EFF Asks Court To Declare NSA's 'Internet Backbone' Collections Unconstitutional
from the what-part-of-the-Fourth-says-'collect-it-all?' dept
Snowden's leaks continue to help build the EFF's case against the NSA. Its lawsuit against the intelligence agency (filed on behalf of several plaintiffs, Carolyn Jewel being named first) was filed in 2008, but has gained significant traction over the past twelve months.
This case is also at the center of the DOJ's on-again, off-again metadata destruction plans, which ultimately resulted in the FISA court backing up the district court's preservation order preventing the destruction of relevant aged-off Section 702 data. The DOJ said one thing and did another, in the end destroying evidence and claiming the NSA's was "too complex" to separate relevant data from the rest of the collection.
The recent leaks provided more evidence that the NSA routinely collected not only metadata but communications of American citizens, and has lead the EFF to file a motion for summary judgement declaring that the NSA's "internet backbone" surveillance programs are unconstitutional.
This motion is based almost entirely on the government's formal, acknowledged admissions. This is because a Motion for Partial "Summary Judgment," such as this one, cannot be decided if the parties disagree about material facts. It is a common litigation strategy to make a motion based upon the undisputed facts so that the court can rule on an important legal issue, even if there are other facts that are not yet agreed upon.In the motion, the EFF details how the NSA's untargeted collections violate the Fourth Amendment and could not possibly be covered by any issued warrant.
In essence, we are saying that even if you accept the government's own descriptions of its internet backbone spying, the spying is still unconstitutional.
First, the government unconstitutionally seizes plaintiffs’ Internet communications. Technology at plaintiffs’ Internet service provider, AT&T, automatically creates and delivers to the government a copy of plaintiffs’ online activities, along with those of millions of other innocent Americans—including email, live chat, reading and interacting with websites, Internet searching, and social networking.Seizing the communications of American citizens can only be done with a warrant -- one that specifies the target, time period and other limitations. This is how government agencies stay compliant with the Fourth Amendment. In the NSA's case, all of that is thrown out. There is no targeting to speak of. Everything is collected and sorted through for relevant information after the fact. Because no warrant would reasonably cover the massive amount of data and communications collected, the NSA operates without one. As the EFF points out, FISA court orders are not warrants and the collection of metadata authorized by these are governed by a generous reading of the Third Party Doctrine. What the NSA pulls off the internet backbone are actual communications -- all without a warrant or any associated restrictions other than some belatedly (and arbitrarily) applied minimization procedures.
Second, the government unconstitutionally searches the content of much of the communications stream it has seized. The government admits that it searches the content of the online communications that it has seized if it believes there is some indication that the origin or destination of the communication is outside the United States.
All of this adds up to a very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In truth, no valid warrant could authorize the government’s admitted practices here. The government’s targeting and minimization procedures are no substitute for the fundamental protections that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. The ongoing dragnet seizure and search of innocent Americans’ Internet activities violates the Fourth Amendment.The EFF's filing also includes the following infographic (created by Hugh D'Andrade) that shows how the NSA's backbone collection works.
A crucial part of the Fourth Amendment that often gets overlooked is the protection against unconstitutional seizures. As the EFF points out, when the NSA grabs everything from AT&T's backbone, this constitutes a seizure. The NSA may not consider it to be a "collection" (or run searches) until three steps later, but it grabs communications in bulk before applying any minimization or targeting.
The utilization of a warrant (also a key factor to constitutionality) would require the NSA to determine what it was searching for well before it could move ahead with the seizure. It would also require the agency to specify what it's seizing. Other agencies have asked for bulk, non-specific seizures of electronic data/communications (and permission is sometimes granted), but this process at least allows another party to act as a check against overreach. The NSA operates without warrants, bypassing any external checks against abuse, and simply clones communications traveling these internet backbones.
As is noted several times (and with several citations), these claims are established facts, most of which the government itself has confirmed via statements issued in response to leaks as well as in the many hearings held in the wake of the Snowden leaks. There's really no room for argument, although it's virtually assured the government will find something to justify its bypassing of the Fourth Amendment. The EFF speculates that this argument will revolve around the NSA's very slippery and self-serving definition of "collection."
As we try to make clear in the motion, especially at footnote 13, the government uses a very different definition of "collect" or "acquire" than most people do, limiting "collection" or "acquisition" to stage 4, when the communications are actually stored in the government's database. An easy place to see this is in DNI Clapper's explanation for denying to Senator Wyden that the U.S. government is “collecting” data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.It's up to the court to decide whether or not the NSA's collection is a collection when the NSA says it is -- or when it's actually collected.
The government can also be expected to re-deploy its "special needs" argument, which posits that the good of the few (the NSA) outweighs the good of the many (the American public). The hunt for terrorists should outweigh the public's expectation of privacy, whatever minimal amount is left after the government's exploitation of the Third Party Doctrine. The EFF warns the court about this expected argument, noting that the government's "needs" don't outweigh its obligation to honor its citizens' civil liberties.
Although “the government’s interest in preventing terrorism . . . is extremely high,” the importance of that interest “is no excuse for the dispensing altogether with domestic persons’ constitutional rights.” Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, 686 F.3d at 993; see also Keith, 407 U.S. at 316-21 (rejecting government’s argument that national security required dispensing with the warrant requirement in domestic security surveillance cases). “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. . . . [¶] . . . [E]ven the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.” Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-26 (1934). Allowing even legitimate national security concerns to override the most fundamental of Fourth Amendment protections—the prohibition on the modern-day equivalent of the despised “general warrant”—would turn the Constitution on its head and destroy the basic civil liberties that the Founders fought to protect.The bulk metadata collection (Section 215/501) has already had its Constitutionality challenged by one judge. The EFF is seeking a similar decision on the NSA's Section 702 program with this filing. The extra attention of the Snowden-imposed daylight has led to concessions on Section 215 by the NSA. With any luck, Section 702 is in line for similar discussion and modification.
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, jewel v. nsa, nsa, search, section 702, seizure, surveillance, upstream
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
An important principle that's frequently brought up here in the context of copyright abuse is that copying is not theft. That being true, how can copying be considered seizure of property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
verb: seize; 3rd person present: seizes; past tense: seized; past participle: seized; gerund or present participle: seizing; verb: seise; 3rd person present: seises; past tense: seised; past participle: seised; gerund or present participle: seising
1. take hold of suddenly and forcibly.
"she jumped up and seized his arm"
synonyms: grab, grasp, snatch, take hold of, get one's hands on;
grip, clutch;
nab
"she seized the microphone"
antonyms: let go of
take forcible possession of.
"army rebels seized an air force base"
synonyms: capture, take, overrun, occupy, conquer, take over
"rebels seized the air base"
antonyms: relinquish, liberate
(of the police or another authority) take possession of (something) by warrant or legal right; confiscate; impound.
"police have seized 726 lb of cocaine"
synonyms: confiscate, impound, commandeer, requisition, appropriate, expropriate, take away;
distrain
"the drugs were seized by customs"
antonyms: release
take (an opportunity or initiative) eagerly and decisively.
"he seized his chance to attack as Delaney hesitated"
(of a feeling or pain) affect (someone) suddenly or acutely.
"he was seized by the most dreadful fear"
strongly appeal to or attract (the imagination or attention).
"the story of the king's escape seized the public imagination"
formal
understand (something) quickly or clearly.
"he always strains to seize the most somber truths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is it really seizure?
Changing technology has created a whole new category of "seizure" that the Fourth Amendment doesn't comfortably cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
I don't think its a good idea to give anyone that much power. The abuse or "mistakes" that become possible terrify me more than any terrorists....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
The fact that the digital age has allowed them to streamline the process until it takes a few milliseconds instead of a few hours should not matter. The moment your packets enter their splitter for duplication, they have seized your packet as surely as if they'd taken your bank statement off your desk for photocopying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
Under this definition, making a copy of data is indeed a seizure (it is gathering evidence of a crime).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: is it really seizure?
I think that Tim Cushing finds himself in a bit of an uncomfortable place with this one. It's another one of those "angry at NSA" posts, but it has huge implications for many of the pillars of Techdirt, namely that piracy is not theft, but only infringement. Read on to understand more:
In a legal sense, seizure of something means to take sole control or ownership. You seize drugs, you seize assets, you seize the wheel.
EFF's argument is that a copy is a seizure, property that has been obtained without a warrant.
Now the point the Techdirt staff would not like you to consider is what EFF's argument would mean in relation to piracy. If for purposes of the 4th amendment obtaining a copy of digital information is a seizure, you have to accept that (a) the original information was property that could be seized, and that (b) that the copy made has been "seized" and thus is property, not just a copy. If this is the case, then every pirated copy of a movie, song, or software is property, and the whole concept of theft of property comes back into play.
The issue is that if the copy of the data is property for seizure, it then defines any copy of data as property owned and controlled by whoever created it. If you can seize data as property for the fourth amendment, then copies of any data would be property in the most basic of legal senses. It would as a result be a very easy legal argument to claim that a pirated copy of a movie is direct theft, as property has been obtained illegally.
You guys better hope like heck that EFF loses this one. They are opening a huge can of worms that could potentially do more harm to the net than any net neutrality deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: is it really seizure?
The EFF is arguing this constitutes a warrentless seizure, or at the very least a general warrant covering AT&T's backbone network. AT&T's "post office" in none technical terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
Far from it. To use your analogy, they are taking pictures of all of the main going through a sorting machine at the post office. Post cards get their full information copied, the closed envelopes only display their to and from addresses (encrypted content) and fully encrypted stuff gives them nothing but a random collection of 1s and 0s.
I don't see them opening any mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
The NSA backbone search is not limited to metadata, which is the equivalent of taking pictures of the outside of envelopes. The searches are searching the content of the email for their keywords, which is the equivalent of opening the letters, copying the contents, then resealing them again and sending them on.
NSA say that they also 'seize' (in their definition of seize) emails about targeted persons.
You cannot tell if an email is about a third party unless you "open the mail and read its contents".
In fact, you cannot even tell the subject, or the To: or From: an email without "opening" it. The IP header of an email contains only meta data about the packet itself, from IP, to IP, checksum, size of header, size of payload etc. It doesn't contain any information on an email such as To:, From: Subject: . In a letter analogy, all it really contains is the from and to street addresses, maybe some waybill information: weight, size. No names of people, no subject, nothing else.
The payload of an IP packet itself contains another envelope (TCP, UDP, RTP etc) who's header/meta-data information doesn't even contain the email From:, To: Subject: let alone body of an email. The headers of these envelopes contain more detailed meta-data, but again no To:, From:, Subject: or Body: data. In a TCP header it'd be from port, to port, sequence number, window size etc. In a letter analogy, this would be equivalent to an apartment number (the IP packet header had the street address), how many separate envelopes were sent, the number within that which this is (1st, 2nd, 3rd ...).
You'd have to delve into the payload, "open the letter", of the TCP packet to find out information such as To: From:, Subject:. And since, as far as the TCP packet is concerned, the payload is just a long string, you have to open the entire packet, have access to the entire payload including the body to get the From:, To:, Subject: information. Email headers are not separate from the Body data stream, unlike an IP or TCP packet header is. There is no fixed location email header field that says "the first 80 bytes are headers, the rest is body, so just get the first 80 bytes and all you'll have is header information, From:, To:, Subject: fields".
In the letter analogy, to copy the From:, To:, Subject: "meta-data", this is like opening the letter, grabbing the page and copying the standard (formal writing style) From: information on the top right-hand side of the page, the To: information on the left side but a bit lower down than the From information, then the Subject line immediately below that, and then promising to not copy the rest of the first page, honest, you can believe me. I give you my word I won't copy the whole page, or any of the other pages, really.
But Oops, if I am permitted to get mail about a target then I have to copy and read ALL the pages to determine whether it's about one of my targets.
Not to mention that, since I'm also allowed to keep encrypted email (because, you know, using encryption is suspicious), I have to "Open the email and read it" in order to determine if it's encrypted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
if there is enough to read to know if it's encrypted or not, then not all of it is actually encrypted. That email has the subject written on the outside of the envelope and not the inside is purely technical.
For totally unencrypted mail, it's like sending information on postcards. No effort is required to see the raw data, it's right there.
The point is this: If the copy is seizable, then it's property. Then are other forms of digital data property? If so, then are copies of movies property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: is it really seizure?
And I think you fail yet again. Especially as people above with no dictionaries already had explained the meaning of "seized" to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
If they say the data needs a warrant because it's a seizure, the it is defacto property, IE something that belongs to someone. It will open the door to the argument that digital downloads are property as well, and can be obtained (seized) illegally by pirates. So no longer do you have just a civil case, but a case of theft of property even though it's a copy.
Otherwise, the copy of data is just that, a copy, and the original data was no seized, only replicated as it went by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: is it really seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
Piracy is a violent seizure of property taken on the high seas. File sharing isn't anywhere close to being the same thing. File sharing isn't even a seizure much less theft. It is a willful sharing of a copy data that a person possesses. Seizure is taking by force or under threat of force.
There are reasons we have different words for different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
No, it's not. Piracy is copyright infringement, which is a different thing (and different set of laws) than theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
"This is why people continuously need to be corrected when they use the language incorrectly."
I more or less disagree with this. Language changes, and a very good argument can be made for both the terms "hacker" and "piracy" that the language has already changed. People using those terms in their modern sense aren't using the language incorrectly at all. They're using contemporary language correctly.
That's what I mean by the battle is already lost. The meanings have changed, and the modern usage is not incorrect -- that us old farts wish it had not doesn't change the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
And the term cracker isn't even necessarily related to criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
I agree.
"the term cracker isn't even necessarily related to criminal activity"
Well, yes and no. The term "cracker" was a conscious attempt to invent a different term for criminal activity so that people would stop using "hacker" for that. The intention was for it to be necessarily related to such activity. It failed, in part because it kindof sucks for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy
Come see the violence inherent in Digital Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's advocate
I would hope there's already analog precedent that already trashes this argument (cops photographing or xeroxing documents, without taking the originals). But then again, it's harder to split the hair of seizure and search in the analog world, so maybe there's no clear precedent. Anyone know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
There may be later Supreme Court rulings that supersede Berger's ruling (I didn't search for one) but on the face of it, it seems that the deprivation of property is not a requirement within the legal definition of "seizure".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's advocate
http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2071&context=cklawreview
It didn't last very long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My main issue is ...
"Is the data being examined stored for an unreasonable length of time?" With unreasonable being pretty much anything over a couple of seconds MAX. So NSA would be permitted to sniff all the traffic over the backbone and filter it for legal material and store that legal material. But anything else is forgotten within seconds. And such a method would fit the diagram done by the EFF presentation. But unfortunately, the NSA isn't doing that. What it looks like the NSA is doing is intercepting the data and storing it for an indeterminate length of time for future queries. And THAT is unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My main issue is ...
"Is the data being examined stored for an unreasonable length of time?"
That is not the real question! That's what they want you to think is a valid question. It is not even a valid question.
They are seizing and searching and whatever else comes next - without a warrant. That is not legal. It is the mother of all illegal law enforcement wiretaps, like stingrays for your local police force, only bigger, stronger, venomous and clearly, it is the "real question", the biggest question of my lifetime anyway. Do we hold to the Constitution or do we huddle in senseless, sightless masses to appease those who choose to wield "legality" as they see fit?
If there is no 4th then there is no future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it copyright? only their hairdresser's know for sure
The argument should be about privacy, not copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuck
Putting aside the, you know, Constitution, how do these agencies reconcile their inability to act on specific information when it's handed to them with their desire to collect even more information?
I'll concede that US security is threatened by a lack of intelligence, but it's not the kind of intelligence the NSA is talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can imagine the reply
But it's in the best interest of innocent Americans to be protected from pirate pornography sharing terrorist children. It's for their own bestiality. I mean bestedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]