NSA's Rules Allowing Warrantless Searches On Americans Came THE SAME DAY It Was Told Searches Violated 4th Amendment
from the legal-loopholes dept
We already wrote about the bombshell revelation from the Guardian that the NSA changed the rules in October of 2011, so that it had permission to do warrantless searches on US persons (contrary to public claims). However, Marcy Wheeler recognized the date of that update is the very same date that the FISA court supposedly smacked down the NSA for violating the 4th Amendment with some searches.If you don't recall, about a year ago, under pressure from Senator Wyden, the US government admitted (late on a Friday evening) that, indeed, the FISA court had "on one occasion" ruled that certain activities concerning Section 702 "minimization" (i.e., trying to avoid searches on US persons) were "unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." And yet, that very same day, the NSA announced that the rules had changed and it could do searches on US persons, following a certain (undisclosed) "oversight process." Wheeler notes that the NSA seems to have interpreted the FISA court smacking it down for spying on Americans as a form of permission to spy on Americans:
Wheeler goes further, providing details from the discussion in the Senate Intelligence Committee during the debate over reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act (which is where 702 comes from), in which it was strongly hinted that the FISA court had "concerns" about this very type of backdoor searching, and despite acknowledging this, no one bothered to close that backdoor. In fact, it now appears that the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence may have used all of this as a cover to argue that they are authorized to do these kinds of searches.The FISC Court didn't just "approve" minimization procedures on October 3, 2011. In fact, that was the day that it declared that part of the program violated the Fourth Amendment.
So where the glossary says minimization procedures approved on that date "now allow" for querying US person data, it almost certainly means that on October 3, 2011, the FISC court ruled the querying the government had already been doing violated the Fourth Amendment, and sent it away to generate "an effective oversight process," even while approving the idea in general.
And note that FISC didn't, apparently, require that ODNI/DOJ come back to the FISC to approve that new "effective oversight process."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, faa, fisa amendments act, fisa court, fisc, nsa, nsa surveillance, searches, section 702, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The good news is, if they decided to implement your plan the NSA would be able to track this behavior!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHO is going to stop them?
Congress won't. The USCOTUS has to hear a case before they act, and I doubt they'd rule favorably after the Obamacare debacle. Obama either doesn't care or doesn't know enough to care.
They will continue to do it because they CAN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The people are fed up with it. Big business is fixing to get fed up with when they find out some one has slipped in the other countries outside of US reach for domestic laws and sets up equivalent net and computer services.
If there were anything that will push governments around the world to disconnect from Microsoft in favor of security, the bell has been rung loudly for attention.
Again it shows the American people can not trust their government, they can't trust their officials and politicians, to come clean. What started out looking like they were just waiting for the discoveries and news to die down has taken a life of its own. Covering it up and band aiding the programs isn't going to work. Obama's statement of the US not having a surveillance program for American citizens inside the country barely got out of his mouth before it was shown he was lying. Every new revelation just shows more complicity in trying to hide it all.
Other governments will now be putting pressure on the US over it's spying practices. This doesn't look like it will end well for the NSA. It's high time it was held accountable along with the administration and congress that enabled and kept it going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
People should pull their heads out of their butts and realize that all the constitution gave us is government. How ya been likin' that government lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Declaration of Independence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Impossible to follow the Constitution?
If you honestly are trying to go after foreign threats without violating the US Constitution, might it be possible to do a query for Americans under narrow cases and yet not be violating the 4th amendment?
Or is the claim here that such is impossible or that no court is likely to agree on such constitutionality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]