warrantless wiretapping – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the how-is-john-yoo-not-in-jail? dept

Oh, John Yoo. The former top Bush administration lawyer — who is already well-known for writing that administration’s (totally bullshit) “legal defense” for torture — has also been an outspoken advocate for NSA surveillance as well. Soon after the Snowden revelations, Yoo defended the NSA arguing that the 4th Amendment shouldn’t apply to the NSA because it takes too long. Then, he said that judges shouldn’t be allowed to determine if the NSA violated the 4th Amendment because they’re too out of touch with the American public. It’s long been known that Yoo also was deeply involved in creating the legal justifications for that very warrantless surveillance program he’s been defending, and now, finally, years later, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has released the May 17, 2002 letter that Yoo sent to the FISA Court chief judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. You can read it here.

As the ODNI release notes, Judge Kollar-Kotelly was allowed to read the letter, justifying the NSA’s warrantless surveillance on Americans, but “was not authorized to retain a copy or take notes” because nothing says transparency democracy like secret interpretations of the law where no one’s allowed to know the details, and the people overseeing it are only allowed to glance at the justifications. It was the “re-evaluation” of this John Yoo rationalization that created the now infamous hospital room showdown in March of 2004, when some in the administration realized that Yoo was basically full of shit.

Anyway, now the Yoo memo (with plenty of redactions, of course!) has been released, and we can see just how absolutely ridiculous the whole thing was. In short, Yoo argues that even though, historically, the NSA was not allowed to do warrantless surveillance on Americans and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) made it clear that domestic surveillance needed to first be approved with warrants to the FISA Court (which is barely a court anyway), there was nothing that said that had to be the case, and the President was basically free to turn the NSA loose to spy on Americans without any FISA approval. First, he notes that the NSA is not technically or legally limited in surveilling Americans, even if it historically avoided doing so:

In short, that says because Congress didn’t explicitly limit the NSA in the same manner as the CIA, that must mean it’s okay for the NSA to spy on Americans. This basically ignores the history and rationale for the NSA, which was entirely secret for much of its early history anyway, and created and run out of the executive branch with little Congressional oversight. Yoo then admits that the driving executive order that enables much of the NSA’s activities — the infamous Executive Order 12333 — does explicitly say that the NSA can only conduct foreign signals intelligence surveillance, but that doesn’t matter, because future Presidents aren’t bound by previous Presidents’ executive orders. He also argues that if the NSA is spying on Americans in order to seek “significant foreign intelligence,” then it’s perfectly fine as well.

He then admits, generously, that even though there’s no actual legal restriction (in his mind) on the NSA spying on Americans, that it could “be in tension with FISA” since FISA requires a warrant for domestic surveillance. But fear not, evil legal genius John Yoo has a bullshit way around that as well. He goes through a detailed description of the limits of getting a warrant approved by FISA and bemoans the fact that it wouldn’t be possible to intercept all phone calls from a certain country under FISA.

And here’s where he gets really tricky. He says that FISA is not necessarily a limitation on what kind of surveillance can be done, but merely a safe harbor such that if you follow it you’re automatically presumed safe under the 4th Amendment. However, he insists that FISA cannot limit the President’s constitutional powers, and thus the President can still order warrantless domestic surveillance outside of FISA, and the only issue is that it’s outside of the FISA “safe harbors” — so it may not be automatically presumed in compliance with the 4th Amendment:

From there, he goes on for a while insisting that the President has the Constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance basically whenever he wants, with the only limitation being the 4th Amendment (which we’ll get to). And then he pulls a neat little trick, insisting that the President doesn’t require a warrant for conducting surveillance for national security related purposes (pointing to some caselaw involving questions around due process in espionage cases), and notes that, even better, FISA itself means that “surveillance conducted for national security purposes is not subject to the same Fourth Amendment standards that apply in domestic criminal cases.”

Did you see the neat trick he played there? First, he showed that the President can ignore FISA and Executive Order 12333, and then used FISA (which he already said the President could ignore) to argue that the 4th Amendment standards don’t really apply either. You want to know why lawyers get a bad name for bullshit arguments? Look at John Yoo — and then remember that his bullshit arguments weren’t just around a single case, but to justify spying on all Americans without a warrant (we’ll leave aside the fact that he did the same thing for torture as well).

From there, he actually argues that a court reading FISA to restrict the President would create a constitutional conflict:

This is a pretty fascinating rewriting of history. The whole point of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was to put limits and oversight on the collection of foreign intelligence information. And here Yoo argues that Congress intended no such thing as the very purpose of the law. That’s kind of astounding.

From there, Yoo then tries to argue that warrantless wiretapping of basically everyone in America also does not violate the 4th Amendment. First, he argues that the 4th Amendment does not apply to non-US persons. Next, he said that communications that leave the US electronically are also no longer subject to the 4th Amendment due to the “border search exception” — an issue that we’ve discussed plenty of times for people who have had their laptops searched as they enter the country. This, apparently, is part of Yoo’s 4th Amendment loophole. Any communications involving Americans that happens to slip outside of US borders loses any 4th Amendment protections. The fact that it’s digital, not physical, makes no difference according to John Yoo’s extremely distorted moral compass. But, he admits that there might be some concerns about the border search theory with regards to the contents of email and phone calls, so he has a trick: how about we just say the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to the metadata, and we’ll call it even.

Then he uses the infamous Smith v. Maryland case, that established the Third Party Doctrine to argue further that there’s no 4th Amendment issue with sucking up all metadata. We’ve heard this argument many times in court by now. Because this one 1979 ruling, which was about whether or not law enforcement could get the phone records of a single phone from a person that they were tracking for criminal behavior, that means that everyone has given up any expectation of privacy in any metadata they have on any communications record — including email. This also suggests Yoo has no clue how email works. The reason that the phone records were considered legit was because the phone company had to track all of your phone calls for billing reasons, and thus had a “legitimate business purpose” in keeping track of all your phone record metadata. That’s not how email works, but Yoo basically pretends it does:

My ISP doesn’t get access to who I email. Because that’s not how email works.

Next up, Yoo argues that because the Fourth Amendment was really designed to deal with “curbing law enforcement abuses,” it really shouldn’t apply to support for “military operations.” And since the response to 9/11 is really about military operations, the 4th Amendment shouldn’t apply to spying on all Americans because it’s to support that purpose:

Finally, he argues that even if this program were subject to the 4th Amendment, which he doesn’t think it should be, that’s still okay, because snooping on every American’s communications is still “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment… because TERRORISTS!!!!!!!

In short, Yoo basically wipes aside anything that protects Americans from mass surveillance, despite the fact that the 4th Amendment was specifically designed to stop “general warrants” that allowed for mass surveillance, and despite the fact that FISA was passed to stop government abuse of surveillance powers. To Yoo, there’s an excuse for basically any kind of government intrusion on our private lives, and even if the laws and Constitution do apply, no problem, you just shout “terrorism” and all is allowed.

This is a really sickening letter. At the very least, it should have been made public at the time it was written so that it could have been debated (and trashed as ridiculous) at the time it was made. Instead, it was done in secret, given to a judge who could only read it and not keep it or take notes, and then wasn’t revealed publicly for almost 14 years. This is not how a democracy is supposed to function.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, colleen kollar-kotelly, email, fisa, john yoo, legal rationale, metadata, nsa, surveillance, warrantless surveillance, warrantless wiretapping

Leaked Damage Assessment Shows Government Mostly Interested In Investigating Leakers, Withholding Information From Public

from the oh,-and-terrorists,-I-suppose dept

The Intercept has just released an interesting document from its Snowden stash: an unredacted damage assessment of the New York Times’ 2005 exposure of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program — a program that saw the agency monitoring the emails and phone calls of US citizens.

It’s not that the government hasn’t made damage assessments public before. It just does it very, very rarely and mostly for self-serving reasons. The most recent publications of damage assessments were in response to the Snowden leaks. The released assessments were heavily-redacted and made plenty of unfounded assertions about the damage done to the national security infrastructure by the leaks.

This 2005 damage assessment was never released. It was purely an internal document. Thanks to it being part of Snowden’s package of leaked documents, it can be read without the sort of excessive redaction the government deploys when discussing even the most inane (or obvious) aspects of national security.

Such was the internal distress at the possible exposure of this surveillance program that the government managed to delay its publication for a year. Despite its successful pushback, the assessment here is no different that the assessment of the Snowden leaks. In other words, mostly speculation backed by very little support.

The memo gives a general explanation of what terrorists might do in reaction to the information revealed. It was “likely” that terrorists would stop using phones in favor of mail or courier, and use encryption and code words. They could also plant false information, knowing the U.S. government was listening. But the leaked program had not “been noted in adversary communications,” according to the memo. It gave no specific examples of investigations or targets that had or might be impacted by the revelations.

Once you get past the obvious suggestion that terrorists will adapt communication methods in light of presumably-unknown information, you get to more detailed discussion of the NYT article itself. The assessment breaks down every statement of fact in the article and provides its corresponding level of classification.

(TS//SI//STLW//NF//OC) “President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity.”

(TS//SI//STL WIINF//OC) (NSA) “monitored the international telephone calls (communications to the U.S.) and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years … to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda…”

(TS//SI//STLW//NF//OC) “NSA eavesdrops (under this program) without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time.” … the number monitored … may have reached … the thousands”

(S//SI) “Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored (by NSA) at one time.”

Oddly, the government considers the most obvious possible outcome of the exposure of this program (that terrorists would alter communications in light of this info) to be “classified.”

(C) (The article) would alert would-be terrorists (inside the United States) that they might be under scrutiny.

If there was a battle for American hearts and minds to be fought in the wake of this publication, you’d think the agency would want this conclusion made public (preferably with some supporting evidence), rather than bury it with other classified documents.

Nearly a decade down the road, the government has yet to offer any solid proof that the New York Times’ article resulted in compromised capabilities or surveillance programs.

“To this day we’ve never seen any evidence — despite all the claims they made to keep us from publishing — that it did any tangible damage to national security. This is further confirmation of that,” [New York Times writer Eric] Lichtblau told The Intercept.

In fact, the only clear response to the publication of this leaked info didn’t take the form of altered collection techniques or additional terrorist attacks. It took the form of a full-blown DOJ investigation, involving 25 FBI agents and five prosecutors. This too, resulted in a whole lot of nothing.

The leak and the response to it indicates the government was more worried about US citizens, rather than its foreign adversaries, finding out about what it was up to.

Filed Under: 702, bulk collection, damage assessment, ed snowden, nsa, surveillance, warrantless wiretapping

DOJ Blurred Lines Between Terrorism & Crime To Expand NSA & FBI Warrantless Wiretapping Of 'Hackers'

from the whatever,-it's-all-the-same dept

This week, of course, the US government passed the USA Freedom Act, a modest step towards reform. As we’ve noted, it doesn’t even touch on two of the more concerning surveillance authorities: Executive Order 12333 and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which includes the infamous “warrantless wiretapping” programs that allow the NSA to tap “upstream” fiber optic cables from AT&T and others to sniff all data traveling across those cables.

Pro Publica and the NY Times have teamed up to report on how the DOJ expanded the warrantless wiretapping regime to go after hackers. There’s a lot to unpack in the story (which is well worth reading), but the short version is that, under pressure from the White House, NSA and others, officials appear to have deliberately blurred the lines between “crime” and “international terrorism” in order to get the DOJ to sign off on secret legal orders allowing the NSA and the FBI to use its “upstream” snooping capabilities to monitor certain “cybersecurity signatures” which include basically anything the feds want, to sniff out a hacker. From the revealed documents (which, yes, come from Ed Snowden’s cache):

If you can’t see that, the key line is:

The Certification will also for the first time spell out the authorization for targeting cyber signatures such as IP addresses, strings of computer code, and similar non-email or phone number-based selectors.

In short: the government said, “okay, you can now sniff that upstream firehose for hackers based on whatever “code snippets” or “IP addresses” we give you.”

Of course, this raises some questions about the split between domestic law enforcement and international anti-terrorism/foreign intelligence work. Remember, the 702 upstream program is pretty specific in that it’s only to be used for non-domestic, non-criminal work. But, according to the White House, those distinctions no longer matter:

?Reliance on legal authorities that make theoretical distinctions between armed attacks, terrorism and criminal activity may prove impractical,? the White House National Security Council wrote in a classified annex to a policy report in May 2009, which was included in the NSA?s internal files.

Yes, apparently, it’s “impractical” for the surveillance state to actually follow the law.

The documents also reveal that they really wanted access to that sweet, sweet upstream firehose, because much more limited programs like PRISM (which involve court orders to certain internet companies) didn’t provide enough coverage:

Then, to take things a step further, the government allowed the FBI direct access to the NSA’s upstream collection, even though the FBI doesn’t have the same limits against surveillance on Americans that the NSA has. Why? Basically, the argument appears to be “well, the NSA already has that data… so… let’s give it to the FBI as well”:

The documents do contain and interesting slide presentation about how and when certain capabilities can be used, including a slide dedicated to repeating the 4th Amendment, and another with a note saying that the “worst thing” the NSA can do is to use its signals intelligence capabilities “to collect against a [US Person] hacker” because doing so is “basically doing surveillance for [law enforcement] purpose without a warrant.” So, at the very least, they understand the law, but it’s not at all clear that they follow it:

And, in fact, later in that same presentation, it notes that the NSA’s Threat Operations Center (NTOC) wants more power to target “foreign hackers outside the US” without having to prove as much: “Because attribution is hard, just having to prove foreigness and an FI purpose is especially useful to NTOC.”

According to the Pro Publica / NY Times report, the NSA sought more and more permission here, though it’s not clear what has actually been granted:

In May and July 2012, according to an internal timeline, the Justice Department granted its secret approval for the searches of cybersignatures and Internet addresses. The Justice Department tied that authority to a pre-existing approval by the secret surveillance court permitting the government to use the program to monitor foreign governments.

That limit meant the NSA had to have some evidence for believing that the hackers were working for a specific foreign power. That rule, the NSA soon complained, left a ?huge collection gap against cyberthreats to the nation? because it is often hard to know exactly who is behind an intrusion, according to an agency newsletter. Different computer intruders can use the same piece of malware, take steps to hide their location or pretend to be someone else.

So the NSA, in 2012, began pressing to go back to the surveillance court and seek permission to use the program explicitly for cybersecurity purposes. That way, it could monitor international communications for any ?malicious cyberactivity,? even if it did not yet know who was behind the attack.

The newsletter described the further expansion as one of ?highest priorities? of the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander.

Remember all of this when you see the government asking for new “cybersecurity” laws — which all too frequently are ways of granting the NSA and/or FBI greater powers to do surveillance via these upstream collections. As The Intercept points out, during the big debates on cybersecurity over the last few years, the NSA has insisted that it doesn’t have access to this kind of information, and almost every debate on the power of upstream collection by the NSA and others has been based on claims by the intelligence community that they only use unique identifiers like email addresses — and not very, very broad identifiers like an IP address or “computer code.”

There’s a lot more in the full article and in the released documents which you can see below.

Filed Under: 702, cybersecurity, fbi, fisa, hacking, nsa, surveillance, upstream, upstream collection, warrantless wiretapping

Released Memos Justifying Warrantless Wiretapping Point To Limitless Executive Branch Authority

from the in-times-of-war,-we'll-do-whatever-we-want dept

The government’s predilection for waiting until late Friday to deliver bad news remains unchanged. Two memos justifying wireless wiretapping were released Friday night, buying it a few days time to prep before dealing with any uncomfortable questions raised by these documents.

Both memos [PDF links: first, second] have multiple redactions. The first memo has had entire groups of pages withheld, as well as pages so heavily-redacted they may as well have been deleted. Additional details are scant, leaving readers to read between the redactions in hopes of cobbling together the government’s rationale for the warrantless wiretapping of calls originating in the United States.

What does remain is mostly post-9/11 justifications about needing to respond to a new threat in new ways. And that “new way” was apparently to give the President a blank surveillance check to do with what he wished.

The broad outlines of the argument — that the president has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans’ communications without a warrant in a time of war — were known, but the sweep of the reasoning becomes even clearer in the memos written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who was head of President George W. Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“We conclude only that when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States and the president determines in his role as commander in chief . . . that it is essential for defense against a further foreign attack to use the [wiretapping] capabilities of the [National Security Agency] within the United States, he has inherent constitutional authority” to order warrantless wiretapping — “an authority that Congress cannot curtail,” Goldsmith wrote in a redacted 108-page memo dated May 6, 2004.

The Stellar Wind program, as it was known, was implemented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, without Congressional approval. The warrantless wiretapping was rationalized into legality years after implementation, and memos like these were the delivery vehicles. The government doesn’t trust Americans to understand why it believes a pseudo-war justifies violations of civil liberties. Those parts are blacked out. What we’re left with is supposed to be enough.

And it’s not just Stellar Wind. Other dragnet programs (internet/email/phone metadata) are rationalized as well in these pages. The May 6, 2004 memo by Jack Goldsmith does everything it can to eliminate Fourth Amendment protections, as Marcy Wheeler points out.

It shows that the memo discusses content, discusses telephony metadata, discusses something else, then concludes that content and metadata are both kosher under the Fourth Amendment.

The second memo, also written by Goldsmith, does more of the same. This one throws in the then-recent decision by the Supreme Court, finding the detainment of a US citizen (Yaser Esam Hamdi) in Afghanistan was justified because it occurred during a time of war. According to Goldsmith, intercepting communications without a warrant is a “fundamental and accepted” part of waging war. Again, the argument finds in favor of the Executive Branch acting unilaterally to combat terrorism. Anything more detailed or subtly written is buried behind black bars or removed entirely.

But the gist of it is: Smith v. Maryland means intelligence agencies can collect nearly anything they deem metadata without tripping over the Fourth Amendment — and if these small limits are exceeded, the Executive Branch has the power to override any objections.

Filed Under: doj, jack goldsmith, justification, surveillance, warrantless wiretapping

Feds Declassify Court Filings In Two Long-Running Cases Against NSA… But Still Say 'State Secrets' Mean Court Should Kill Cases

from the no-one-believes-them dept

We’ve written a few times in the past about Jewel v. NSA, one of a few long-running (since well before the Snowden revelations) cases against the NSA over its warrantless wiretapping efforts. If you haven’t been following the case, it’s bounced around a bit, as a district court initially tossed out the case, only to have it reinstated by an appeals court. When the feds again tried to have the case dismissed claiming “state secrets,” that got soundly rejected by the district court back in July (soon after the Snowden revelations started coming out). The court also told the government to go back and review both its “state secrets” claims, as well as various classified documents that had been filed in the case, to see if it made sense to declassify them, given what had been revealed publicly in the press.

On Saturday morning, James Clapper declassified a bunch of documents, which were classified depositions in that case, and another similar case, Shubert v. Obama. The headline story there is this is the first time that it’s ever been officially declassified that, in the wake of 9/11, President Bush authorized the NSA to massively ramp up their email and phone information collection and start collecting “bulk metadata” of both phone and internet information. Here’s how Clapper describes these revelations, so take the wording with a grain of salt. They’re almost guaranteed to be misleading in some key way.

President Bush issued authorizations approximately every 30-60 days. Although the precise terms changed over time, each presidential authorization required the minimization of information collected concerning American citizens to the extent consistent with the effective accomplishment of the mission of detection and prevention of acts of terrorism within the United States. NSA also applied additional internal constraints on the presidentially-authorized activities.

Over time, the presidentially-authorized activities transitioned to the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). The collection of communications content pursuant to presidential authorization ended in January 2007 when the U.S. Government transitioned the TSP to the authority of the FISA and under the orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”). In August 2007, Congress enacted the Protect America Act (“PAA”) as a temporary measure. The PAA, which expired in February 2008, was replaced by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which was enacted in July 2008 and remains in effect. Today, content collection is conducted pursuant to section 702 of FISA. The metadata activities also were transitioned to orders of the FISC. The bulk collection of telephony metadata transitioned to the authority of the FISA in May 2006 and is collected pursuant to section 501 of FISA. The bulk collection of Internet metadata was transitioned to the authority of the FISA in July 2004 and was collected pursuant to section 402 of FISA. In December 2011, the U.S. Government decided to not seek reauthorization of the bulk collection of Internet metadata.

As we have more of a chance to dig through the newly declassified documents, we may have more to comment on, but perhaps even more insane is that, even with these newly declassified documents, the feds are clinging to the state secrets claim in seeking to make sure that the whole warrantless wiretapping programs (for both phone and internet) are never constitutionally tested.

Specifically, the government is arguing that the plaintiffs who are suing the government simply can’t prove that they were spied upon without revealing state secrets, and thus the court should not and cannot rule on this particular program. The government’s argument is as circular as it is maddening. It notes that, yes, the law says that the government “**may disclose**” information to an “aggrieved person” if “such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance” — which would certainly seem to apply here. Yet, it says that because the law does not require that they reveal this info, the government won’t do so, because it still regards these programs as classified (despite all the widespread media coverage about them). The government claims that even though some details have been revealed (thank you, Snowden):

The Government continues to assert privilege over certain still-classified information concerning the scope and operational details of these intelligence activities, including but not limited to information that would tend to confirm or deny that particular persons were targets of or subject to NSA intelligence activities, or that particular telecommunications providers have assisted NSA in conducting intelligence activities.

And why must they continue to pretend that these details are still secret? Because James Clapper claims:

disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of NSA intelligence activities implicated by Plaintiffs’ allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States.

Basically, if we confirm details of the surveillance programs everyone’s been discussing for months in this particular court case, you’re all going to die and the terrorists will win! Boo!

The EFF is representing Jewel in the case against the NSA and put out the following statement:

“The government seems to be trying to reset the clock to before June 2013 or even December 2005,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “But the American people know that their communications are being swept up by the government under various NSA programs. The government’s attempt to block true judicial review of its mass, untargeted collection of content and metada by pretending that the basic facts about how the spying affects the American people are still secret is both outrageous and disappointing.”

The whole thing really is quite ridiculous. You’ve got the feds finally declassifying some documents, while trying their damnest to make sure that no court can ever test whether or not the programs they ran for a decade or more were constitutional, and pulling out the “grave damage” bullshit card to block a legal challenge on the details of programs that are already known.

Filed Under: declassified, james clapper, jewel v nsa, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping

DOJ Tells Senator Wyden That Incoming FBI Director James Comey Has No Intention Of Answering His Questions

from the probably-not-the-best-idea dept

On Monday, the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed James Comey to be the new FBI director, despite significant concerns raised about his views on civil liberties and surveillance. Senator Rand Paul had blocked the vote for a while, claiming he wanted answers concerning whether or not Comey believed the FBI could use drones without a warrant. The FBI finally responded to Paul saying that it believed that it had the authority to use drones without a warrant, prompting Paul to stop the block (which would have been overridden shortly anyway), and then he was the lone “no” vote against Comey, who was approved 93-1. However, at least the DOJ was willing to answer Senator Paul’s questions.

Senator Ron Wyden also expressed concerns about Comey’s views on surveillance, and had sent a letter asking a variety of questions about Comey’s views on the subject, “including whether he believes warrantless wire tapping is legal, and whether he would commit to explain how much evidence the FBI needs to track Americans using their cell phone location data.” In response, the DOJ basically told Wyden to get lost:

Mr. Comey could have answered most or all of these questions without disclosing any properly classified information, but the Justice Department informed me today that he will not be responding to any of them.

Remember, Wyden serves on the Intelligence Committee, which is in charge of oversight of the intelligence community. One would think that flat out refusing to answer his questions is not the best way to respond to a member of the committee in charge of your oversight. In the end, Wyden voted “present” rather than “no,” but stated that he could not vote in favor of Comey.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, james comey, location tracking, ron wyden, surveillance, warrantless wiretapping

Either The Solicitor General Lied To The Supreme Court, Or Senator Feinstein Lied To The Public About Warrantless Wiretapping

from the pick-one dept

While there’s been plenty of attention over the last month or so concerning the revelations from Ed Snowden about NSA surveillance, there have been a series of important ongoing lawsuits that tried to challenge the various aspects of the surveillance efforts. Unfortunately, most of these have ended badly, leading some to wonder if there even is any way at all to legally challenge these programs. At the end of 2011, for example, in a case testing the legality of the telcos helping the government with warrantless surveillance, Hepting v. AT&T, one of the key reasons why the court rejected the challenge was because it basically said, “well, you can always sue the government, but the government has the right to absolve companies of such wrongdoing.” Except that, as the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year, because the government keeps the program a complete secret, no one has standing to sue. That is, unless you can prove that you were spied on via this specific program, you can’t sue because there’s been no harm.

The Supreme Court Justices were clearly troubled by the idea that the government could implement a secret surveillance program that could never be challenged in court, and homed in on that key point in questioning the Solicitor General of the US (and former top RIAA litigator), Donald Verrilli. As the NY Times notes, Verrilli insisted that it simply was not true that no one would ever have standing, because if the government ever used information from such surveillance programs in a court case against someone, the government would have to reveal that the info came via that program.

“Is there anybody who has standing?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Yes, said Mr. Verrilli, giving what he called a “clear example.” If the government wants to use information gathered under the surveillance program in a criminal prosecution, he said, the source of the information would have to be disclosed. The subjects of such surveillance, he continued, would have standing to challenge the program.

Got that? Of course people would have standing, because the government has to tell them where the information came from. So those people could always challenge the program. When the eventual Supreme Court ruling came out, the majority decision relied very heavily on this particular claim:

…if the Government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from a §1881a acquisition in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition…. Thus, if the Government were to prosecute one of respondent-attorney’s foreign clients using §1881a-authorized surveillance, the Government would be required to make a disclosure…. In such a situation, unlike in the present case, it would at least be clear that the Government had acquired the foreign client’s communications using §1881a-authorized surveillance.

Ok. Now, here’s the important part. In defending the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which is what enabled these kinds of warrantless wiretaps, politicians have been pointing to all of those “examples” where this program was supposedly instrumental in “stopping terrorists.” And this includes a few cases that involved federal prosecutions. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the staunchest defender of these programs, has called out two specific prosecutions as “specific cases where FISA Amendments Act authorities were used,” saying that “these cases show the program has worked.”

While it’s arguable whether or not these cases actually showed whether or not the program worked, they do give us two cases where, according to the US Solicitor General and the Supreme Court, the feds were required to reveal to the defendants the source of the information. And take a wild guess whether or not the government actually informed the defendant how it obtained the info? You’re psychic!

In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance.

Prosecutors in Chicago have taken the same approach in a prosecution of teenager accused of plotting to blow up a bar.

In fact, the magistrate judge in the Florida case has told the government it needs to disclose whether or not the surveillance was based on the FAA, but the government, so far, is refusing to say anything, and is asking the court to reconsider.

As far as I can tell, there are a few possibilities here, none of them good:

  1. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli lied to the Supreme Court about whether or not the federal government would need to reveal the source of surveillance info obtained under the FAA.
  2. Senator Dianne Feinstein lied to Congress about the FAA supposedly being instrumental in those cases.
  3. The US Attorneys are now withholding information they are, by law, required to reveal.

It’s possible that the reality is a combination of all three. But I can’t see how you can explain the present situation without at least one of the three statements above being true.

The ACLU has called this “a shell game” and it’s that and more. No matter where you point for the legal authority to challenge these programs, the government insists you have to look elsewhere. Can’t sue the companies, but can sue the government. Can’t sue the government unless you can prove standing. Can’t prove standing unless you’re in a case which involves this surveillance, at which point we have to tell you. Of course, in cases where it’s been revealed that this kind of surveillance is used, well, now the government insists it doesn’t have to admit that. Basically, the feds are going to keep trying to avoid ever having to face an actual legal challenge on this, which suggests they know the reality: the program is illegal and unconstitutional. If they were sure that it was a legitimate, constitutional program, why not just stand up in court and say that?

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, donald verrilli, faa, fisa amendments act, standing, supreme court, warrantless wiretapping

Former FISC Judge Quit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Now Argues FISC Is Out Of Control

from the needs-an-adversary dept

Last year, we noted that after five years of nothingness, despite what the law required, the federal government finally had a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), after years of nominations that went nowhere. The PCLOB does now exist and has been charged with looking into the government’s surveillance efforts. While the PCLOB does have some really good members who are strong privacy/civil liberties advocates, there are significant questions about how much authority it actually has. Still, on Tuesday, the PCLOB held hearings on the ongoing surveillance programs, and perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of them were the comments from James Robertson, a former FISC judge, who had quit the court, but had not spoken publicly about why until now.

Specifically, he claims that he quit because of revelations about the Bush administration using warrantless wiretapping and going around the court’s approval process.

Robertson said he asked to join the FISA court “to see what it was up to,” had previously played a central role in national security law. He was the judge who ruled against the Bush administration in the landmark Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case, which granted inmates at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detentions. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006.

Robertson quit the FISA court in 2005, days after the New York Times revealed widespread NSA warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush’s administration. Robertson had previously refused to explain his decision. But during a break in the hearing Tuesday he confirmed for the first time to the AP that he had “resigned in protest because the Bush administration was bypassing the court on warrantless wiretaps.”

Robertson argued that the “rubber stamp” claims about the FISA Court were inaccurate, saying that they left out the fact that FISC frequently pushed back on requests, requiring changes from the government, which were not seen in the overall stats on requests “approved” by the court. That said, he notes that the approval/disapproval of warrants was supposed to be all that FISC was about — but since the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the role of FISC has changed entirely, from a narrowly focused court approving specific warrants to what is effectively a judicially run administrative agency designed to approve entire surveillance programs:

But he warned that Congress’ 2008 reform of the FISA system expanded the government’s authority by forcing the court to approve entire surveillance systems, not just surveillance warrants, as it previously handled. Under the FISA changes, “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don’t think that is a judicial function,” he said.

Robertson said he was “frankly stunned” by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

This is a really key point that has not received nearly enough attention. Under the old rules, the FISC would look at specific warrants and approve or (rarely) refuse to approve those warrants. But now it basically is issuing a blanket “approval” of methods and techniques, such as the infamous dragnet of all information on all phone calls from various telcos. That’s a really different function.

Furthermore, Robertson highlighted what many of us have been saying all along: when you have a secret court that only hears one side of a case, it should be no surprise that the court keeps pushing further and further in the direction of the single party (the government) that presents information before it. Robertson’s suggestion to try to fix this is to somehow come up with an adversarial process — whether it’s (for example) someone from a public interest group, such as the ACLU, or someone appointed by the PCLOB itself, to act as an advocate for those on the other side of the government’s surveillance desires.

Filed Under: adversarial hearings, civil liberties, fisa court, fisc, james robertson, pclob, privacy, warrantless wiretapping

Court Rejects 'State Secrets' Excuse For Why Feds Want Out Of Lawsuit Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping

from the bogus-excuses dept

While there have been a number of new revelations lately about the NSA’s surveillance efforts, there have been some long-running on-going legal disputes about it as well. One of the biggest is Jewel vs. the NSA. When we last checked in on that case, the appeals court had sent the case back to the district court, rejecting many of the reasons that the district court had initially dumped the lawsuit. The key question for the district court was whether or not the feds could claim “state secrets” to dump the case again… and the court has just ruled and rejected that excuse, claiming that the government has not successfully shown that there are state secrets that mean the case cannot move forward.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ lawsuits should be dismissed as a result of the application of the privilege because the state secrets information is so central to the subject matter of the suit that permitting further proceedings would jeopardize national security. Given the multiple public disclosures of information regarding the surveillance program, the Court does not find that the very subject matter of the suits constitutes a state secret. Just as in Al-Haramain, and based significantly on the same set of facts in the record here, the Court finds that although there are certainly details that the government has not yet disclosed,

> because of the voluntary disclosures made by various officials since December 2005, the nature and purpose of the [Terrorist Surveillance Program], the ‘type’ of persons it targeted, and even some of its procedures are not state secrets. In other words, the government’s many attempts to assuage citizens’ fears that they have not been surveilled now doom the government’s assertion that the very subject matter of this litigation, the existence of a warrantless surveillance program, is barred by the state secrets privilege.

507 F.3d at 1200; see also Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 986-88, 991 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that the existence of a program of monitoring the contents of certain telephone communications was no longer a state secret as a result of the public statements made by the President and the Attorney General). Accordingly, the Court does not find dismissal appropriate based on the subject matter of the suits being a state secret.

This is a big win for the EFF, which is representing Jewel in trying to sue the government over the warrantless wiretapping. Given other cases (including the Hepting case mentioned in this ruling) which basically said that people can’t sue the telcos, but can sue the government, it would be nice to actually be able to sue the government over these actions without them simply being able to declare “state secrets” and have the case thrown out completely.

This does not mean that there aren’t issues that involve state secrets in the case — and the court notes that certainly parts of the evidence and information do need to be kept secret. But that’s no excuse for throwing out the entire case. Of course, the ruling also has some unfortunate things in it as well, dismissing statutory claims based on “sovereign immunity.” However, it leaves open the non-statutory claims for further briefing. So the case moves forward, rather than being completely shut down by a state secrets claim, but there are some limitations on where it can go. Still, given all of the recent revelations, not being able to hide completely behind “state secrets” is a big step in the right direction.

Filed Under: jewel v nsa, nsa, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping

Senator Biden Teaches President Obama A Lesson About NSA Spying From The Past

from the if-only-he'd-listen dept

The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice “debate” video, showing a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA surveillance leaks to show a “debate” between the two. I think Biden wins, hands down:

Filed Under: barack obama, joe biden, nsa, nsa surveillance, phone records, warrantless wiretapping