It’s official: America’s spy agencies are not allowed to collect the communications data of Americans without a warrant. With a two-thirds majority, the US Senate amended the law on Tuesday to prohibit this specifically.<\/p>\n
Since Edward Snowden<\/strong>\u2019s revelations<\/a> two years ago, efforts had been underway in Congress to either make the spying program official or to rein it in. While the White House, which oversees the spy agencies, preferred the former option, legislators had second thoughts.<\/p>\n These included Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner<\/strong>, one of the main authors of the USA PATRIOT Act<\/abbr><\/b> in the weeks following 9\/11<\/a>. Section 215, which contained the most controversial provisions of that act, was set to expire seven times<\/a> since 2001, and mostly it was Sensenbrenner who made sure it was renewed.<\/p>\n The author of the Patriot Act was troubled by what it was used for<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But in June 2013, when he heard via the Snowden reports that the FBI and NSA had been using Section 215 to justify the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records, he changed his mind. “As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” the Republican congressman said<\/a>.<\/p>\n Sensenbrenner thus set about drafting the revision that finally passed on Tuesday. He gave it another snappy title: the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015, or USA FREEDOM Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Freedom Act says that, starting 180 days after its enactment…<\/p>\n …which is the system<\/a> we thought we had, until Snowden showed us otherwise.<\/p>\n The Freedom Act does contain an interesting new loophole, namely that the attorney general may disregard all of these provisions in the event of an emergency. It also renews the rest of Section 215 until December 2019.<\/p>\n Three candidates for president voted against the new law<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It’s a compromise, and civil-liberties groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/strong> welcome it<\/a>, as does the White House. Still, one-third of the Senate is not happy with the changes. Three of the candidates for president next year voted against<\/a> the act.<\/p>\n Florida Senator Marco Rubio<\/strong>, a Republican, preferred the Patriot Act. He perceived a “politically motivated misinformation campaign” that has “now left the American people less safe than we’ve been at any point since the 9\/11 attacks.”<\/p>\n Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders<\/strong>, an independent who is running as a Democrat, voted no for the opposite reason. “This bill is an improvement over the USA Patriot Act, but there are still too many opportunities for the government to collect information on innocent people,” he said.<\/p>\n Kentucky Senator Rand Paul<\/strong>, a Republican, organized an 11-hour filibuster<\/a> on May 20 to prevent the renewal of Section 215. During a half-hour encore on Sunday, he argued against the necessity of the entire Patriot Act, saying there was no evidence it had been effective. This second speech, as intended, delayed the vote on the Freedom Act long enough to allow Section 215 to expire for two days.<\/p>\nWhat’s new<\/h2>\n
\n