Stand up for privacy
Policies that erode privacy are antithetical to liberty.
The Editorial Board
Sun, 24 May 2020 04:00:00 GMT
link -- with images
For all their partisan bluster, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were still able to come together to find common cause by continuing warrantless government surveillance.
The Senate voted May 13 to reject an amendment to the Patriot Act that would have required federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant to access Americans’ Internet browsing and search history. The amendment, introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Steve Daines (R., Mont.) came one vote shy of the 60-vote threshold necessary for passage.
The vote did not fall along neat partisan lines. Twenty-four Republicans voted for the amendment while 10 Democrats, including Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, voted against it. Four senators — Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), and Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) — did not vote.
“As far as I can tell we lost because there were some people absent,” Mr. Wyden said in a statement. “I intend to keep coming back to make sure that any administration can’t spy on [Americans] and violate the Constitution.” Frustratingly, Mr. Wyden’s righteous and just mission — he is a frequent sponsor of privacy-minded legislation and is a powerful questioner when titans of tech come to Capitol Hill — has rarely found adequate support among his colleagues.
While he occasionally aims high with sweeping proposals, such as a 2019 federal data privacy bill, the amendment he co-sponsored with Mr. Daines was modest and reasonable, offering commonsense protections for Americans’ civil liberties. That it could not find even 60 votes in the U.S. Senate is a sorry state of affairs.
Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October, 2001, Americans have seen their privacy rights eroded. The government has often worked in concert with private industry to snoop on U.S. citizens, using the wealth of digital information and technology now available. More senators should realize, as Mr. Wyden has, that such policies and programs are antithetical to American notions of freedom and liberty. And constituents of these senators must stand up and make it known that privacy must be a fundamental right.
A separate Senate amendment to the Patriot Act, which would bolster legal protections for targets of federal surveillance, was passed the same night the amendment from Mr. Wyden and Mr. Daines was rejected. That vote will send the issue back to the House of Representatives, where more amendments can be put forward.
Congress can still organize itself behind privacy rights, standing up for the rights of the people by taking up the cause long championed by Mr. Wyden. But, if even modest measures like the Wyden-Daines amendment continue to be shot down, constituents will have to take note and vote their discontent at the ballot box.