Patriot Act Reauthorization: A Legal Analysis (CRS)
The existing controversy over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act — portions of which will “sunset” if they are not renewed — acquired a new dimension with the disclosure last month of an NSA domestic surveillance operation.
Some now argue that the Patriot Act should not be reauthorized before the Bush Administration’s claims of inherent presidential authority to conduct domestic intelligence surveillance outside of the framework of law (FISA) are confronted and clarified.
“The extensive new powers requested by the executive branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed,” said former Vice President Al Gore in a January 16, 2006 speech.
Much of the Patriot Act is unobjectionable to anyone, and some of it is positively sensible. But it also has controversial provisions on “national security letters” as well as several totally extraneous provisions inserted by House Republicans.
A detailed assessment of the entire piece of legislation was prepared by the Congressional Research Service. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199): A Legal Analysis of the Conference Bill,” January 17, 2006.
The decision casts uncertainty on the role of scientific and technical expertise in federal decision-making, potentially harming our nation’s ability to respond effectively
Congress should foster a more responsive and evidence-based ecosystem for GenAI-powered educational tools, ensuring that they are equitable, effective, and safe for all students.
Without independent research, we do not know if the AI systems that are being deployed today are safe or if they pose widespread risks that have yet to be discovered, including risks to U.S. national security.
Companies that store children’s voice recordings and use them for profit-driven applications without parental consent pose serious privacy threats to children and families.