continues. host: for discussion on federal surveillance law and foreign surveillance act in particular, we're joined by sean itka, policy council at the progress. sean vitka, remind our viewers is and man progress when folks demand progress and demand progress action, what the are roups, how they related. >> the progress action are two the same organization. the d progress is c-3, demand progress is more political arm. host: what do you do there? the work you are involved in?

gree -- as council for them. we are active on neutrality and surveillance issues. sections of the two is mass surveillance law of the day, omething we've dedicated huge amount of time to and something our members are active o. comes emind us where it to and history behind this. 702 is from 2008, t passed in 2008, the law allows for the program attic surveillance of tarts. people tended for overseas and who you are not u.s. persons. is trick in the debate today number of americans who get andt up in the surveillance we know that is a large number and we know it is used in ways people would not accept. host: why do we know it is a large number, but do not know exact number? guest: the number from the government comes from 2011 estimates 215 million communications are

ollected yearly, a staggering number tis hard to imagine. the reason we don't have a clear umber about either the overall volume or more importantly, the number of americans affected by surveillance is government resistance. refuse to produce estimates, more actual accounts of americans affected by this. promised over the course of the last couple years partsgress and to various of the public, they would come up with an estimate. year, director coates and rogers, the dni director, nd the nsa they just decided to balk on the since then refused to give congress an estimate of how many americans are they are on.ng host: this is a time congress is looking to renew parts of this. renewalon the table for at the end of this year? guest: section 702 because of invasive it is,

comes with a sunset built in. two years ago with section 215, as well. sporadically decide it must be revisited continue.can the reforms on the table are very broad range and some extent sunset itself is on the table. we are fighting for a number of reforms. the one that i think most people would be familiar with is the back door search. door search, after they collect hundreds of millions of communications, what can they do it?h the governments argue and the .b.i., in particular, does a practice that is looking specifically for americans in this information. we talk about hundreds of millions of communications ollected, some large number includes american information and the question is can you go back in and specifically look though you s, even wouldn't be allowed to when you initially collected it. reauthorization

process is going forward, demand to ress is sending a letter congress talking about the reforms they have been pushing for. surveillance has always been justified on the back of concerns, evenity though many occasions it's been employed to counter progressive reform movements and targets communities of color and people working for social change. administration has made no secret of the desire to criminalize people of color and no democrat should support a law granting trump the ability to spy without a court-issued warrant on 325 million people that live in this country. sort of response have you gotten, this letter specifically to democrats on capitol hill. they hear the concern loud and clear. under president obama, there to say, we impulse trust the person in charge. wayemocrat should feel that under president trump and feel that way under

attorney general sessions. this letter was designed to remind congress that 60 years jr. was in luther king targeted by the f.b.i. we still have major questions concerns about how environmental activists, among others, are spied on today and the beginning of this country, really. o congress, i think, is actually quite aware of that and particular, they're concerned. host: you mention in your letter, the national security defenders of this law. nsa director s the s, talking about benefit of section 702, here is what he had to say. >> the insight generated under lawful authority has enabled us to achieve significant insight from cyber perspective. we would not be able to generate some of the insights we've been to do that supported u.s. intelligence community 2016, with from regards to the russian activity,

able, we would n without this authority, not have the same level of insight with cyber actions around the world, both directed against ur neighbors, as well as directed against the u.s. structure. so i hope one of the takeaways talk to people about why is this so valuable, you get a unique this is, the fact it generates insight direct, actionable impact, this is not just theoretical, taking people off battle field, helping our partners take people off the of le field in terms arresting those terrorists and those who would do harm to their in other izens countries, we're able to help stop nations from moving arms parties. to other we are able to generate huge insight in terms of cyber security. to highlight to people, this is why 702 is so valuable. it's deep, unique information we

can't get via other means and it volume of this information and it is global applicability that make its such a powerful tool for us. that is why we feel so strongly, hey, we believe it is in our nation's best interest to statutory th the authority in 702, we think it is best interest. host: sean vitka, chance to respond to that? point out thing they is huge breadth of it. thinkabout what americans this is authorized for, the breadth is stunning. championing here. we are not asking for them to all access, we're not saying that they can't use it legitimate national security purposes, we're talking about can they target americans on the saying can we're they knowingly collect entirely communications under a law authorized for national

security purposes? the american people didn't those practices. host: sean vitka is with demand progress policy council there. them out online. demand progress.org. us taking your calls and questions as we talk about the surveillance law by the foreign intelligence surveillance act reauthorization coming up. for republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. in new york, rst line for independents, chuck, go ahead. need to es, i think we look back to president a veteran, who was and when he warned us that the ilitary industrial complex, that there was a problem going on. if -- we hear about terrorism, the amount of money that the u.s. spends bombing other with drones, even atomic

bombs. going on with the information from manning, which criminal, a traitor, he was pardoned, she sorry.doned, i'm but then assan, who people say he just journalist, released truth, the whole look n picture, oh, boy, up russia and podesta, and it is just incredible. u.s. media, i do want to mediac-span, but the u.s. is totally, it is what we were eisenhower , what warned us about. cia, are all just connected, controlling it. host: chuck, do you have a sean vitka? caller: yes. what do you think about the most department of defense statements regarding the united has to actually the

empire is falling, we're going war ve to start a somewhere? i mean, the truth that you're fisa just , i think let it expire. the patriot act should expire. also agree on that? guest: we would support expiration of the authorities. i mean, the amount of abuse we problematic, ery we released institutional lack the ndor, the name of report was taken from a fisa court opinion. that is what the fisa court that the nsa suffered from. isn't u know, there enough trust to support these authorities continuing. the caller mentioned helsea manning, what chelsea manning and edward snowden have played in the debate playing out the reauthorization process? guest: one interesting thing we knew or ebate, had information that suggested a

lot of things that were going on going on. it wasn't until snowden showed court documents that the severity of it was known. benny, kirk s like levy, these people predate laura by many years and herself did reporting on them back in the day, but since the information has become a bit more standardized, people know this. that other side of knowledge, we see some major problems that come with mass program, in particular, we have evidence that tens of millions of adults online ging their activity in fear of government. hose are innocent americans acting differently, that is infringement on free speech and ight to association and right to privacy. those are massive problems, social problems we will feel for time to come, no matter when the laws expire. host: john is a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning.

my question is they constantly they only collect metadata and never look at the content and therefore they're violating any american's rights, but they also say that that a american has committed a crime then they will by law have to report that crime or pass it off to the f.b.i. how would they know that committed a crime if to the n't listen content? it is sort of trying to bamboozle people, they are and ing your phone number date and timestamps and not actually listening to the say, theon, but like i only way it can know i'm doing a rime, have to have some content. host: got your point, sean vitka. guest: so just at the outset, a lot of different ways the government can surveill a person. authorities, broader authorities justified by foreign intelligence, the meta-data distinction showed up

at great length in the debate section thing called 215, a foreign intelligence authority and under that, the overnment said they successfully ordered in front of ability court they had to collect, lawful right to collect every phone record in perspective n basis, and they were 90 thorizing that every days. that is stunning and that was the initial snowden revelation. meta-data, to s be clear. tis full take, everything, concept of communication, in some cases on of scanning e content of communications and particular ne reforms that were certainly looking for and the american eople are looking for are limited to make sure information does not get sent for criminal urposes, right, foreign intelligence law, let it be useful for intelligence and make ure we are doing anything domestically, traditional norms

apply, the constitution still you know, in particular for people on u.s. soil who are specifically protected under law, just not under government practice. fisa court, tioned explain their role with 702. uest: foreign intelligence surveillance act tasks a secret ourt, fisa court, with reviewing government sec702, the with government goes yearly to get reauthorization to get what they are surveilling under 702. he problem with fisa court, they operate in secrecy and where that is necessary, that is what we rsation, but see on the other side, especially of snowden don't ions, is they function particularly well and the re rather twofold, reports i mentioned for lack of andor documents over decade of fisa court throwing up a red flag saying something is wrong

here. to don't have real ability do anything about it. five different instances identified where they of criminal sanctions to the nsa. they raised fourth amendment nsa.es to the but at the end of the day, we were able to substantiate that the government was collecting information the fisa court would deem to be unauthorized collection. pottsville.rence, go ahead. caller: can i speak now? with go ahead, you are on sean vitka. caller: yes, first of all, let me say this. condemning snowden for what he done, they said he broke the law. administration, he broke he law and the nsa broke the law by breaking fourth amendment and article four, bill of rights. what they did, they should have warrants to listen to our cell phones, our home phones,

laptops, special t.v.'s we had, they broke the law to begin with. snowden did, i consider him a hero, the american people know our us.rnment betrayed host: sean vitka, anything to add to that? no.st: well, yeah. ist is important to remember that number that i mentioned. study and found adults change online behavior. esearcher studied the traffic to wikipedia pages department of recommend curity suspicious, if you mention facebook al qaeda on feed, that might be indicator of something. people researchers went to wikipedia and found corollary ages and after snowden, there was 22% trop in traffic to that. what is important to remember is that the moment you worry about

the government looking at you ar the wrong reasons, that is problem, and when you spread that across society, it doesn't of the population is going to be alarmed and afraid, there is going to be 20% that are worry body how they interact online and americans ghts as today and they are not unreasonable people, they are people like you. consider edward snowden a hero? guest: i think it is kind of and i think snowden said that. we deal with facts and the issue have with the fisa court, with the nsa, it makes it in facts.cult to deal i think it is a huge problem that snowden was the person to know. what we the fact he did it or that he xyz reason e it for is not material. the problem is the government is spy og millions of americans. kaufman, texas, marlin is morning.can, good caller: i agree with you on a

an le of things, i'm 81-year-old republican, i heard democratic talking points, you job for them, at they probably enjoy what they are hearing. twofold.m is one with the outing of the people on the conversations that collected, what in the world is the secretary of the -- u.n. doing outing all hose people, it is nothing but political damage trying to be inflicted on the republicans. problem is, like you are talking today, you will have a ard time getting a single republican vote for your bill ecause you used the same old tired democrat talking points. on esus christ were running the republican ticket, the first thing you would do is accuse him you are a racist like accusing trump of being a racist and he's not. knows hewho knows trump is not a racist bone in his

body. the are you accusing president of being a racist? guest: no, i'm saying he has authoritarian authoritarian -- we were out there with president obama. democrats, we have fought republicans, we will be fighting both on this issue right are not on the side. host: demandprogress.org, to online.hem out do you have republicans you sent similar letter to the one you earlier? what has their response been? here.eed the votes guest: republicans, some republicans are the best or privacy champion necessary congress. done entative amosh has incredible job over time and we see pairings we don't otherwise see. of le mistake a number issues being bipartisan, very few issues are as bipartisan as even if we have different

reasons to be concerned. ome people are concerned about president obama having this authority, some are more concerned about president trump this authority. i'm concerned about both, i will explain that. people happy to explain that are representative amosh and lewis.entative john host: caller used the term outing, we have heard the term unmasking, can you explain what unmasking is? guest: in certain context, the mask information they know or determine is u.s. person information. it is important to remember, not happen with all the communication that come in each year the government go hrough all of it to determine it, that is not how it works. when the nsa sends information agencies, they will redact or mask information and one, instead ofn something more explicit about who the person is. is important to

understand the underlying or the itself, the receiving ency can unmask it, respect it. masking and unmasking, there is room for abuse there. we have enough u.n.rmation to say that the ambassador was part of the problem there and, you know, but where congressre should look. they always should look for where laws have been abused. host: time for a few calls with progress, of demand policy council there. bob waiting in hometown, illinois. republicans, bob, go ahead. caller: good morning. xcuse me, good morning, john, thanks. regarding the unmasking of micha flynn, how does the department of justice prosecute find out anybody in the obama administration was unmasking?illegal

thank you. gues guest: guest: i'm a little bit confused. somebody did something wrong, yes, that is it. but the question of, one that 702, what happens with evidence that is produced and when it ends up in criminal court, that is a potentially big problem for both sides. shows up in secret, that means the defendant's rights are not something they can stand up for, right? if michael flynn's rights were violated, we need to to sure he has the ability defend himself and potentially to challenge the government's ase on the basis of the constitutionality of the search. and e government shows up they announce or revealed they introduced or used evidence they collected unlawfully, that compromises the case there is integrity issue at the heart of question. we need to make sure if 702 evidence is ending