Drew Mitnick

The Amash-Conyers amendment, the U.S. Congress’ first attempt to limit the NSA surveillance, may have been unsuccessful. But its narrow loss demonstrates the growing force behind the call to reform these programs. To know where we go from here, its important to look at the potential impact of this amendment.

Access joined a broad coalition in sending a letter to US government officials calling on the government to a) ensure internet, telephone, and web-based service providers be allowed to regularly report specific data regarding intelligence information requests, and to b) establish its own transparency report with specific data on number of requests, statutes, authorities, and affected individuals.

James Comey, nominee for director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, failed to take a stand against the U.S. government’s widely publicized recent intrusions into personal privacy at his confirmation hearing. However, many of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled their support for important reform.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), a group of 21 governments committed to collaborating to advance internet freedom, convened in Tunis, Tunisia for their third annual meeting of governments, businesses, and civil society. While the conference had several programmatic tracks, recent revelations of sweeping state surveillance took center stage, including civil society’s statement at the closing plenary (below) which pointed to a series of principles that should underlie communications surveillance policies and practices.

As secrets about the NSA’s surveillance programs continue to command the world’s attention, some communications companies involved are advocating that the US government allow them to reveal more about their participation in the programs in order to maintain their reputations.

Details of the recently revealed large-scale, secret United States surveillance programs, the collection of Verizon users’ metadata and PRISM, are still emerging. However, from the information available, it is clear that while the programs rest on dubious legal ground under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), they are both unconstitutional.