Bipartisan Secure Data Act Has Votes to Pass House, But Will Lawmakers Drag Their Feet?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us