Former FBI intel chief: Surveillance isn't spying, it's actually a lot more powerful.
Comey was anxious to echo the narrative advanced by those in opposition to the president that court-ordered electronic surveillance is somehow different or less distasteful than the untidy, morally fluid concept of spying.
He can seek to take shelter in the softer “surveillance” word, but here is what he and McCabe unleashed on an American citizen involved on the outskirts of a presidential campaign: A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court-ordered electronic surveillance allows the FBI leeway to intercept more than telephone and computer communications. It allows the clandestine microphone and camera capture of the target at all times and in all places, even the most intimate, of his daily life. It is more intrusive than even a Title III criminal wiretap of a drug dealer or mob boss.
So, in a way, Comey is right. FISA court-ordered electronic surveillance is different than spying. It is the epitome of government power over an individual’s privacy. It is the nuclear option in the world of intelligence collection.
And it is indeed used appropriately against foreign nationals actively spying on U.S. interests and, yes, even U.S. citizens who hold security clearances and possess national security information and demonstrate a willingness to turn over such information to another country.
However, a FISA order, until now, has never been used by an FBI director and deputy director to intercept an individual with no clearances and no obvious access to sensitive information but who happens to be involved in a presidential campaign.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439046-electronic-surveillance-isnt-spying-its-much-more-powerful