the fact is that no one has ever seen a subpoena like that because there aren't jenny. this incredibly misleading analogy has been made by more than one official on more than one occasion and often is a part of actual testimony to the united states congress. the officials who served four years as the justice department of the tortilla criminal surveillance recently told the "wall street journal" what he really thinks about this. he said, a federal attorney, and

it is now a matter of public record that the records program has been operating since at least two dozen seven. and it is not a coincidence that handful of senators have been working since then to find ways to of let the public to what is actually going on. months and years went into trying to find ways to raise public awareness about secret surveillance authority and to do it within the confines of the classification rules.

their government believed the law is a lot to do. in the last four years exactly zero opinion have been released.

intelligence community have consistently been unwilling ten state what the right law-abiding people are on this issue. i repeatedly ask this in public hearings. and without adequate protection built into a law there is no way that americans can never be sure that the government is not going to interpret authority more and more broadly year after year until the idea of the tallest tree monitoring your every move turns from dystopia to reality. now, some are going to say that will never happen because the

be used to bolster surveillance. outside of the names of the judge's virtually everything else is secretive about the court. it makes challenging them an appeal process almost impossible the proceedings are secret. i can tell you, almost always undecided. they lay out the argument on why

and it is all done without the benefit of actually making a safer. such today i am going to deliver another warning. if we do not see a unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we are all going to live to regret. the consequences of law on the presence of balance state, but as you listen to this, ponder

being made of public record. when did become are right in america for government officials public statements and private statements to defer so fundamentally. the answer is, it is not all right. it is indicative of a much larger culture of misinformation , it goes beyond the congressional hearing minutes of the public conversation. for example less brand a director of the national security agency spoke over the american enterprise institute when he said publicly, we don't

collect american vacation information in bulk. especially troubling is the fact that there is nothing, nothing in the patriot act that limits the sweeping bulk collection to a phone records. the government can use the patriot act business record authority to collect, collate, and retain all sorts of sensitive information, including medical records, financial records, or credit-card purchases. they can use this authority to

significant examples. for years senior justice apartment officials said told the congress and the public that that patriot act business record authority, the authority used to collect the phone records of millions of law-abiding americans is analogous to a grand jury subpoena. they say analogous to a grand jury subpoena. that statement is exceptionally misleading and certainly strains

misleading and certainly strains the word is analogous beyond the breaking point. certainly true that both the authorities have been used to collect a wide variety of records, but the patriot act can be secretly interpreted to permit ongoing collection, and this makes that authority very, very different from regular grand jury subpoena authority. i am sure their is a lawyer here . allow the government on an

those items. so we ought to reject the idea that governments may use the power to arbitrarily bypass. today government officials openly tell the press that they have the authority to effectively turn american smart funds and cell phones into indication enabled coming beacon compounding the problem with the fact that the case law is unsettled and the leaders of the intelligence community have consistently been unwilling ten

really thinks about this. he said, a federal attorney, and i quote, a grand jury had been for such a broad class of records of criminal investigation. he/she would be laughed out of court. defenders of this have said that

they can use this authority to develop, for example, the database of gun owners that is deemed subversive. this means that the government authority to collect information on law abiding americans is essentially limitless at this time. if it is a record held by have

conversation. for example less brand a director of the national security agency spoke over the american enterprise institute when he said publicly, we don't hold data on u.s. citizens. ..

law enforcement world war the original law. the court got the job of interpreting these new unparalleled authorities of the patriot act and the amendment. it was their decision to issue binding secret rulings that entered the laws of the constitution in the startling ways that have come to light in the last six weeks. there were the issues of decision that the patriot act to

intelligence community have consistently been unwilling ten state what the right law-abiding people are on this issue. i repeatedly ask this in public hearings. and without adequate protection built into a law there is no way that americans can never be sure that the government is not going to interpret authority more and more broadly year after year until the idea of the tallest tree monitoring your every move turns from dystopia to reality.

centuries. it may also surprise you that when president obama came to office the administration agreed with me that these rulings need to be made public. in the summer of 2009i received a written commitment from the justice department and the office of the director of national intelligence that the process has begun to be created to start reacting and reclassifying the court opinions so that the american people would have some idea of what their government believed the law is a lot to do.

presence of balance state, but as you listen to this, ponder that most of us here have a computer in our pockets that potentially can be used to track and monitor arrest. the combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown and that checks and balances that limits government action could lead us to a surveillance of state that cannot be reversed. now, at this point i thought a

passed. yet in the decades since the law has been extended several times with no public discussion about how the law has actually been interpreted. the results, the creation of an always expanding, omnipresence surveillance states that now chips away needlessly at the liberties and freedoms of our founding fathers. and it is all done without the