Feds Had Court Reverse Ban On Warrantless Searches On Americans Because 'We Wanted To Be Able To Do It'
from the that-whole-4th-amendment-mean-anything-to-you? dept
Last month, we wrote about the revelation of the infamous backdoor search loophole that allowed the NSA to run searches on the communications of Americans without a warrant, just so long as they collected them under another program -- the so-called 702 program of the FISA Amendments Act, which sucks up a large amount of communications, based on some very broad definitions of words like "target" and "relevance." We noted that this was due to a "rule change" in 2011, but the details of that change weren't entirely clear... until now.The Washington Post has the story (along with the recently released -- though heavily redacted -- FISA Court ruling about the NSA lying to the court) that shows that back in 2008, the FISC had banned any such searches at the request of the Bush administration, but in 2011 the Obama administration reversed course, and asked the FISA Court to allow such backdoor warrantless searches, and the court did what it was told, issuing a ruling allowing them, despite the fact that it's almost certainly a major 4th Amendment violation. The Obama administration's reasoning? As noted below, a chief administration lawyer explains: "We wanted to be able to do it." The "it" there, for clarification, is run warrantless searches on tons of communications (not just metadata) collected from Americans.
What's a little surprising is that I'm pretty sure I called some of this back in June, the day after the first Snowden leak came out, when I pointed out that the NSA likely defines "target" not to mean just the person that they're targeting, but rather the entire investigation. So as long as the goal of the collection was to "target" a particular non-American situation, anything can be collected, and then it can be searched at will without a warrant. Apparently, this includes somewhere on the order of 250 million communications per year.
What's astounding is that Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, seems kind of proud of the fact that they got this backdoor loophole:
The court in 2008 imposed a wholesale ban on such searches at the government’s request, said Alex Joel, civil liberties protection officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The government included this restriction “to remain consistent with NSA policies and procedures that NSA applied to other authorized collection activities,” he said.Um. "We wanted to be able to do it" is not exactly a valid reason for violating the clear language of the 4th Amendment. I'm sure plenty of government officials "wanted to be able to do" all sorts of illegal things like throw political foes in jail for dissent, or shut down newspapers for writing things they don't like. But we don't allow it because the Constitution says you can't do that.
But in 2011, to more rapidly and effectively identify relevant foreign intelligence communications, “we did ask the court” to lift the ban, ODNI general counsel Robert S. Litt said in an interview. “We wanted to be able to do it,” he said, referring to the searching of Americans’ communications without a warrant.
But Litt just can't help himself, he's so proud of violating the 4th Amendment.
“If we’re validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don’t have to close our eyes to that,” Litt said. “I’m not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we’ve already collected.”The duplicity here is incredible. First, they redefine "target" to allow them suck up American's communications without a warrant, despite the fact that this is expressly prohibited. Then, to ignore the official minimization rules that bar them from looking at any communications that involve Americans, they have a court say "oh fine" and overturn a clear rule that says they can't look at those communications, and Litt doesn't see the problem? Most people would argue (a) the original collection was not, in fact lawful and (b) even if it was lawful to collect, over and over again for the past few months, government officials have insisted that they are careful to make sure searches on Americans don't happen. Yet, now he nonchalantly waves off the issue as being "of course" they search that information because he thinks it's "lawfully collected" despite being almost directly against the plain language of both the law and the Constitution? Wow.
Oh, and as a "bonus" they appear to have tossed in the ability for the NSA to keep Americans' communications for six years, rather than five. Note, of course, that over the past few months, the NSA and its defenders have continued to trot out the five year claim, even though this ruling makes it clear that the timeline had actually been extended to six. So, yet another lie to top it all off.
And, while most of the outrage should be directed at the Obama administration, mainly in the form of Litt and James Clapper who pushed for this, some of it also should be directed at the chief judge of the FISA Court at the time, John Bates, who signed off on this "rule change." Once again, it seems that the administration and the NSA's defenders keep claiming one thing, and only later, as it's pointed out that the opposite is true, do they say something like "oh, yeah, well of course we do that..."
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, backdoor loophole, fisa amendments act, nsa, nsa surveillance, prism, robert litt, section 702, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Impeach Obama. NOW. We don't need traitors at the controls of our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure that "collect[ing] communications of Americans" can be considered "lawfully collected" before this... I believe that's unlawfully collected in which case the government does "have to close [their] eyes to that".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plausible deniability? More like a Marxist farce!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you can do it, doesn't make it right.
They are giddy over the total surveillance state they have built, and are trying to crush anyone who dares question what is happening.
We've toppled dictators who have done exactly what they are doing. It is time for this to end, and people to be punished. But but but terrorism does not justify a single thing they have done to dismantle the rights of citizens, and it is time they our rights be restored and strengthened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing about this is that they were previously using the fact that they were "only collecting and not looking" as a reason the collection was lawful. Now the looking is lawful because the collection was lawful.. nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FISA: Ok fine. You can collect everything, but just delete the American data.
NSA: But now we have all this American data that we want. There is no sense in pretending it's not there.
FISA: I suppose. Just don't abuse it!
NSA: No promises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait.....
Heh, how is it that someone can still utter that something the TSA or the US Government by proxy is actually... "SURPRISING".
While our great Nation has not devolved to the level of Syria or other 3rd world funny hat dictators 'yet', we sure as hell are well on our way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike,
Can you actually explain how this violates the Fourth Amendment?
Here's the "clear language": "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It says that searches cannot be "unreasonable," and that if there is a warrant, it must be based on "probable cause."
Can you please run us through how these warrantless searches are unreasonable, applying the actual Fourth Amendment doctrines that comprise the actual law? Or are you just thumping the Constitution, unable to actually back up what you claim?
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If searches of all electronic communications of everyone at all times is reasonable... then what, exactly, would be UNreasonable?
The 4th amendment does give us a hint that warrants should particularly describe the things to be searched/seized. This is not particular; it's everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Can you please run us through how these warrantless searches are unreasonable...?"
Uhm do you need to reread your question/post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a result, they are now extremely careful about what they say. They cannot feel free to speak what they want, because they know that with everything being monitored, anything they say can and will be used against them. This drastically changes their personalities.
Here, I direct you to another Techdirt article
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130617/11212323508/how-knowing-government-is-spying-you -changes-how-you-act.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban?
It's not really a "ban" if you can lift it at any time just by asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The constitution was torn up long ago, they just put it through a shredder as well post September 11. Your federal government would just settle disputes between the states and help organise resistance to repel foreign invaders when and if necessary and pretty much nothing more if it actually followed the constitution. Constitutionally the US federal government should be tiny, one of the smallest governments around, but instead it is the largest and most powerful in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
250 million communications
1 person = 1 communication. Thus, everyone in all capacities is spied on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 250 million communications
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
back in 2008, the FISC had banned any such searches at the request of the Bush administration, but in 2011 the Obama administration reversed course, and asked the FISA Court to allow such backdoor warrantless searches, and the court did what it was told,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: back in 2008, the FISC had banned any such searches at the request of the Bush administration, but in 2011 the Obama administration reversed course, and asked the FISA Court to allow such backdoor warrantless searches, and the court did what it was to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: back in 2008, the FISC had banned any such searches at the request of the Bush administration, but in 2011 the Obama administration reversed course, and asked the FISA Court to allow such backdoor warrantless searches, and the court did what it wa
Aye John, that's just more proof that power corrupts
@ Jerrymiah, it's not good to use the evils of one man to excuse the evils of another. That's politics. I think this blog deals more in ideals than politics even though it's sometimes hard to separate the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's good. You bring up the particularity requirement for warrants and sketch out an argument--that's more than Mike did above. Of course, these searches are not necessarily "searches" under the Fourth Amendment, they don't involve warrants, and instead their legality turns on some rather complicated doctrines, both statutory and constitutional.
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that Mike has no problem declaring that this violates the Fourth Amendment even though he clearly cannot do the actual legal analysis to reach that conclusion? If you agree, what do you make of his constitutional opportunism? If you don't, what makes you think he's capable of doing the analysis?
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. The Constitution is supposed to be understandable by everyone. If it is not -- for example, if what the Constitution "means" can only be understood through the obfuscation of years and layers of legalisms, then the Constitution is rendered effectively worthless for the most important purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what the progressive mean when they say the Constitution is a living document, that way they can bend it to mean anything they want it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United_States_v._U.S._District_Court (1972)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._U.S._District_Court
This ruling directly opposes everything going on regarding the NSA spying on U.S. Citizens. Looking at the comments from the presiding judges, they were specifically concerned with the government doing precisely what is going on today. Why this is never brought up I can only imagine...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not just talking about Mike's obvious bias. Do you agree that he's quick to declare something unconstitutional even though he can't actually do the analysis to arrive at that conclusion himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's bias - its obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike's bias - its obvious
Law student with narcissistic and obsessive tendencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrantless doesn't necessarily mean unreasonable, nor does it mean these are even "searches" under the Fourth Amendment. It's a lot more complicated than that--which is my point. I don't think Mike understands the nuances, yet that doesn't stop him from declaring them unconstitutional. Do you think Mike can do the actual analysis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's this phony business of "nuances" (which means interpretation through highly distorted, complex, and questionable rulings by the courts and custom) that are the main way that the Constitution is being nullified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now look at the quote from Litt who is part of the General Council for the Director of National Intellegence:
"If we�re validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don�t have to close our eyes to that,� Litt said. �I�m not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we�ve already collected.�
Notice the "happen to collect [extra data we aren't targeting]". That's not data collected for a specific reason, that's extra data collected by accident. You can't broaden your scope on a search just because you happen to find something extra, that's outside the scope of the search and is thus illegal.
Even when there is a warrant, that warrant says what they can look for and where they can look. It's specific. It's targeted. It's not let's find anything and everything we can.
I don't need case law, law school, or lawyerese to know bullshit and unconstitutional when I see/hear it. I'm sorry you do.
I'd like to think the American government wasn't about "what can we get away with", but rather "what can we do to protect the freedoms and liberties of this nation". Invading the privacy of it's people, survelling it's people, and hiding from it's people aren't what this country is about. Or at least not what it was about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, if you say that the 4th amendment doesn't apply because the information is with third parties, I disagree. That's rather like saying the government can open your mail without a warrant because the Postal Service is a third party.
If you try to say "they're just business records", it's clear that they went well beyond that and looked at actual communications.
If you try to claim that the materials are relevant to an investigation, then you stretch "relevant" beyond meaning.
If you try to claim that "they're just collecting, and there's no search until they look", I don't really buy that either.
If you try to claim "but we're at war, and that creates special circumstances", I would argue that from a constitutional perspective we are not at war until Congress declares we are, and they haven't done that since the 1940s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Masnick doesn't need to be able to do the analysis himself, not when others have already done it. That's like saying I can't call creationism bullshit because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I don't need to do the research myself when evolutionary biologists have already done the work for me. Asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seizure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seizure
Careful here. In US law currently I can see your arguement especially if you look at "theft" in copyright caselaw. According to current terminology, something can be stolen without the original user knowing or losing anything.
However as noted before on Techdirt, the term "theft" isn't really right cause that implies a loss to the original owner. Technically US citizens aren't losing anything other than personal security from their government.
The reason I say to be careful is that if you're someone who believes "theft" isn't the right terminology in copyright cases, you probably shouldn't use it here. That's wanting things both ways.
I'd argue for the Snowden part, it's more of an illegal copying than an actual seizure of data. Illegal access/copying and abusing the trust of the government moreso than seizure. Either way you're right though, the government should be careful too. They can't have it both ways either (even though they think they should get it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seizure
As stated above in the 1972 Kieth supreme court case, it is illegal to search/seize U.S. citizen information without a warrant, even in national security related investigations. A warrant requires probably cause and specificity, which the NSA does not provide in their 'dragnet' warrant requests (Everything is not specific) submitted to FISA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have time to go into the merits and demerits of the claim, nor am I making any such claim. Fact is, it would take me many hours of research to say anything intelligent on the matter. I am asking, though, whether you agree that Mike doesn't possess the capability to do the actual analysis. Do you agree? I'm trying to understand why folks don't call Mike on this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The text of the 4th Amendment is very straightforward, at least for those of us not trying to find wiggle room to do whatever the heck we want to do regardless of what is permitted.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Go to court and request a warrant. State what will be searched and whom and/or what will be seized. Be specific. State why you believe you deserve to get the warrant you've requested.
This is very simple language and no where comes close to requiring "hours of analysis" to come to the conclusion that the NSA's approach of ...
"Collect it all, let us figure it out."
"Warrant? LOLWUT's that?!!1!!'
...is unconstitutional.
Again, this isn't hard to figure out unless you are a weasel lawyer or the government (not much difference really) trying to justify unconstitutional behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the doctrines are far more complicated than you seem to realize. How familiar are you, for example, with the foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to be so rude. So I take it you agree that Mike hasn't the ability to do the analysis himself. I'm glad we agree. We know that Judge Bates found the queries to be constitutional since they were deemed likely to yield foreign intelligence information. Where are the arguments against Bates' interpretation that Mike is adopting?
Moreover, as you seem to admit, Mike himself doesn't know enough about this stuff to adopt that reasoning based on its soundness. He just likes the conclusions--which is really my point. Anyway, what's wrong with pointing out that Mike can't actually do this analysis and that he can't actually back up his claim that it's unconstitutional? Seems like something we should readily call him out for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look AJ, if you feel so strongly that what the NSA is doing is constitutional, then...
- Post your full name and address
- Social security number
- Bank account records and password
- Tax records
- Medical records and password
- Phone calls, emails, text messages - dates, times, places, content
- Internet social accounts and passwords
- Political affiliations and communications
Based on revelations of the last few months, these are all types of things that the NSA has the capability to get, without yours (or mine) express permission, all under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism."
If you feel so strongly that the NSA can just break encryption and scoop up information indiscriminately about all of our private lives, then...
YOU. GO. FIRST.
Post all of what I just suggested, right here, right now. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? Right??
Until you're willing to do that, you have NO RIGHT to question our constitutional right to question and analyze the legitimacy of our government's unconstitutional spying. Mike isn't the first (or even only) person to start questioning or analyzing what's going on in our out of control government. And he certainly isn't going to be the last.
It doesn't take a constitutional scholar or a law degree to know unconstitutional behavior when we see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that he isn't just trolling, his strong feelings aren't about what the NSA is doing, but about Mike making legal claims without having done any research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess you DO go full evil.
So if they search your house accidentally because they got the address of a crackhouse wrong, and turning it over they find your illegal weed stash, they can validly bust you? I thought that was the whole point of protection from illegal search and seizure.
Soon enough, accidental or rather inadvertant discovery will be the go-to procedural bypass.
Litt said "I�m not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we�ve already collected.?
If this is regarded by anyone inside the system as a valid justification, then it will be used to tap into the big NSA database when they don't quite have the legal certification to do so. Well, we already have the data, we should be able to look at it.
Really, NSA is looking less and less like a process of stupid-gone-cascade and more and more like full on like willful malice. Actually, it's looking like Blofeld / Spectre style full-on evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think that hypothetical necessarily applies to the Fourth Amendment issue applicable here (which is the foreign intelligence exception), but you may want to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Garrison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He never will, because creating new threads gets him more attention and more responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's overdue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I explicitly said I wasn't making a claim either way. My point this whole time has been that Mike has no trouble stating that this violates the Fourth Amendment even though he has no ability to actually do the analysis. And saying that he adopts other people's views is no answer since he still wouldn't be able to assess whether someone else's view is an accurate description of the law or not.
It doesn't take a constitutional scholar or a law degree to know unconstitutional behavior when we see it.
That's not true. These are complicated doctrines that you can't just suss out of thin air--which is precisely my point. You think the delicate nuances of the various Fourth Amendment doctrines are so simple that laymen with no training can just spot them on sight? That shows how little you know. Even constitutional scholars who have spent their careers devouring this stuff reach different conclusions on certain things.
Regardless, my point stands that Mike pretends like he knows what he's talking about when it comes to these complicated constitutional doctrines. And for some reason, you guys are unable to call him out for it. It's fine if Mike wants to point out that someone else made a certain argument, and it's fine if Mike wants to take a position. But I'm not OK with him pretending like he can actually back up the position he's taken--he can't. It's just faith-based, backwards-worked nonsense. Just call it what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, that's absurd.
There is no reason why Mike or any of us can't reason for ourselves the plain meaning described in that document. It was written for the people by the people. It's not the Bible, written in parables. It's design is to keep the government in check, not to keep the people in check.
But, go ahead and keep missing the freaking point by criticizing Mike for expressing his belief on why he feels this spying is unconstitutional. While you're at it, criticize me in the same manner because I happen to agree with him and I didn't need to read a word he wrote to come to my own conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copied from AC's post above:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."'
What exactly is unclear about that? Where's the 'nuances' that you say make violating the very clear text of the bill suddenly not a problem?
A warrant requires clear, concise wording, describing exactly what is to be affected/seized, otherwise it's invalid and in violation of the 4th amendment, and just because some sham 'court' tried to give the NSA wriggle room(or they decided to do it themselves) does not make it any less a violation.
Look, you don't like Mike, and you do like those in power(until you disagree with them anyway), these things are both abundantly clear to anyone who knows you and your posting history, but you really need to realize that criticism consisting entirely of ad homs, where you try and attack the credibility of the person, rather than pointing out what exactly they got wrong, is and always will be a failed argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why don't you man up and make one?
"My point this whole time has been that Mike has no trouble stating that this violates the Fourth Amendment even though he has no ability to actually do the analysis."
And this is why your obvious personal attacks fail so completely. At the very least Mike is doing the same analysis as neatly everyone else reading these stories; a plain-English, common-sense reading if the Forth Amendment, based on what was obviously intended for it to achieve. That analysis is not hard and doesn't require expert legal knowledge. The only people who think you do are are lawyers and politicians trying to twist and distort basic Constitutional principles to get the result wanted, whether that's in the public's best interest or (most likely) not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm more disappointed in the complete corruption of the Judicial System. How can average citizens be expected to abide by the law, if Federal Judges themselves don't abide by the High Law of this land. The Constitution of the United States of America.
I'm losing faith and respect in the US Judicial System. Everyone involved in this system has not only disgraced themselves, but also the very system they took an oath to uphold.
I'm having serious doubts about the integrity of the Executive Branch, Congress, and now the Judicial System. All the evidence points to absolute corruption in all three branches of our Government.
I'm starting to feel like neither of these branches are fit to serve the American people anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've explained this before, but I'll say it again. Since Mike is actively censoring me by routing my posts to the spam filter, I'm using a proxy. This proxy somehow causes all posts to show up as a new thread, even when I'm responding to a post in the normal fashion. If Mike wants me to post normally, he should stop censoring me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is my point exactly. He loves to make fun of other people who make claims based on faith. I'm pointing out that he does the same thing regularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are many Fourth Amendment doctrines I would feel very comfortable discussing, but the foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment is not one that I understand well enough to discuss intelligently. Neither does Mike, which is my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]