While liberal media is focused on berating  President  Trump every chance they get, a major issue is being debated in Congress, one that affects every citizen regardless of political affiliation.

With basic constitutional rights being threatened, one would think the liberal media would at the very least mention the key issue being debated in Congress right now.

A significant change to a surveillance law is set to expire at the end of the year, and lawmakers are scrambling to find an alternative.

Though the law was established under Section 702  of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to gain intel against foreign spies, it is often used to invade the privacy of Americans as well—a complete and utter invasion of privacy, as well as an unconstitutional act.

Former President Barack Obama misused this act against the American people.

Obama’s improper handling of NSA information led to the unmasking of hundreds of Americans—including top Trump aids.

The Hill reported:

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.

“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” Nunes wrote in the letter to Coats.

The letter was provided to The Hill from a source in the intelligence community.

In March, Nunes disclosed that he had seen data suggesting Trump campaign and transition officials were having their names unmasked by departing officials in the Obama White House.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice and CIA Director John Brennan have acknowledged making such requests though they insisted the requests were for legitimate work reasons.

Nunes recused himself from his committee’s work on its investigation over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 campaign after a controversy over his charges about Obama-era unmasking..

Corrupt individuals like Obama clearly mishandled the information gained from the surveillance, putting, even more, Americans at risk.

Democrats in Congress are proposing to replace the bill for security reasons, even though it is being mishandled and backfiring on citizens.

The Daily Caller reported:

Stewart Baker, the first assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, offered The Daily Caller News Foundation one telling example. He says imagine a hypothetical email address like “[email protected]” in which it doesn’t explicitly show if Mahmoud, who may be conversing with nefarious Yemeni nationals for example, is an American or not.

Baker asserts that if the NSA knew that Mahmoud was an American, it would “usually ‘mask’” his email address with some label like “USPerson No. 1 email address.”

Advocates of privacy are pushing for the act to be repealed altogether, as it directly infringes on the rights of Americans to their privacy, and can be used as a weapon against American citizens.

The Daily Caller continued:

Privacy advocates adamantly disagree. They say there must be a way to simultaneously respect the protections promised by the Constitution, while also allowing, even fostering a robust national security infrastructure.

“The USA RIGHTS Act’s reforms are critical to protecting the civil liberties and privacy of Americans,” says Ashkhen Kazaryan, legal fellow at the nonprofit TechFreedom. She also applauds another critical reform in the law: the ending of the “backdoor search loophole.”.

“The USA RIGHTS Act offers government surveillance reform that Americans need and constitutionally should have,” says Michelle Richardson, deputy director of the Freedom, Security and Technology project for the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), another tech and privacy-focused nonprofit. “Most importantly, it would close the backdoor loophole in Section 702 that allows the government to search the mass troves of data collected through the program for the private communications of Americans without obtaining a warrant. The law was clearly never intended for this egregious use, and the USA RIGHTS Act finally makes that clear.”

Do you agree that this invasive act needs to go?

Leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.