Overview
Title
To repeal the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 117 is a bill that wants to change the way the U.S. government watches over people by making sure they always have a special piece of paper called a warrant, like a permission slip from a judge, to do so and would make it against the law to spy on people without permission, with a big fine if someone does.
Summary AI
H.R. 117, titled the "Fourth Amendment Restoration Act," aims to repeal the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This bill seeks to enhance privacy protections by requiring that any surveillance of United States citizens, including electronic surveillance, physical searches, and the use of certain tracking devices, must be conducted with a warrant issued by a federal court. Additionally, it restricts the use of information obtained through surveillance for legal proceedings and imposes criminal penalties on unauthorized surveillance activities. The bill also addresses limitations on using information acquired during surveillance of non-U.S. citizens against U.S. citizens.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill, referred to as the "Fourth Amendment Restoration Act," seeks to repeal the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. This repeal would effectively remove the framework that governs electronic surveillance and the collection of foreign intelligence information. The bill lays out definitions for several key terms and establishes conditions under which U.S. officers must obtain a federal court warrant before conducting surveillance on United States citizens. Additionally, it sets limitations on the use of information acquired during foreign surveillance and outlines criminal penalties for unauthorized surveillance activities.
Significant Issues
The most critical issue presented by the bill is the sweeping repeal of FISA without providing alternative mechanisms or safeguards. This action could create significant national security concerns, as FISA provides a structured approach to handling foreign intelligence activities critical for national defense and safety. The bill also suffers from a lack of definitions for crucial terms, which could lead to ambiguity and challenges in enforcement. Moreover, the bill doesn't specify procedures for verifying that information related to U.S. citizens won't be misused, nor does it fully detail the lawful conditions under which law enforcement actions might be deemed appropriate.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill represents a substantial shift in how surveillance related to foreign intelligence is conducted in the United States. If FISA is repealed, it could lead to gaps in the legal framework used to monitor foreign threats, potentially compromising national security and increasing vulnerability to espionage, terrorism, or cyber threats. On the other hand, the bill's focus on reinforcing the necessity of warrants and protecting citizens' privacy could reassure those concerned about government overreach in domestic surveillance.
Impact on Stakeholders
Government and Law Enforcement: The repeal could complicate law enforcement's ability to collect and use foreign intelligence effectively. Agencies might face new challenges in adapting to the lack of existing FISA frameworks, potentially hindering their operations and response times to emerging threats.
Privacy Advocates: The bill might be seen positively by privacy advocates as it emphasizes the requirement of warrants for surveillance involving U.S. citizens. However, the lack of clarity and the absence of mechanisms to ensure compliance may not fully satisfy their concerns.
Intelligence Community: For the intelligence community, repealing FISA without an alternative could disrupt ongoing operations and intelligence-gathering efforts, posing risks related to national security and international relations.
Legal Experts: The bill's complexity, particularly regarding the definitions and criminal sanctions, may lead to legal uncertainty and increased litigation as courts and lawyers grapple with interpreting and applying the new legal landscape.
Overall, while the bill aims to protect citizens' privacy rights, it introduces potential security risks and significant legal uncertainties that stakeholders must consider while navigating the shift it proposes.
Financial Assessment
The examination of H.R. 117, titled the "Fourth Amendment Restoration Act," reveals limited financial references. However, there are important features of the bill concerning financial implications that merit attention.
Criminal Sanctions and Financial Penalties
The bill lays out financial penalties in Section 6, stating that any person found guilty of unauthorized surveillance activities is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000. This particular financial reference indicates a punitive measure intended to discourage unlawful surveillance practices by imposing a monetary consequence. Notably, this financial penalty accompanies a potential imprisonment of not less than five years, or both. Such penalties reflect the seriousness with which the bill addresses unauthorized surveillance and are designed to promote compliance with its provisions.
Financial Implications in Context
Although the bill itself focuses primarily on privacy protections rather than fiscal matters, the mention of a $10,000 fine aligns with general concerns about enforcing the bill’s prohibitions. The identified issues do not directly address financial transactions or appropriations but rather highlight areas like national security concerns, legal ambiguities, and enforcement mechanisms.
Given that the primary financial element involves fines for violations, there is no direct discussion of how this financial penalty will be implemented or managed, nor is there any mention of possible additional costs related to the judiciary or law enforcement agencies potentially involved in prosecuting these offenses. The absence of detailed financial arrangements is consistent with the bill's broader focus on legal and procedural reforms rather than appropriations or fiscal management.
Conclusion
The financial facets of the "Fourth Amendment Restoration Act" are limited to sanctioning those who unlawfully conduct surveillance. The $10,000 fine serves as a deterrent against violations but does not encompass broader financial considerations or appropriations customary in bills with fiscal impacts. It is primarily a legal measure intended to reinforce the commitment to privacy protections for U.S. citizens. Consideration beyond fines, such as possible resource allocations for enforcement or the indirect costs associated with judicial processes, could further enrich the understanding of the bill’s full financial impact.
Issues
Repeal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may create national security concerns as it removes existing frameworks for surveillance without providing alternative measures or safeguards. This broad repeal, mentioned in Section 2, could lead to legislative and operational gaps in intelligence activities, which is a significant concern for national security and legal clarity.
The prohibition against using information acquired under Executive Order 12333, as stated in Section 4, could have legal and operational implications. There is ambiguity regarding what happens to such information and any exceptions that might exist, raising questions about the treatment of sensitive intelligence information.
The bill lacks a definition for 'agent of a foreign power', which is a critical term used multiple times in the text, particularly in Section 3. This absence may lead to ambiguity and challenges in interpretation and implementation.
The section on criminal sanctions, Section 6, is complex and references other legislative sections, making it difficult for a reader to comprehend the full scope without additional context. The descriptions of penalties and lawful actions for law enforcement officers' activities could benefit from further clarification.
There is no mention in the bill of mechanisms for verifying or enforcing that the information will not be used improperly once acquired, as per the limitation on use of information concerning United States citizens in Section 5. This lack of oversight is potentially concerning.
Sections 3 and 4 outline prohibitions on surveilling U.S. citizens and define terms like 'foreign intelligence information' and 'electronic surveillance'. However, the definitions could benefit from simplification and clarification, especially concerning 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and the scope of electronic surveillance, to ensure alignment with privacy laws and Supreme Court interpretations.
Section 1, labeled as a short title, provides no details on what the Act entails beyond its title, the 'Fourth Amendment Restoration Act'. This lack of detail makes it difficult for stakeholders to understand the bill’s full implications or purpose.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that its official title is the "Fourth Amendment Restoration Act."
2. Repeal of foreign surveillance authorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed section of the bill repeals the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which had set rules for electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines key terms used in the Act, explaining that a "pen register" and "trap and trace device" are as described in another legal code. It clarifies that a "United States citizen" is someone recognized as a citizen, "foreign intelligence information" involves information critical to national security or foreign affairs, "electronic surveillance" includes monitoring communications where privacy is expected and a warrant is required, and "wire communication" refers to communications transmitted via wired connections.
4. Prohibitions on surveilling United States citizens Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that a U.S. officer must get a warrant from a Federal court to conduct electronic surveillance, searches, or collect information about a U.S. citizen, particularly for foreign intelligence. Furthermore, information gathered under Executive Order 12333 cannot be used against a U.S. citizen in legal settings.
5. Limitation on use of information concerning United States citizens Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that if information about a U.S. citizen is gathered while watching someone who is not a U.S. citizen, that information cannot be used against the U.S. citizen in any court case, investigation, or legal proceeding.
6. Criminal sanctions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A person can be punished with a fine of up to $10,000 or at least five years in prison if they intentionally commit certain unauthorized acts of electronic surveillance described in section 4, or if they misuse information obtained unlawfully. There are exceptions for law enforcement officers acting within their official duties with proper authorization, and federal jurisdiction applies if the person committing the offense was a U.S. officer or employee.
Money References
- (c) An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than five years, or both.