US House rejects FISA Section 702 extension, warrantless surveillance expires

https://www.axios.com/2026/06/11/fisa-section-702-expiration-pulte-trump-johnson

by ck2 • 1 month ago

93 25 1 month ago

ck22• 1 month ago

I'm sure this administration will totally obey that without any enforcement or penalties and pardons awaiting

oh wait, it could still be renewed/recreated

Democrats have refused to back an extension of Section 702 unless Trump reverses his decision to name Pulte as acting DNI

I guess it's their only card to play but still, how about no warrantless anything considering there's a Constitution and all that

iAMkenough2• 1 month ago

Who enforces the Constitution? SCOTUS is capable of reinterpreting any Constitutional right you have and create carve outs for “national security” boogeymen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop

galleywest200• 1 month ago

SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.

toomuchtodo• 1 month ago

This administration has an expiration date.

inigyou5• 1 month ago

yeah, it's January 2029. That's how the election timetable works. Assuming there's an election.

sitkack• 1 month ago

Surveillance won't stop and the warrants won't start. Now what?

rglover• 1 month ago

An opportunistic politician would be wise to draft a bill around surveillance transparency and go to all of the people voting against Section 702 here for support (solid arm twist that backs them into a PR corner).

rdudek• 1 month ago

I have to admire the double-dipping business model of private companies getting paid by local governments to setup surveillance cameras and harvest data. Then the same goverment will pay to get warrantless access to that same data.

ck22• 1 month ago

is it just double-dipping the spending (this might be your point)

or it is actually doing an end-run around laws against governments doing the surveillance themselves, instead they get private companies to do it and then it's perfectly legal to buy the data

just like government buys cellphone tracking data and mortgage data from private brokers when there are laws blocking them doing it directly

Henchman21• 1 month ago

There’s a word for government & business collaboration of this type.

0xbadcafebee• 1 month ago

https://archive.is/p0sBN

inigyou5• 1 month ago

My chosen interpretation is that they've let it expire because they've found enough ways to spy on us that they don't need it. Ranging from getting everything they need from advertising companies and Flock, to just ignoring the law and doing it anyway because they know it won't be enforced.

nacozarina• 1 month ago

Correct, the authorization was only needed for the govt to spy on you directly. Private business has no such restrictions, the govt can now buy any info from Palantir, Google, Lexis, ad infinitum

diogenes_atx• 1 month ago

According to an academic study, US law enforcement agencies at every level - federal, state and local - no longer need warrants in order to get access to most data on American citizens. It is easier for law enforcement to purchase data from private firms because there are fewer constitutional protections, reporting requirements and appellate checks on private sector surveillance and data collection, which enables police to circumvent privacy laws.

US law enforcement agencies get much of their information from data brokerage firms, which collect and aggregate information from public records and private sources, e.g., drivers licenses, mortgages, social media, retail loyalty card purchases, professional credentials, charities’ donor lists, bankruptcies, payday lenders, warranty registrations, and other sources who sell personal data. This information is then sold to customers willing to pay for it. Not even the FTC can find out exactly where the data brokers get their information because brokerages cite trade secrecy as an excuse not to divulge their sources.

Law enforcement agencies not only uses data collected by private firms, they also use corporate IT platforms and proprietary software applications (e.g., Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon) to store, share and analyze data. Palantir provides an interface that runs on top of other data systems, including legacy systems, making it possible to link data points across separate systems.

Source: Sarah Brayne (2020) Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing, Oxford University Press, pp. 24-25, 41-42.

notepad0x90• 1 month ago

But still, it's very weird. You'd think this admin want to be able to round up people and disappear them with FISA court rulings, being able to spy on them first is usually the logical path.

They can purchase data from 3rd parties, but it is a felony to wiretap someone without the government asking you to. You need the user's cooperation to install an app with a nasty ToS or something of that nature. Lots of people are using VPNs too. This section is, from what I understand, what allowed them to add a "gag order" to the surveillance demand to companies as well? If they want google or apple to spy on someone without a warrant, this is the only way to force them without them making that information known to the public.

vitally3643• 1 month ago

Current admin has demonstrated very clearly that they don't need excuses or plausible deniability. The only law is whoever is willing to stop them, which is, apparently, nobody.

hmm37• 1 month ago

Now they just need to get rid of stuff like Sec. 622 of this bill proposal (https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s4615/BILLS-119s4615pcs.p...) which would give all US intelligence to Israel.

iamnothere• 1 month ago

Rare good news. I hate to see so much knee-jerk doomerism. Don’t forget to celebrate small wins even if the battle isn’t over.

k310• 1 month ago

Government doesn't need warrants. They spy the old-fashioned way. They BUY it from our surveillance capitalist overlords.

They are interchangeable pieces these days.

CGMthrowaway• 1 month ago

Is there one person here who can explain why we need this extended? If not, why do we always do it (regardless of who's in the White House)?

As far as I'm aware, there is a short list of sworn representatives (we actively chose) who have a perfect or near-perfect voting record against it, and everyone else do not. Those people are Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Chip Roy (R-TX) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)

US House rejects FISA Section 702 extension, warrantless surveillance expires

Related Stories