Sens. Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Rand Paul: Erect safeguards against mass surveillance

06/27/2014 12:00 AM

06/26/2014 5:44 PM

One year ago this month, Americans learned that their government was engaged in secret dragnet surveillance, which contradicted years of assurances to the contrary from senior government officials and intelligence leaders.

On this anniversary, it is more important than ever to let Congress and the administration know that Americans will reject half-measures that could still allow the government to collect millions of Americans’ records without any individual suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing.

It is time to end the dragnet – and to affirm that we can keep our nation secure without trampling on and abandoning Americans’ constitutional rights.

For years, in both statements to the public and open testimony before the House and Senate, senior government officials claimed that domestic surveillance was narrow in focus and limited in scope. But in June 2013, Americans learned through leaked classified documents that these claims bore little resemblance to reality. In fact, the NSA has been relying on a secret interpretation of the USA Patriot Act to vacuum up the phone records of millions of law-abiding citizens. Under a separate program, intelligence agencies are using a loophole in the law to read some Americans’ e-mails without ever getting a warrant.

Dragnet surveillance was approved by a secret court that normally hears only the government’s side of major cases. It had been debated only in a few secret congressional committee hearings, and many members of Congress were entirely unaware of it.

And yet, it was inevitable that mass surveillance and warrantless searches would eventually be exposed. When the plain text of the law differs so dramatically from how it is interpreted and applied, in effect creating a body of secret law, it simply isn’t sustainable. So when the programs’ existence became public last summer, huge numbers of Americans were justifiably stunned and angry at how they had been misled and by the degree to which their privacy rights had been routinely violated. Inflated claims about the program’s value have burst under public scrutiny, and there is now a groundswell of public support for reform.

Benjamin Franklin once warned that a society that trades essential liberties for short-term security risks losing both. That is still true today, and even the staunchest defenders of mass surveillance concede that reforms are inevitable.

The debate over exactly what reforms should be made is likely to continue for at least the next few years as Americans continue to learn about the scale of ongoing government surveillance activities. As an initial step, we have worked with our colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for a package of real and meaningful changes to the law that would promote the restoration of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms, while protecting national security.

This package of reforms includes overhauling domestic surveillance laws to ban the bulk collection of Americans’ personal information, and closing the loophole that allows intelligence agencies to deliberately read Americans’ e-mails without a warrant. It includes reshaping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court by installing an advocate who can argue for Americans’ constitutional rights when the court is considering major cases, and by requiring that significant interpretations of U.S. law and the Constitution be made public. And it would strengthen and clarify the government’s authority to obtain individual records quickly in genuine emergency situations.

These reforms would erect safeguards against the further erosion of our right to privacy, and ensure greater transparency and openness.

Editor's Choice Videos

Join the Discussion

The Wichita Eagle 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 on 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.

Terms of Service