FBI Director Christopher Wray warned lawmakers that not expanding surveillance powers would amount to “unilateral disarmament” in the face of growing threats from terrorists and countries like China and Iran.
The statement came during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. Wray called for an extension of the office’s electronic intelligence collection authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires at the end of the year.
Section 702 of the law allows agencies such as the FBI and the National Security Agency to collect electronic data from non-U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court order. However, its use has been controversial due to repeated incidents in which authorities collected information on American citizens.
“Reckless at best, irresponsible at worst.”
Wray assured lawmakers that reforms had been made to protect American citizens. However, he warned that failing to renew the powers or expand them with additional restrictions would put the country at risk.
“Blinding ourselves by allowing Section 702 to expire or changing it in a way that weakens its effectiveness is reckless at best and irresponsible at worst,” he said.
“Section 702 focuses on foreign threats precisely to protect the United States from those threats,” he continued. – It is not to admire foreign threats from afar, study them and think about them. “It’s knowing what they are and making sure they don’t harm Americans here.”
Other U.S. officials have briefed lawmakers over the past year on the use of surveillance powers.
For example, in May, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said that information collected through Section 702 “is absolutely critical” and makes up nearly 60 percent of the information provided to U.S. presidents during briefings. daily.
But some lawmakers are cautious, calling for additional reforms that would prevent the FBI from, among other things, obtaining information on American citizens without first obtaining court approval in the form of a court order.
Wray told committee members that using Section 702 to circumvent restrictions and collect information on Americans is “clearly prohibited.” According to him, to prevent this from happening, a series of reforms have been introduced.
At the same time, he said delays in obtaining a court order could put people’s lives at risk.
“What if there had been a terrorist attack that we could have prevented but couldn’t because Section 702 prevented the FBI from examining key information we already have?” -she asked.
“You are very impudent, sir.”
Not all legislators agreed that the danger was so great.
“You have the nerve to come here and say that adding an authorization clause to Section 702, even for requests involving American citizens on American soil, amounts to some kind of unilateral disarmament. “You are very brazen, sir,” Republican Senator Mike Lee told Ray.
Lee also rejected the FBI director’s assurances that sufficient security controls had been built into the system.
“We have absolutely no reason to trust you because you have not behaved in a way that can be trusted,” he said. “You are asking me to believe something that is impossible to believe.”
Some civil rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also oppose expanding Section 702 without significant modifications.
“We have very serious concerns,” ACGU senior policy analyst Kia Hamadanchi told VOA in November. – During the last 15 years we have seen many abuses. “Our position is that Section 702 should not be reauthorized without fundamental reform.”
Compromise is possible
With data collection mandates set to expire, there may be a chance for a deal to be reached.
Wray told lawmakers that the bipartisan proposal from the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is a possibility “that deserves further exploration.”
The bill, proposed last week by Democratic Sen. Mark Warner and fellow Republican Marco Rubio, would require the FBI to obtain a court order to review intelligence obtained from U.S. citizens for evidence of a crime. However, in cases where information of foreign origin is collected, such an order will not be necessary.
