You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


What will it take for some Republicans to stop blindly supporting the federal government’s most powerful bureaucracy?

In the last few years, members of Congress and their staff have been spied on, including during the Iran deal. Even the Senate committee tasked with oversight of the intelligence agencies was spied on during the Obama administration.

Journalists were spied on, too. Sharyl Attkisson, with CBS News at the time, had her computer hacked and sifted through while she was reporting on a story damaging to the Obama administration. Associated Press reporters were spied on, in an effort to frighten potential whistle-blowers. Fox News reporter James Rosen was spied on, and so were his parents.

More recently, Obama administration officials “unmasked” the intercepted communications of people in the Trump campaign who were talking with foreigners, then unknown members of the federal bureaucracy leaked these communications to the press.

A presidential campaign was spied on too. An unverified dossier, that nobody will stand by when under oath, was likely used to obtain a warrant in a secret court to spy on at least one member of the Trump campaign. The same bureaucracy that used the dossier to spy on a presidential campaign—the FBI—has, for months, refused to cooperate with the congressional committees tasked with keeping the FBI in check.

Americans of all stripes are surely asking: What is going on with our government?

The problem, fundamentally, is that Congress has given our intelligence agencies too much power, and refuses to check these agencies even when they flagrantly abuse the vast powers they have been granted. A case in point is the FISA Section 702 reauthorization vote, set to occur today in the House.

What Is FISA 702?

After the abuse of trust that occurred at America’s intelligence agencies in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. Its aim was to allow our government to spy on foreign powers, and agents of foreign powers here in America, without violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. If an American were acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government had to go to a secret court—the FISA court—to obtain a warrant before spying on that American.

The current provision within FISA meant to allow snooping on foreigners, Section 702, was passed in 2008. This amendment grants our intelligence agencies powerful tools to conduct surveillance. Because the power 702 grants intelligence agencies expires, something written into the law to protect against abuse and allow Congress to have some oversight, Congress has only several weeks to reauthorize 702 before the program starts to lapse, which could threaten our national security.

That’s all well and good, yet intelligence bureaucracies have interpreted FISA 702 as it is currently to allow spying on Americans—or it has been routinely abused to do so. Because of this, conservatives and left-leaning civil-libertarians hoped to reform 702 before reauthorizing the program. But there is an effort in Congress, backed by GOP leadership, to not only reauthorize 702 without any meaningful reforms, but to also expand intelligence bureaucracies’ legal powers. A vote on this will occur today.

How Section 702 Is Used to Spy on Americans

Section 702 in theory only allows spying on foreigners. When a foreign subject of surveillance is talking to an American, the U.S. person’s end of the conversation is supposed to be redacted, or “masked,” when executive branch or intelligence officials examine the intelligence. But when an official needs to see the American’s side of the conversation, it can be “unmasked.” The problem is that this unmasking doesn’t require a warrant, and there aren’t (or weren’t) clear rules put in place about when an unmasking is appropriate.

This has been abused in just this last year. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, called foreign officials after team Obama made several unprecedented foreign policy moves only days before the transition of power. Flynn was attempting to stop Obama’s team from radically altering U.S. policy towards Israel at the United Nations, and asking Russia to not retaliate against the sanctions that Obama slapped on.

Nothing Flynn said on the call was illegal or improper, but Flynn’s end of the conversation was unmasked then leaked to the press in order to catch Flynn in a lie. The leak—which was flagrantly illegal—caused Flynn, who happened to want to reform America’s intelligence bureaucracies, to be fired.

This isn’t the first time that Americans have had their communications with foreigners unmasked and leaked for political reasons. Other members of the Trump campaign had their conversations “unmasked.” Two Democrat members of Congress were spied on in the 2000s, and members of Congress were unmasked when they spoke with Israeli officials during the Iran nuclear deal negotiations.

Much larger abuses result from the National Security Agency’s upstream data collection. Basically, in the process of scooping up foreigners’ emails that run through our Internet infrastructure, the NSA incidentally collects quite a bit of emails and other data on ordinary Americans. The information is stored in a database, where it is supposed to be sifted through so the foreign target’s communications are kept, while the bulk of the data collected—Americans’ private communications and data—are deleted. In practice, this doesn’t happen and the NSA keeps all of the Internet data.

Big Brother Really Is Watching You, Without a Warrant

Worse, the NSA can then search through the upstream Internet data using an “identifier,” such as an email address or a phone number. NSA employees aren’t supposed to search for Americans’ names in that database, but they have routinely done so. Think of Google, but for looking at Americans’ communications.

This abuse was so flagrant that the normally pro-government FISA court blasted the Obama administration’s FBI and NSA just days before Obama was set to leave the White House. The court cited “an institutional lack of candor,” and called the violations a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” Here’s what National Review’s Andrew McCarthy had to say:

The rules from 2011 [to stop previous Fourth Amendment abuses] forward were simple: Do not use American identifiers. Yet NSA used them — not once or twice because some new technician didn’t know better. This violation of law was routine and extensive, known and concealed.” McCarthy also writes that, according to the FISA court, the violations were so widespread that by the time Obama left the White House, the scope of these violations had still not been determined.

Even when the NSA hasn’t violated the law per se, they have still been able to snoop on Americans without a warrant using these tools. First, let’s say that the FBI wanted to spy on Flynn, but can’t without a warrant. What they can do is spy on any foreigner Flynn talks to. This is called a “backdoor” search. You really want to spy on Flynn, but you say you are only spying on some guy in Germany. Same result.

Second, if you don’t search for an American target, the NSA has in the past searched for a foreign target’s “identifier,” but allowed the results to show any Americans’ communications that mention that foreign identifier. This is called an “about” search (currently, the NSA is not supposed to be doing “about” searches).

There are huge implications to this, an example of which just played out in the last administration. Here’s McCarthy again: “The NSA says it does not share raw upstream collection data with any other intelligence agency. But that data is refined into reports. To the extent the data collected has increased the number of Americans whose activities make it into reports, it has simultaneously increased the opportunities for unmasking American identities. Other reporting indicates that there was a significant uptick in unmasking incidents in the latter years of the Obama administration. More officials were given unmasking authority. At the same time, President Obama loosened restrictions to allow wider access to raw intelligence collection and wider dissemination of intelligence reports.”

Quite obviously, all this gives the intelligence bureaucracies an immense amount of power. If they don’t like a business deal, a politician, a policy, or a bill—say, one that significantly reduces their power—they can selectively leak information to destroy a reputation or torpedo the deal. When they don’t like who is in the White House, many in the media spin the leaking to be heroic, but this is a perversion. Really, unelected intelligence community officials are pulling the levers of power.

That’s not being “heroic” and shedding sunlight. That’s selectively leaking to create a narrative, and exert power over our elected officials. That’s the East German Stasi, not James Madison.

Proposals to Reform FISA 702

Lawmakers have certainly tried to look into these abuses of power. During a hearing on FISA 702 reauthorization, for example, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) asked FBI Director Chris Wray “how many times the FBI has searched FISA databases for information belonging to U.S. citizens.” Wray said he didn’t know, and committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) was quick to note that the request was “reasonable” and “has been made in varying forms by this committee in a bipartisan way in the past, and we have not yet received the answers to those questions.” The Senate has made similar requests, to no avail.

Because of this lack of accountability, conservatives in Congress have been pushing FISA 702 reform. There are two primary reform proposals in Congress to reauthorize FISA 702, supported by different factions. Reason gives a good overview:

USA Liberty Act of 2017 (HR 3989)

A creature of the House Judiciary Committee, this bill would create specific procedures to document requests for unmasking, and would require federal investigators to get a court order to access the content of the domestic communications when looking for evidence of a crime (and require that the search be directly related to the investigation). The bill contains exceptions to these rules for foreign intelligence, and emergencies.

The bill doesn’t permanently end “about” searches, but its sister bill in the Senate, sponsored by Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee (R-UT), does permanently ban “about” searches, and contains stronger language on the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

The bill would sunset, and thus need to be reauthorized, in six years.

USA RIGHTS Act of 2017 (S.1997)

A more civil-libertarian reform option, sponsored by senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY). Mike Lee (R-UT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Bernie Sanders (D-VT) have also signed on.

Unlike the USA Liberty Act, this bill requires the feds to get a warrant before searching the info or communications of U.S. citizens or people on U.S. soil. There are exceptions to this, but only for espionage, terrorism, or other threats to the United States.

The bill explicitly bans reverse targeting of Americans and “about” searches, and U.S. citizens are given “standing” to go to court if they believe they were snooped on illegally.

On the other end, aside from a clean reauthorization of FISA, establishment Republicans and Democrats are seeking to dramatically expand 702’s surveillance authority, and permanently authorize these powers. The Senate version of this is called the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 (S.2010).

Republican senators backing this bill include Tom Cotton (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), James Lankford (R-OK), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Susan Collins (R-ME), Pat Roberts (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and John McCain (R-AZ).

The Senate bill explicitly grants the use of unwarranted surveillance for a list of federal crimes beyond terror and espionage and allows “about” searches. The House version of this bill, being voted on today, requires the FBI to get a warrant when doing full criminal investigations, but this is “illusory” because at this point the FBI could have already accessed all applicable 702 data without a warrant. This bill also fails to end “about” searches of Americans’ communications.

No One Should Support the Intelligence Committee’s Bill

Just before year-end, GOP leadership tried to pass a 702 bill with permanent reauthorization and no reform. Fortunately, the likes of Paul and Wyden stymied an attempt to do so at the eleventh hour. So Congress had to punt, funding the government and extending FISA until late January.

Unaccountable power corrupts and would be abused by even the best of us.

Now, instead of trying to pass the reauthorization bill that contained reforms and has widespread bipartisan support—The USA Liberty Act—GOP leadership is again attempting to pass the House version of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bill. Today’s vote on this bill, and the USA RIGHTS Act, will almost certainly result in the USA RIGHTS Act failing to pass. But the vote over the intelligence committee’s bill could be close.

Of course the intelligence agencies support the bill that expands their powers. They also cite a “tough on crime” line to justify forgoing warrants to investigate domestic crime. But here’s the problem: There’s a reason that the Constitution requires law enforcement or intelligence officials get a warrant before spying on Americans. It’s not because the founding fathers were soft on crime, but because our founders understood human nature. Unaccountable power corrupts and would be abused by even the best of us.

Reformers’ efforts are pretty clear, then: honor the Fourth Amendment. That means that the intelligence bureaucracies stop backdoor searches of Americans, and spy on foreigners all they want, but always get a warrant before they spy on Americans.

A couple of years ago, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, while under oath, lied to Congress and said the intelligence agencies were not collecting and storing data from Americans’ phone records, emails, and Internet activity. The actions of Edward Snowden, no matter how imperfect, revealed that the government was in fact collecting all kinds of data on ordinary Americans.

Failure to Restrict Surveillance Fosters a Police State

Remember all the intelligence community abuses listed at the top of this article? These are the abuses that we know about, many of which were only made possible by Snowden’s imperfect disclosure. In other words, Congress didn’t even know about these programs.

‘If the government doesn’t respect our basic civil liberties, we risk becoming a police state.’

Is it really wise to allow, and even encourage and enhance, unchecked federal government power? Rubio says laws that reform our intelligence agencies might as well have been lobbied for by ISIS. Is it really smart to give immense power to agencies that have routinely abused that power and ignore Congress, then essentially accuse anyone who wants to lessen those powers of abetting terrorists?

I spoke to Rep. Jason Lewis’ office (R-MN), and he said “national security is a vital responsibility of our government, but if the government doesn’t respect our basic civil liberties, we risk becoming a police state. In other words, we have to balance security with freedom. My first oath was to the Constitution, and our first freedoms are what make this country great. We have to protect them in order to protect the America we know and love.”

Lewis is exactly right. Those who choose security over liberty will have neither. What can you do? Get on the phone and call your member of Congress. Tell him or her that you would like to see meaningful FISA 702 reform, not the bill proposed by the House Intelligence Committee. Don’t donate money to campaigns or political parties if that money will go to candidates who vote to expand 702. Find specific candidates who champion civil liberties instead.