In a way, that is true: under a law enacted in 2000 to regulate surveillance powers, it is legal for localities to follow residents secretly.
The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests.
"With legislation like the Email Privacy Act stalled in congress, it really comes down to states and cities to step in and regulate surveillance programs and require transparency and oversight," said Nathan Wessler, a national law enforcement surveillance expert at the ACLU in New York.
Mrs. Feinstein, who was responding to reporting by Bloomberg News, also said that none of the cases involved the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the law that regulates surveillance activities conducted on American soil — and "in most instances did not involve an American's information".
Malcolm Rifkind, head of Parliament's intelligence committee, acknowledged that laws regulating surveillance were written mostly before the development of technology that allows governments to collect vast amounts of electronic data on ordinary people.
French lawmakers have spent the past week debating an intelligence bill in the National Assembly — the lower house of French parliament — amid fierce opposition from civil liberties advocates, who argue that the proposed legislation is too vague and that it sanctions poorly regulated mass surveillance.
And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal disputes and damage to international trade otherwise.
It comes amid reports that police have lobbied the government for the power to view the internet browsing history of every computer user in Britain in the runup to the publication of new legislation on regulating surveillance powers.
