DOCSLIB.ORG

The Emergence of a Global Infrastructure for Mass Registration and Surveillance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Emergence of a Global Infrastructure for Mass Registration and Surveillance International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MASS REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MASS REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MASS REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE Published April 2005 For more information, contact: [email protected] International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance Table of Contents THE ROAD WE ARE HEADING DOWN . 1 Myth #1:We are merely being asked to sacrifice some of our privacy and convenience for greater security. 2 1st SIGNPOST: THE REGISTRATION OF POPULATIONS . 5 1. Mass Detentions of Muslim Immigrants and Registration through NSEERS . 5 2. US-VISIT and the E.U. Visa Information System . 5 a) Biometric Visas . 5 b) Linkage of Biometric Information to a Global Web of Databases . 6 c) U.S. Acquisition of Domestic and Foreign Databases . 6 d) The Template for the Global System of Mass Registration and Surveillance . 8 2nd SIGNPOST: THE CREATION OF A GLOBAL REGISTRATION SYSTEM . 8 1. Biometric Passports . 8 a) Policy Laundering – Referral to ICAO . 9 b) The Model: Carte Blanche . 9 c) RFID Chips . .10 d) Biometric Passports and the Democratic Deficit . .10 e) Flawed Technology and Assumptions . .11 f) Expansion to Other Transportation Systems . .12 g) Institutionalizing “Non-Personhood” . .12 3rd SIGNPOST: THE CREATION OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE OF MOVEMENT . .12 1. U.S. Demands for Sharing Passenger Name Records . .12 2. The Deals Made . .13 3. PNR and the Democratic Deficit – Another Referral to ICAO . .13 4. Expansion to Other Transportation Systems . .14 Myth #2: These initiatives facilitate travel. .14 4th SIGNPOST: THE CREATION OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS . .14 1. “Building in Surveillance” and the Convention on Cybercrime . .15 2. Mandatory Data Retention . .16 3. Expansion of ECHELON . .16 4. Mandatory Information-Gathering and Reporting for Financial Transactions . .17 5th SIGNPOST: THE CONVERGENCE OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DATABASES . .18 1. Radical Acceleration of Convergence Since 9/11 . .18 2. The “Black Box” of Information . .20 THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MASS REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE 6th SIGNPOST: THE DANGERS OF A RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL – A WORLD THAT IS BOTH ORWELLIAN AND KAFKAESQUE . .20 1. Data Mining: The High-Tech “Solution” to Risk Assessment . .20 a) Orwell Revisited . .20 Myth #3: If one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to worry about. .20 b) TIA, MATRIX and Other Data Mining Projects in Implementation or Development . .21 c) CAPPS II . .22 d) Canadian Risk Assessment Centre . .23 e) German “Trawling” . .23 f) Data Mining and the Democratic Deficit . .23 g) Flawed Facts, Dirty Information, Guilt by Google, Ethnic Profiling . .24 Myth #4: The technology being used objective and reliable. .24 2. Low-Tech “Solutions” to Risk Assessment . .24 a) Guilt by Association and Indiscriminate Sharing of Information: The Story of Maher Arar . .24 b) Using Information Obtained by Torture and Tipping Off Torturers . .26 c) Sloppy Mistakes: The Madrid Investigation . .27 d) Getting People Off the Street: Arbitrary Detentions . .27 e) Broad Strokes: The U.N. list . .29 f) Disciplining Dissent . .29 i) Targeting the “Unpatriotic” in the U.S. .29 ii) The U.S. No Fly List . .30 iii) Open Season on Individuals and Groups Challenging Repressive Regimes . .31 g) A Plethora of Ballooning Watch Lists . .32 Myth #5: Terrorist watch lists are a reliable product of international intelligence cooperation and consensus. .32 3. Kafka . 33 7th SIGNPOST: DEEP INTEGRATION AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGN CHECKS AND BALANCES . .33 Myth #6: If one is mistakenly caught up in the global surveillance net, one’s government can protect one. .33 Myth #7: Governments want to implement these systems to protect their citizens from terrorists. .34 8th SIGNPOST: THE CORPORATE SECURITY COMPLEX . .35 9th SIGNPOST: THE EXPROPRIATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC COMMONS . .38 International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance 10th SIGNPOST: A LOSS OF MORAL COMPASS – RENDITION, TORTURE, DEATH . .39 1. The Global Gulag . .39 a) Detention Centres Used by The U.S. .39 b) The Practice of Rendition . .40 c) Disappearance . .41 d) The Assertion of a Legal Black Hole and Authority to Torture . .42 e) Torture Committed by U.S. Personnel . .44 f) The Plan to Build Permanent Prisons Outside the U.S. .44 g) The Participation of Other Western Democracies . .45 Myth #8: Western democracies are defending democracy and human rights around the world. .45 h) New License for Brutal Regimes . .46 THE ILLUSION OF SECURITY . .47 Myth #9: These initiatives make us safer. .47 Myth #10: Guaranteeing security is the paramount responsibility of governments. .48 Myth #11: At least, these initiatives are better than doing nothing. .49 RESISTING THE REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE AGENDA . .49 1. Pockets of Resistance . .50 a) NGOs . .50 b) Democratic Institutions . .50 c) Courts . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction an Update
    A NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLAR’S PAPER THE FUTURE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AN UPDATE By John P. Caves, Jr. NIU Presidential Scholar November 2019 – November 2020 and W. Seth Carus THE FUTURE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AN UPDATE John P. Caves, Jr. and W. Seth Carus National Intelligence University National Intelligence Press Washington, DC February 2021 The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Intelligence University, National Defense University, or any other part of the U.S. government. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While the authors are solely responsible for the final content of this paper, they benefited greatly from the time, expertise and support freely availed to them by many knowledgeable individuals and organizations. They include Mr. Caves’ colleagues at National Intelligence University (NIU), where he worked on this paper while on a detail assignment from National Defense University (NDU). Mr. Caves expresses par- ticular gratitude to Dr. Brian Holmes, dean of the Anthony G. Oettinger School of Science and Technol- ogy Intelligence, for his leadership, knowledge, and support. Dr. Sharon Adams, Ms. Beverly Barnhart, Mr. George Clifford, Dr. LaMesha Craft, and Dr. R. Carter Morris offered helpful comments on the paper at various stages. They and Mr. Damarius Alston, LTC Jeffrey Bacon, Lt Col Frances Deutch, Ms. Thelma Flamer, Mr. Julian Meade, and Ms. Christina Sanders were among others at NIU whose assistance and support made Mr. Caves’ assignment at NIU enjoyable as well as productive. Both authors are deeply indebted to their colleagues at NDU’s Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (CSWMD), especially Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth Lawyers Association Amicus
    Nos. 15-1358, 15-1359, and 15-1363 In the Supreme Court of the United States JAMES W. ZIGLAR, Petitioner, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS GARY A. ISAAC Counsel of Record LOGAN A. STEINER JED W. GLICKSTEIN Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 [email protected] (312) 782-0600 Counsel for Amicus Curiae (Additional Captions Listed on Inside Cover) JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. DENNIS HASTY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE...................1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...........................2 ARGUMENT ..............................................................4 I. The Court Should Consider The Prac- tices Of Other Western Democracies And The European Court Of Human Rights In Deciding Whether To Recog- nize A Bivens Remedy .....................................4 II. Barring Any Remedy In This Case Would Be At Odds With Foreign Deci- sions And Practice ...........................................8 A. Other Nations Provide Monetary Remedies For Human-Rights Abuses In Alleged Terrorism- Related Cases........................................9 B. The European Court Of Human Rights Likewise Provides Mone- tary Remedies For Human Rights Violations In Cases Implicating National Security................................15 C. Other Western Democracies And The European Court Of Human Rights Recognize Damages Ac- tions Even Where National Secu- rity Is Implicated ................................19 CONCLUSION .........................................................20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Agiza v. Sweden, Commc’n No.
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, As Amended
    OMB No. 1124-0004; Expires May 31,2020 U.S. Department o r jfifiCeived By NSD/FARA Washington, dc 20530 Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended INSTRUCTIONS. A registrant must furnish as an Exhibit B copies of each written agreement and the terms and conditions of each oral agreement with his foreign principal, including all modifications of such agreements, or, where no contract exists, a full statement of all the circumstances by reason of which the registrant is acting as an agent of a foreign principal. Compliance is accomplished by filing an electronic Exhibit B form at https://www.fara.gov. Privacy Act Statement. The filing of this document is required for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 etseq., for the purposes of registration under the Act and public disclosure. Provision of the information requested is mandatory, and failure to provide the information is subject to the penalty and enforcement provisions established in Section 8 of the Act. Every registration statement, short form registration statement, supplemental statement, exhibit, amendment, copy of informational materials or other document or information filed with the Attorney General under this Act is. a public record open to public examination, inspection and copying during the posted business hours of the Registration Unit in Washington, DC. Statements are also available online at the Registration Unit’s webpage: https://www.fara.gov. One copy of every such document, other than informational materials, is automatically provided to the Secretary of State pursuant to’Section 6(b) of the Act, and copies of any and all documents are routinely made available to other agencies, departments and Congress pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Legal Research Assistance That Can Make a Builds
    EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF BIOMETRIC MASS SURVEILLANCE PRACTICES IN GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, AND POLAND By Luca Montag, Rory Mcleod, Lara De Mets, Meghan Gauld, Fraser Rodger, and Mateusz Pełka EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 2 INDEX About the Edinburgh 1.4.5 ‘Biometric-Ready’ International Justice Cameras 38 Initiative (EIJI) 5 1.4.5.1 The right to dignity 38 Introductory Note 6 1.4.5.2 Structural List of Abbreviations 9 Discrimination 39 1.4.5.3 Proportionality 40 Key Terms 10 2. Fingerprints on Personal Foreword from European Identity Cards 42 Digital Rights (EDRi) 12 2.1 Analysis 43 Introduction to Germany 2.1.1 Human rights country study from EDRi 15 concerns 43 Germany 17 2.1.2 Consent 44 1 Facial Recognition 19 2.1.3 Access Extension 44 1.1 Local Government 19 3. Online Age and Identity 1.1.1 Case Study – ‘Verification’ 46 Cologne 20 3.1 Analysis 47 1.2 Federal Government 22 4. COVID-19 Responses 49 1.3 Biometric Technology 4.1 Analysis 50 Providers in Germany 23 4.2 The Convenience 1.3.1 Hardware 23 of Control 51 1.3.2 Software 25 5. Conclusion 53 1.4 Legal Analysis 31 Introduction to the Netherlands 1.4.1 German Law 31 country study from EDRi 55 1.4.1.1 Scope 31 The Netherlands 57 1.4.1.2 Necessity 33 1. Deployments by Public 1.4.2 EU Law 34 Entities 60 1.4.3 European 1.1. Dutch police and law Convention on enforcement authorities 61 Human Rights 37 1.1.1 CATCH Facial 1.4.4 International Recognition Human Rights Law 37 Surveillance Technology 61 1.1.1.1 CATCH - Legal Analysis 64 EDRi - EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 3 1.1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL PATRICIA L. BELLIA WikiLeaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures ABSTRACT. WikiLeaks' successive disclosures of classified U.S. documents throughout 2010 and 2011 invite comparison to publishers' decisions forty years ago to release portions of the Pentagon Papers, the classified analytic history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. The analogy is a powerful weapon for WikiLeaks' defenders. The Supreme Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case signaled that the task of weighing whether to publicly disclose leaked national security information would fall to publishers, not the executive or the courts, at least in the absence of an exceedingly grave threat of harm. The lessons of the PentagonPapers case for WikiLeaks, however, are more complicated than they may first appear. The Court's per curiam opinion masks areas of substantial disagreement as well as a number of shared assumptions among the Court's members. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers case reflects an institutional framework for downstream disclosure of leaked national security information, under which publishers within the reach of U.S. law would weigh the potential harms and benefits of disclosure against the backdrop of potential criminal penalties and recognized journalistic norms. The WikiLeaks disclosures show the instability of this framework by revealing new challenges for controlling the downstream disclosure of leaked information and the corresponding likelihood of "unintermediated" disclosure by an insider; the risks of non-media intermediaries attempting to curtail such disclosures, in response to government pressure or otherwise; and the pressing need to prevent and respond to leaks at the source. AUTHOR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’
    ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ ABSTRACT This article considers the feasibility of the adoption by the Council of Europe Member States of a multilateral binding treaty, called the Intelligence Codex (the Codex), aimed at regulating the working methods of state intelligence agencies. The Codex is the result of deep concerns about mass surveillance practices conducted by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article explores the reasons for such a treaty. To that end, it identifies the discriminatory nature of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation, pursuant to which foreign cyber surveillance programmes are operated, which reinforces the need to broaden the scope of extraterritorial application of the human rights treaties. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the US and UK foreign mass surveillance se practices interferes with the right to privacy of communications and cannot be justified under Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR. As mass surveillance seems set to continue unabated, the article supports the calls from the Council of Europe to ban cyber espionage and mass untargeted cyber surveillance. The response to the proposal of a legally binding Intelligence Codexhard law solution to mass surveillance problem from the 47 Council of Europe governments has been so far muted, however a soft law option may be a viable way forward. Key Words: privacy, cyber surveillance, non-discrimination, Intelligence Codex, soft law. Introduction Peacetime espionage is by no means a new phenomenon in international relations.1 It has always been a prevalent method of gathering intelligence from afar, including through electronic means.2 However, foreign cyber surveillance on the scale revealed by Edward Snowden performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and their Five Eyes partners3 1 Geoffrey B.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Thematic factsheet1 Update: July 2018 MASS SURVEILLANCE The highly complex forms of terrorism require States to take effective measures to defend themselves, including mass monitoring of communications. Unlike “targeted” surveillance (covert collection of conversations, telecommunications and metadata by technical means – “bugging”), “strategic” surveillance (or mass surveillance) does not necessarily start with a suspicion against a particular person or persons. It has a proactive element, aimed at identifying a danger rather than investigating a known threat. Herein lay both the value it can have for security operations, and the risks it can pose for individual rights. Nevertheless, Member States do not have unlimited powers in this area. Mass surveillance of citizens is tolerable under the Convention only if it is strictly necessary for safeguarding democratic institutions. Taking into account considerable potential to infringe fundamental rights to privacy and to freedom of expression enshrined by the Convention, Member States must ensure that the development of surveillance methods resulting in mass data collection is accompanied by the simultaneous development of legal safeguards securing respect for citizens’ human rights. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it would be counter to governments’ efforts to keep terrorism at bay if the terrorist threat were substituted with a perceived threat of unfettered executive power intruding into citizens’ private lives. It is of the utmost importance that the domestic legislation authorizing far-reaching surveillance techniques and prerogatives provides for adequate and sufficient safeguards in order to minimize the risks for the freedom of expression and the right to privacy which the “indiscriminate capturing of vast amounts of communications” enables.
    [Show full text]
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • A Failure of Intelligence: the Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe
    Pace International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 Fall 2002 Article 7 September 2002 Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe Kevin J. Lawner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Kevin J. Lawner, Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe, 14 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 435 (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol14/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POST-SEPT. 11TH INTERNATIONAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY - A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE: THE ECHELON INTERCEPTION SYSTEM & THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN EUROPE Kevin J. Lawner* I. Introduction ....................................... 436 II. Communications Intelligence & the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement ..... 443 A. September 11th - A Failure of Intelligence .... 446 B. The Three Warning Flags ..................... 449 III. The Echelon Interception System .................. 452 A. The Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling Interception Stations .......................... 452 B. Echelon: The Abuse of Power .................. 454 IV. Anti-Terror Measures in the Wake of September 11th ............................................... 456 V. Surveillance Activity and the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe .............................. 460 A. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union... 464 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Typologies of the Use of Preventive Measures of Financial Institutions for Crime Detection and Risk Assessment
    ЕВРАЗИЙСКАЯ ГРУППА по противодействию легализации преступных доходов и финансированию терроризма EURASIAN GROUP on combating money laundering and financing of terrorism EAG TYPOLOGY PROJECT TYPOLOGIES OF THE USE OF PREVENTIVE MEASURES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CRIME DETECTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT TYPOLOGICAL STUDY REPORT 2021 Contents General ....................................................................................................................... 3 Preventive Measures and Suspicious Transaction Reporting in the EAG members 3 Approaches Used by FIUs for Analyzing Incoming STRs and Service Denial Reports ....................................................................................................................... 9 Feedback on STRs ................................................................................................... 16 Trends and risks in the spread of COVID-19 .......................................................... 21 Impact of COVID-19 on AML/CFT supervisory activities and implementation of preventive measures ................................................................................................ 24 Summary of recommendations following the results of the study: ......................... 26 General Application by entities engaged in transactions with funds or other assets of preventive measures as well as identification of suspicious transactions and submission of suspicious transaction reports (STRs) to the financial investigation units (FIUs) is one of the most important measures aimed
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Services Roles and Responsibilities in Good Security Sector Governance
    SSR BACKGROUNDER Intelligence Services Roles and responsibilities in good security sector governance About this series The SSR Backgrounders provide concise introductions to topics and concepts in good security sector governance (SSG) and security sector reform (SSR). The series summarizes current debates, explains key terms and exposes central tensions based on a broad range of international experiences. The SSR Backgrounders do not promote specific models, policies or proposals for good governance or reform but do provide further resources that will allow readers to extend their knowledge on each topic. The SSR Backgrounders are a resource for security governance and reform stakeholders seeking to understand but also to critically assess current approaches to good SSG and SSR. About this SSR Backgrounder This SSR Backgrounder explains the roles and responsibilities of intelligence services in good security sector governance (SSG). Intelligence services perform an essential security function by providing governments with timely and relevant information necessary to protect the security of states and their societies. Applying the principles of good SSG to intelligence services makes them both effective and accountable within a framework of democratic governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. This SSR Backgrounder answers the following questions: What are intelligence services? Page 2 What do intelligence services do? Page 2 How is intelligence produced? Page 4 What intrusive legal powers do intelligence services hold?
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Practice, Remedies, and Oversight
    ___________________________ SUMMARY OF U.S. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE LAW, PRACTICE, REMEDIES, AND OVERSIGHT ASHLEY GORSKI AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION AUGUST 30, 2018 _________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT ............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. U.S. Surveillance Law and Practice ................................................................................... 2 A. Legal Framework ......................................................................................................... 3 1. Presidential Power to Conduct Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ....................... 3 2. The Expansion of U.S. Government Surveillance .................................................. 4 B. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ..................................................... 5 1. Traditional FISA: Individual Orders ..................................................................... 6 2. Bulk Searches Under Traditional FISA ................................................................. 7 C. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ........................................... 8 D. How The U.S. Government Uses Section 702 in Practice ......................................... 12 1. Data Collection: PRISM and Upstream Surveillance ........................................
    [Show full text]