Skip to content
Subscribe

In Wake of San Bernardino, Senators Introduce New Surveillance Legislation

Published:

Following the suspected terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, two senators have introduced a bill that privacy advocates could see as a means of enhancing surveillance powers that were reformed earlier this year.

The USA Freedom Act, a law that replaced some sunset sections of the Patriot Act, passed in June. The new law decreed that the National Security Agency (NSA) would no longer collect phone metadata records, but those records would remain with the telecommunications companies. If the government wanted access to those records, a court order was needed.

On Thursday, Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the Private Sector Call Record Retention Act. Their legislation would require telecommunications companies holding the phone records to inform the government if they do not intend to retain those records for less than 18 months.

In a press release, Cotton explained that the legislation is designed to help the government continue to "connect the dots" of tracking terrorism suspects. The law:

"...will help preserve metadata currently stored by phone carriers by forcing them to notify the federal government if they change the amount of time they retain billing records to less than 18 months. This will give Congress and the Executive Branch an opportunity to respond before those dots are lost forever."

Cotton has long been an outspoken critic of efforts to limit the NSA's collection practices. In May, he dismissed concerns about the Patriot Act's effectiveness and constitutionality. He also blocked a Senate effort to take up surveillance reform when they were "facing expiration of a key national security tool without anything to put in its place."

Following the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, Cotton introduced other legislation to delay the implementation of the Freedom Act.

Passed in June, the Freedom Act did not take effect until the beginning of December, allowing the NSA to be able to continue its bulk collection of phone data. With the Freedom Act, all that is needed to requisition phone records is an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

As reported on IVN last week, a court order from the FISC, or FISA Court, does not require probable cause, but only a "government need," a much lower legal threshold.

Although the Freedom Act was initially praised by privacy advocates, the version that passed was seen by many as watered down and merely a reshuffling of powers rather than a rollback. Those concerns may be refueled if the Cotton-King bill becomes viewed as another attempt to erode the reforms.

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

In Wake of San Bernardino, Senators Introduce New Surveillance Legislation

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