Presidential candidate Rand Paul blocks Senate reauthorization
WASHINGTON – Despite support from both parties, federal collection of phone metadata has lapsed due in large part to efforts of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who stood against the Patriot Act provisions.
The Patriot Act formerly authorized the National Security Agency to collect telephone metadata, but Paul blocked a renewal in a marathon Senate session that began Sunday night. The renewal ultimately died on the Senate floor.
Despite the failure to receive reauthorization, the NSA and FBI retain the ability to use court-authorized wiretaps. Similarly, the Senate is looking to take up the White House-backed Freedom Act, which would reestablish the NSA’s ability to collect the data but with greater controls and safe guards for privacy.
The Senate recently rejected the Freedom Act 57-42 last week, but with the failure to renew the old Patriot Act, the Senate is expected to reexamine the White House proposal soon, which also moves storage of the data from federal providence to the purview of phone companies.
The continued wrangling in Washington leaves renewed uncertainty for technology companies, which will continue to have to spend millions on legal consul to comply with federal surveillance programs while also maintaining the privacy of their users and avoiding renewed litigation by privacy advocates.
The American Civil Liberties Union Thursday said that “efforts to short-circuit reform efforts should not be allowed to succeed. Allowing the provisions of the Patriot Act to sunset wouldn’t affect the government’s ability to conduct targeted investigations or combat terrorism. The government has numerous other tools, including administrative and grand jury subpoenas, which would enable it to gather necessary information.”
NBC News said Paul’s efforts “served as a campaign rally” and noted that phone companies may not be willing to comply with the pending data storage requirements contained in the Freedom Act.
“It’s not clear that phone companies will be happy to comply with a law that’s going to require subpoenas and lots of legal debate; after all, their customers are [the] same public that’s dramatically shifted in its view of the balance between civil liberties and national security in the past decade or so.”
