Talk:Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Copyright violation
I have reverted this page to the version before the copy violation. It was previously blanked. That is a very stupid thing to do unless your primary purpose is to ensure that nobody can read information on the topic. If, instead, your primary purpose is to avoid a copyright violation, you should ONLY blank out the copyright violation parts - not the entire article. Kainaw 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Government sentence
sentence taken from [this] website. I think this is governmental, and therefore in the public domain, right? Lethe 01:55, 29 June 2004 (UTC)
 * From the U.S. Copyright office: "Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection." --Kainaw (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

History
Can you please give some historical context to this very important and timely Act? Legal nonsense does not count in my mind as some kind of mystical and elusive argument for control over this article. I am >trying< to be patient here. And I am no fool, though I appreciate your care and thoughtfulness. ")

Holon67 10:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Authorization in time of war and US v Truong 2002
My edits 07:17, 24 December 2005 state "Authorization during times of war - Removed added opinion. Removed inaccurate information re. US V Truong was in 1978)" I accidently hit enter before I was finished. The article text was accurate my edit reason however states the case was in 1978 however the FISC case was in 1972 and was an appeal. The case in question is actually located at  The attribution of a grant of presidential authority in reguards to this case is inaccurate and so this claim was removed. The text also stated that the statute is unclear however after reading the complete text of the statute the wording was clearly unambiguous.

Warrantless Electronic Surveillance
The section on electronic surveillance without a warrant must make clear that different standards apply to different foreign powers. Section 1801 defines a foreign power as

(a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. 

But Section 1802(a) only authorizes electronic surveillance without a warrant if

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

If that isn't clear in the text, then someone might get the impression that electronic surveillance can occur without a warrant between terrorist groups rathat than between agents of foreign governments. The proviso earlier in the article that "For most purposes, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations, but these definitions are not included in the principal purposes FISA including electronic surveillance." isn't useful because it doesn't make clear whether there are other purposes which include eletronic surveillance which are not one of those principal purposes for which only 1801(a)(1),(2)and(3) apply. Ortcutt 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Response
Adding the definitions in the text does not clarify and instead obfuscates the text of that section as written. It can change the meaning of the text as written. Why do you think they create a separate definition section when they the bill? It is to keep things as simple as possible to make sure it the bill is clear to those reading the text. As for the definition of Foreign power, That's the purpose of the footnote(s) including one which links to the exact text of the section in question.

A possible compromise would be to add a footnote to the definition of foreign power and place it next to the word foreign power in that text. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope this addresses everyone's concerns over the clarity of this section :) Take a look at the revised Without a court order section -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Response
OK. The thing to do then is have a clearer definitions section. Talking about "for most purposes" and "principal purposes" doesn't cut it when it comes to determining whether the broad or narrow definition of foreign powers applies to a given section. The definitions section should discuss how foreign powers in defined in the act and clearly distinguish between the broad (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6) definition, and the more restricted definition as it relates to various sections of the law. It would also be useful to refer the reader to the definitions section when terms like this come up as well, since they may not read the article top to bottom and may not realize how the term is defined.

Ortcutt 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. The footnotes don't cut it. As it is, the section is still wrong. The first sentence of the section is false. If someone reads this section and takes the trouble to follow the link and then goes and reads Section 1801(a), they will wrongly come to believe that electronic surveillance is allowed in cases involving foreign powers as defined by Section 1801(a)(4),(5),(6). This section must make clear that electronic surveillance is only allowed of foreign powers as defined by 1801(a)(1)(2)(3). That can be done by making explicit reference to the "Scope and Limits" section, were the "Scope and Limits" section better written.

Ortcutt 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your proverbial slip is showing. You are letting your point of view influence your edits please write for a Neutral Point of Viewin the future. Making conclusions in support of a policy that is as disputed as this one is by definition is not NPOV. If you represent both views that it is and is not then it would be considered NPOV. Thank you. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not true. I have no agenda, other than wanting the statements in the article to be true and for readers to come away with a accurate impression of the FISA.  Although you never state what you think is POV, since you have removed the sentence clarifying what is not authorized by the act, I take it that you think that is POV material.  What is POV about that?  That's a fact.  There is no section of the act which authorizes warrantless electonic surveillance of foreign powers as defined by 1801(a)(4)(5)(6).  No one at all has or could argue that it does.  Some people have argued that other statutes or constitutional provision such as the AUMF or Article II provide such authorizations, but that's not something that has to do with what the FISA does and does not authorize.  I don't understand what you think is gained by leaving the reader in doubt as to what the FISA in particular authorizes and what is doesn't authorize.  Ortcutt 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding misinformation and POV to this article
Orcutt, stop adding material which has previously been removed. Your statement says:

The act does not authorize electronic surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers as defined by §§1801(a)(4),(5),(6), and thus the act does authorize electonic surveillance of terrorists without a warrant.

The act does quite clearly authorize warrantless surveilence of Foreign powers. :* This makes the legal conclusion that the act authorizes spying on Americans(Terrorists or not) which is in currently seriously disputed yet you repeatedly add it to the article as being fact. ::* As for the justification that the act authorizes the warrentless surveilence of Amercians, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has released a report rebutting the legal justifications the administration used for spying on Americans. (News)(HTML) (Report)(PDF) "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information" :* You mispelled Electronic

Thus based on the above reasons I am again removing your sentance from the article. Please do not re-add it. Further additions of this material when it has been removed will result my issuing a request for admin intervention. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign sorry)

What is POV? It's right there in the FISA
SusanLarson, you continue to misrepresent the FISA and my edits. You wrote:

This statement is clearly inaccurate. The act does quite clearly authorize warrantless surveilence of Foreign powers.

You must think the FISA authorizes warrantless electronic surveillance of all foreign powers, because otherwise your objection wouldn't be germane to my claim that the FISA doesn't authorize electronic surveillance of terrorist organizations. This proves you have no idea what is in the FISA and what isn't. The act authorizes--under conditions--the electronic surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers as defined by §1801(a)(1)(2)(3). Just look at §1802(a)(1)(A)(i).

"the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or"

What part of that don't you understand? It does not authorize warrantless surveillance of all foreign powers, but only those as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title. This isn't a matter of legal conclusions or "policy" statements, whatever that means. It's a question of the plain English. So, where in the FISA does it authorize electronic surveillance of foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(4), (5), or (6)? It simply doesn't do so anywhere, a fact which is worthwhile to point out to the reader since most readers can't say off the tops of their heads what is in §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) and §1801(a)(4),(5),(6). I don't see why you have a problem with the sentence about what the FISA does not authorize. I'm sure that is a question which many readers of this entry will be wondering. If you're able to have this much trouble with the FISA after working on this entry, pity the poor reader who's looking for the first time. I also don't see what the point is of bringing up the CRS report. This entry doesn't have anything to do with whether the NSA program is legal or illegal. That is beyond the scope of this entry. The question whether the FISA authorizes electronic surveillance without a warrant of groups engaged in international terrorism doesn't even arise in the CRS report because the answer is clearly no. A quick read through §1802 will tell you that. The report is focused on questions of other authorizations, matters which are clearly out of the scope of the FISA entry. I'd be pleased to have admin intervention since it will give someone of authority a chance to look over the evidence and decide whether true, NPOV, explanatory material which prevents the reader from getting a wrong impression of the FISA should remain in the entry. We shouldn't require the reader to read the FISA in order to get accurate information from Wikipedia. It would be a great disservice to the Wikipedia readers if an article is left in a state which gives the totally false impression that the FISA authorizes electronic surveillance of all foreign powers.

Ortcutt 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My apology
You are correct, and I am sorry. The added material was worded in a way which resulted in my misreading it. I apologize. After re-read the section of the act I finally understood the point you were trying to get across. I have rewritten the added sentence in order to clarify and expand on it. I hope this meets with your approval. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Weakening of the FISA
Given that the critics of the FISA are claiming that some of it's restrictions are too limiting and they should be changed, how is it wrong to claim that they are arguing that the law be weakened or loosened? When you change a law to authorize something that was forbidden, then you are weakening the restrictions imposed by the law. The vague "updated" papers over what is being advocated.

It is also POV to claim that "Although FISA and other related laws may need to be updated to address technology developments" since that implies that the FISA does need to be updated, and it is POV to claim that "care must be taken" when updating it, since some people might argue that the concerns raised by the Church Committee. The sentence should only reflect the fact that weakening the resrictions of the FISA would allow more activities, and as such, provides more means of abusing the system.

Ortcutt 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Opinion as Fact and other problems
In the passage reading:

"When Congress decided to pass FISA in 1978, they knew that a "wall" had to be erected between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, for if FISA was used in criminal cases it would infringe on the very liberties that the U.S. is built upon."

The opinion of the Congress that passed FISA is stated as factual. This is somelike the difference in saying, "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God" and "Jesus is the Son of God". The first statement is a factual statement about Christian beliefs. The second statement states Christian beliefs as authoritative fact. Properly, this passage should read:

"When Congress decided to pass FISA in 1978, the bill's supporters believed that a "wall" had to be erected between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, because they believed that if FISA was used in criminal cases it would infringe on the very liberties that the U.S. is built upon."

There is an even more subtle problem with this statement, in that it makes a statement about the opinion of FISA supporters which is not widely enough known to be accepted at face value. Such a statement should have an accompaning quotation expressing intent from one of the bill's original sponsers, for it is not otherwise obvious that the reader should believe such an assertion of intent. Otherwise, the sentence should be deleted from the article as an unsupported assertion.

Also, it would be nice if the article was going to mention the concept of the 'wall' between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, that it also mention that since the 9/11 attacks the barrier between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies has come under increased criticism.
 * I went ahead and removed that entire section because it was almost entirely POV. It was also just poorly written.  The points that were being addressed might be a useful addition, but is mostly in reference to the United States v. Nicholson case mentioned in the "Post FISA" section.  Maybe that case could be explained in greater depth to address the legality of using evidence gathered in a criminal case.   Uruz7 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading references to NSA data mining should be removed
"(a subsequent Bloomberg article[3] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000)."

The subject of this article (NSA call database) has nothing to due with the NSA surveillance controversy that is it cited in reference to. The are sperate programs. The references herein are adding to the confusion which should be anathema to an encyclopedic article. All references to data mining should be removed to the appropriate page and a wikilink made in the related topics sectionJpat34721 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Criticisms
Why are all of the "criticisms" of FISA from right-wing institutions claiming that FISA is too restrictive, when there are a number of critiques of FISA from groups and persons who claim that FISA is not protective enough of civil liberties, particularly as amended by the PATRIOT Act? I'm adding an ACLU critique to this section, absent compelling arguments to the contrary e.g. http://www.aclu.org/natsec/spying/14454res20030510.html http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/dempsey.html http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/20/ramasastry.patriotact/index.html 70.107.152.216 00:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)bc


 * First, the World Policy Institute is hardly a "right-wing" organization, more like way-out left. Second, the criticisms are not "that FISA is too restrictive" but rather that it no longer works as it was intended to provide court involvement for certain aspects of foreign intelligence surveillance -- why don't you read the links.  The criticisms cited do not call for making FISA "less restrictive" but for updating it to address certain developments, particularly technological ones, that were not foreseen at its passage -- i.e., to apply congressional or court authorization and oversight to new circumstances in which FISA currently fails.  Third, while there may certainly be other appropriate links -- including links to those who see FISA as too permissive in any case -- the links you cite are certainly not the appropriate ones (well, maybe the ACLU link is somewhat relevant but it is out-of-date having last been updated in 2003, but the other two are links to criticisms of the Patriot Act and other developments (and the ABAnet link is from 2002).  While these might have some FISA relevance at the margin they do not belong in an article on FISA per se.

207.237.240.61 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect America Act of 2007
I came here looking for information about this landmark legislation, only to find no mention of the bill just passed (08/05/07) relating to the FISA legislation. See the article President Bush Commends Congress on Passage of Intelligence Legislation for information from the White House about the bill's passage. This bill, as many may know, has extended (or restored) the powers of the FISA law to allow warrantless wiretapping of all international calls, among other revisions. I think this bill is very noteworthy, especially in context of the continuing investigations into Alberto Gonzales's role in pushing the earlier wiretapping in that now confusing, infamous late night hospital visit to the ailing ex-AG John Ashcroft. I'm no expert, but this legislation is a huge issue, and really needs to be addressed by someone better qualified to interpret and communicate the purpose and effects of this legislation. Finally, here is the final vote roll call from the house of representatives, which is surely important to many Americans, and could fit nicely in the link section, or as a reference citation to some statement relating the large margin of victory this bill enjoyed. I haven't found the Senate vote tally yet, but will track it down when I have more time. Seanherman 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * someone was kind enough to create Protect_America_Act_of_2007. There is also an extensive write up contained within the FISA article itself.  I'm no wikipedia expert, but it seems it would make more sense to include a brief mention in the FISA article, then link to the new act's article. Seanherman 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

thisweekincongress.com
I've just removed a citation from thisweekincongress.com that was attached to a quote from George W Bush. The owner of the site pointed out in an OTRS ticket that he didn't have this quote in the article cited so it doesn't make a lot of sense to attach the cite to that particular part of the article. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduced subsection into "History" section
The "History" section falls into the trap of "recentism" or contemporary myopia. The "History" section would be appropriate as a "Background" section for an article on the Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program. However, that is not what this article is titled. The history section of this article should spend more time discussing the motivation for enacting the law, the controversies and debates surrounding the law and anything else that is known about the implementation and enforcement of the act. The Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program is only the most recent and publicly prominent aspect of FISA.

To help suggest that more is needed, I have broken out the text about the Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program into a separate subsection.

--Richard 07:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added a link to the main NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article under the new subsection heading you created. It is a very comprehensive and often-updated article. I am not sure we need to duplicate a whole lot of content here in the FISA article, but am open to the ideas of all of the other contributors and editors. An unattributed source 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Bush stuff is taking over the page.  It should be reduced to a very short note and linked to the main article. -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FISA Restrictions
What exactly does FISA let Intelligence Officials do in terms of surveillance?? Does it let them spy on citizens from other countries or what, because the article isn't really clear on the specifics, any help would be appreciated. (Murchy 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC))


 * In general, it defines what Federal officials may do when investigating foreign citizens. It does apply to U.S. citizens in the sense that if you (as a U.S. citizen) are talking on the phone to a foreign person who is under investigation, your phone call may be tapped.  However, if you then call a U.S. citizen, it is citizen-to-citizen, so the FISA doesn't apply. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is less restrictive than that. From 1801 (b.1.c) - any person who "engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore" - applies. Therefore, it applies to suspected terrorists who are US citizens.

International terrorism includes acts that "(2) appear to be intended— (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or [. . .]" (1801 C-2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.153.114 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not apply to U.S. citizens who are engaged in terrorist activities who do not have any contact in any way with foreigners. Once the citizens contact foreigners for any form of support, it becomes international terrorism and FISA (now the Patriot Act) can step in to authorize investigation.  This should be put in historical context.  Before FISA, citizens were investigated all the time without warrants and without any need to have contact with foreigners.  Some people argue that FISA set up restrictions against the government investigating citizens.  Others argue that it legalized the illegal investigation of citizens with foreign contacts. -- k a i n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kainaw: I stand corrected. Every section I looked at prohibits its use solely against American citizens, as you point out.

After giving this some more thought, I would suggest that to add to the historical context, the spying that went on rather routinely was always illegal from a constitutional standpoint, and came to a head during the Church committee investigations in the follow-up to Watergate. FISA was really designed to permit clandestine investigation of foreign operatives, and to streamline the warrant process.

Thanks for your comments.

PS - I revised the first paragraph to indicate "foreign governemnts and individuals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.153.114 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that it is important to put this in historical context. The problem is referencing the historical context.  I am not a historian and I avoid history books, papers, and the like.  I know why FISA was created and what Congress said it would be used for.  Wikipedia does not allow original research, so I cannot simply state what I know.  I have to find it documented somewhere and reference that.  If you have respectable references, it would be nice to add the historical context.  Then, the next step is to handle the backlash from those who claim FISA was created with the sole purpose of attacking civil liberties (many even claim Bush created it).  If this were a computer topic, I'd be all over the historical context.  It just isn't in my field of expertise. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As to attacks by Civil Libertarians, I don't think many would claim that the law's intent was to abridge civil liberties. As you suggest, those that would simply are not informed, and its intent was to allow clandestine foreign intelligence while requiring a modicum of oversite. Bush certainly didn't create the FISA law - but he hasn't been following it either. As I understand it, that is the main complaint - although it is a "secret court", and only "denied in part" one of the 2224 requests submitted in 2006. That's typical since its inception.

I think the first paragraph, although short, addresses the historical context pretty well - Church Committee investigations and Watergate fallout. I'll add the 2006 report to the article. I freely admit that I am not a historian either, and that the first paragraph's historical references could be expanded. Without going into actual and alleged "warrentless surveillance" prior to the FISA law, I don't know what you are referring to - could you elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.153.114 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Watergate and the "Red Scare" surveillance of supposed Communists were not handled with warrants. Some people in the government wanted to spy on citizens.  So, they did.  These two events were key to getting Congress to decide it is time to slap some rules on "foreign" intelligence. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FISA Amendments Act
Clearly, the article needs an update to mention the in-progress FISA Amendments Act, which just passed the Senate (not yet the House). See for a start. Superm401 - Talk 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that this is a "Clearly", since you link to a dead article, and it ended up not passing into law. --Stacecom (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having made several substantial contributions to this article as events unfolded, I would vote against splitting it off until there is actually a new FISA statute signed into law by President Whomever. The Senate has put off a vote until after the July 4th recess, and this is a can that could get kicked down the road even further in an election year; it might end up back in a House-Senate conference committee if any amendments to the House bill are passed in the Senate.  Until something actually becomes law to replace the Protect America Act of 2007, splitting a comprehensive overview article like this one leads to untended-to articles that fewer people read, like the one I just wikilinked to.  When the time comes, what the article will need is a comprehensive "write through," at least of the lead section.  Then splitting off the old "further developments" section into a History of FISA article would make sense.  Here is a link to a good guide for how this process works in journalism, specifically as it applies to Wikipedia:


 * http://www.kcnn.org/principles/updating_breaking_news


 * In fact, now that I look at the date this discussion began, I can see how much everything has changed since that first post. The ball was in the House's court in February, now it is back in the Senate's.  I'm going to comment out the split/discuss tag in the article for the time being, until there is a really substantial development. Plausible to deny (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Take out Protect America Act and Put in FISA Ammendments Act?
Since the Protect America Act expired, I think all that material should be in a separate article with just a brief mention here, and then we should describe the Fisa Ammendments Act in detail. What does everyone think? Asbruckman (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny fact
A funny fact is that "(att) fisa" is a swedish word meaning "(to) fart". Fabbe (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Words in one language can mean something else in another language?  That is so funny.  I never would have thought it possible. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true! So if someone wonder why "FISA stinks", there is a good answer! :-) Fabbe (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Laws applying outside the USA
What does "The law does not apply outside the United States" mean? National laws of countries do not apply outside the homeland. Each country has its own laws, surely.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does the string 702 not appear in this article?
With 99% of the talk about FISA referring to FISA 702, why does the string 702 not even appear in this article. How can someone reading The Guardian even figure out which part of FISA is referred to by the NSA when it isn't mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.33.217 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

FISA finds NSA excesses but approves powers anyway
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Menn, Joseph. "Secret U.S. court approved wider NSA spying even after finding excesses." (Archive) Reuters. Tuesday November 19, 2013.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080318182939/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206162614/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf to http://iilj.org/documents/Jordan-47_BC_L_Rev_000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302033755/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html
 * Added tag to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1927/show
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319031919/http://digital50.com/news/items/PR/2007/09/10/DC02717/prepared-remarks-of-kenneth-l-wainstein-assistant-attorney-general-for-national-sec.html to http://digital50.com/news/items/PR/2007/09/10/DC02717/prepared-remarks-of-kenneth-l-wainstein-assistant-attorney-general-for-national-sec.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719031932/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825205004/http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/ to http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders
Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders Should this be added to the article?Terrorist96 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report
Very interesting article: The article contains a good analysis of systemic problems with the FISA warrant system which are present without any relation to Trump or political bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report
 * I will put some info from there: "we could not review original Woods Files for 4 of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed" "identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed" "identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy" "interviewed FBI officials who indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and National Security Division oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy" from https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf 91.76.22.132 (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Telephony Metadata
I added information on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States v Moalin, where the court stated mass telephony metadata collection was illegal when using FISA. It was added as a peer to Physical Searches. If someone would like to polish the addition, it would be appreciated.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Section Subsequent developments split
The requested split had already taken place so the split notice has been removed. A notice referring to to the split article has been added. Some additional information from this section could be moved to the other page. Gusfriend (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006
This edit (a revert) caught my eye. It concerns bill numbers. I'm no expert, but some googling turned up both S.2455 (Sponsor: Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH], Introduced 03/16/2006) and S.3931 (Sponsor: Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]. Introduced 09/22/2006) on the Congress.gov website (Horrors, primary source!!) -- both bills being titled Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006. Just mentioning this here for info of editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)