The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath. Ultimately, that is our duty. Our duty is to find balance because

there's no perfection. We don't operate with perfect information and there's no perfect

world in which you have full security and full privacy and civil liberties. So the question

is where is the appropriate balance? I'm Stephanie Pell, senior editor at LawFair and

this is the LawFair podcast October 17th, 2023. On September 28th, the Privacy and Civil

Liberties Oversight Board or P-CLOB issued its long awaited report on FISA Section 702, a

surveillance authority that is set to expire on December 31st if it is not reauthorized

by Congress. The report was supported by only three members of the board with the two minority

members issuing their own separate statement. The three two split was along party lines.

I sat down with four members of the P-CLOB, the chair, Sharon Bradford Franklin, and board

members Travis Loblanc, Beth Williams, and Richard DeZeno. Board member Ed Felton could not

join due to medical reasons. In the second of two episodes, we talk about the members' views

on the privacy and civil liberties risks posed by Section 702, and each sides differing

recommendations on how to address these issues, with a special focus on the recommendation

that is the most serious point of contention among the two sides. If you haven't listened

to yesterday's episode where we talked about the areas on which the members substantially

agree, and the compliance problems that have plagued the FBI, you may want to do that

first. It's the Lawfare Podcast October 17th, part two of the P-CLOB on FISA Section 702.

So I want to now shift gears a little bit and specifically focus on some of the significant

...