First off, what's the difference between those hair-on-fire, stop-the-bad-guys, veto-the-Constitution, spy-on-everyone new rules of 9-11 Preemptive Law?
OK, well here's the best compare and contrast of Patriot Act S.215 vs S.702, that I could find. If you have a better break-down, please post it in the comments.
Electronic Surveillance Law 101
from pogo.org -- June 26, 2013
[...]
Section 215 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861, a part of FISA) allows the FBI to collect “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” -- broad language that can be read to include almost anything. Indeed, FISC has apparently defined the relevant tangible things to include a phone company’s complete call database.
[...]
Communications collected from U.S. persons must not derive solely from First Amendment activities -- for example, collection because the FBI doesn’t like the website you visit or the books you check out of the library -- but can derive in part from such actions. In addition, anyone who receives a Section 215 order to turn over tangible things to the government is prohibited from disclosing the warrant or the details of the requested records. Under fairly weak congressional oversight requirements, the Attorney General submits an annual report to Congress detailing the number of requests made, granted, modified, and denied.
FISC cites Section 215 as providing the legal authorization for the collection of telephone metadata. According to the leaked documents, FISC ordered Verizon, pursuant to Section 215, to hand over information related to both communications “between the United States and abroad,” and “wholly within the United States (including local telephone calls).” Evidence suggests that the government has demanded similar information from other telecommunications giants on orders renewed every three months.
[...]
Section 702 of Title VII (codified in 2008 at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a) allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize a surveillance program targeting persons “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” for up to one year. The surveillance must collect “foreign intelligence,” defined roughly as information related to national defense, foreign affairs, or the ability to protect against actual or potential attacks, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities.
A Section 702 program must not “intentionally” target U.S. persons, but does not protect communications to and from U.S. persons inadvertently caught up in the surveillance program. In applying for FISC authorization, the government must certify targeting and minimization procedures that will reduce the likelihood of surveilling U.S. persons. As the Constitution Project points out, however, the government does not need to identify particular targets or demonstrate probable cause.
[...]
So Section 215 sanctions the targeting of
US citizens, with
no probable cause of any wrong-doing.
And Section 702 sanctions the targeting of Foreigners, with reasonable cause of some sort of wrong-doing. Any US citizens "inadvertently" swept up in a 702 foreign search, must be "unintentionally."
So what's the difference here, in terms of efficacy of actually stopping those would who harm US Citizens in their misguided acts of Terror?
It would be nice if these stats were easily available, but since they're not, well have to read the clues, given us by those with more "insider" access, to these Patriot efforts ...
We just need check the recent 'official record' on the topic of FISA's "actual results" ...
Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Oversight Hearing On Government Surveillance Programs
enewspf.com -- 31 Jul 2013
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Hearing on “Strengthening Privacy Rights and National Security:
Oversight of FISA Surveillance Programs
July 31, 2013
Senator Patrick Leahy:
[...]
It also has been far too difficult to get a straight answer about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program. Whether this program is a critical national security tool is a key question for Congress as we consider possible changes to the law. Some supporters of this program have repeatedly conflated the efficacy of the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program with that of Section 702 of FISA. I do not think this is a coincidence, and it needs to stop. The patience and trust of the American people is starting to wear thin.
I asked General Alexander about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program at an Appropriations Committee hearing last month, and he agreed to provide a classified list of terrorist events that Section 215 helped to prevent. I have reviewed that list. Although I agree that it speaks to the value of the overseas content collection implemented under Section 702, it does not do the same with Section 215. The list simply does not reflect dozens or even several terrorist plots that Section 215 helped thwart or prevent -- let alone 54 [blocked plots], as some have suggested.
These facts matter. This bulk collection program has massive privacy implications. The phone records of all of us in this room reside in an NSA database. I have said repeatedly that just because we have the ability to collect huge amounts of data does not mean that we should be doing so. In fact, it has been reported that the bulk collection of Internet metadata was shut down because it failed to produce meaningful intelligence. We need to take an equally close look at the phone records program. If this program is not effective, it must end. And so far, I am not convinced by what I have seen.
[...]
SO if Section 702 actually targets
the bad-guys, and Section 215 actually targets innocent Americans, why doesn't Senator Leahy
do something about it?
Well actually he IS planning to rollback this Patriot Act overreach -- if only he and his 10 Co-sponsors, can find the groundswell support of Americans, who still value the Constitution and Bill of Rights ... despite those few foreign dangers who don't.
And find those people, who value the actual facts, too. Just like Senator Leahy, and his FISA Accountability supporters do.