Section 702 of FISA: Is discrimination between US and non-US persons justified?
1. Since the release of NSA’s classified documents by the NSA ex-contractor Edward Snowden, the controversy of morality and legitimacy of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), and, in particular, section 702, has become a major issue of public debate in the context of national security and privacy rights. To understand the underlying controversy, it is important to understand what powers section 702 gives to the US intelligence agencies. Section 702 of the Federal Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) is the section that elaborates on the procedures and regulations for surveillance of non-United States persons while they are located outside the US. It …show more content…
One of the most convincing arguments for section 702 is its efficiency when it comes to protection of the US from outside threats. When it comes to foreign intelligence, section 702 regulations make more sense in the context of concerning non-US persons abroad than other regulations set forth by FISA. One of the ways in which such laws are proving to be particularly helpful is the US Government’s effort to fight terrorist and other threats from abroad. It’s particularly important because the vast majority of such threats have foreign origin or at least have links to people and organizations outside of the US. In fact, according to the report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, “presently, over a quarter of NSA reports concerning international terrorism include information based in whole or in part on section 702 collection, and the percentage has increased every year since the statute was enacted” (PCLOB 108). In addition to that, actions taken under section 702 program helped the effort to fight combat weapon proliferation worldwide. (PCLOB 110). The foreign intelligence efforts could be this successful only because the section 702 program is authorized as a whole, without any excessive bureaucracy on case-by-case basis (PCLOB …show more content…
Milanovic’s argument about the moral relativity and irrelevance of citizenship does not capture all the aspects of the government-citizen relationship. Even though citizenship does not necessarily reflect moral values of loyalty and security, it necessarily implies two other things: the presence of the contract with the state and the ease of identification of crime. The former aspect presents an extra level of responsibility upon a citizen. As I discussed it above, the government is responsible for maintaining the well-being of its citizens, expecting benefits like taxes and following the national laws. If the government provides all the expected services and does everything it is supposed to reach its domestic goals, then citizens are obliged to follow the laws and not harm the government and fellow citizens. Because such agreement is implied in the state-citizen relations, the government has to invest a lot of trust into its citizens and allow them to enjoy their lives free of surveillance, unless the said citizens break the contract heavily. When it comes to foreigners abroad though, no such agreement exists. Because of that, US Government has no reason to trust foreigners about their intentions, so their surveillance is necessary for the security of the US. The latter aspect means that all the information about any given US citizen or green card holder is readily available without any surveillance. US government, financial organizations, universities, etc. require a