ACLU Sues Government Over Unreleased FISA Court Opinions
from the make-with-the-secrets dept
The US government is still holding onto its opacity ideals while publicly touting transparency directives. The FISA court -- which presides over the NSA's surveillance programs -- has normally been completely shrouded in darkness. Things changed in 2013 after Ed Snowden began leaking documents.
Forced into a conversation about domestic surveillance, the administration responded with more transparency promises and the signing of the USA Freedom Act into law. The new law curtailed the collection of domestic business records (phone metadata and other third-party records) and required the court to make its opinions public following declassification reviews.
All well and good, but the government has apparently decided the new law only requires transparency going forward. FISA opinions dating back to 2001 still remain locked up, despite transparency promises and reform efforts.
The ACLU is now suing the government to force the release of over a decade's-worth of FISC opinions. Many of those still withheld contain rulings on issues that are the very definition of "public interest." The appendix to the motion [PDF] contains a list of opinions the ACLU would like to see released, including the following:
- The order authorizing Yahoo's bulk email scanning.
- Rulings on the FBI's use of NITs and other malware.
- Orders compelling "technical assistance" to weaken encryption or hand over code to the US government.
- Stingray deployments authorized by the FISA court.
- Possible First Amendment violations arising from the Section 215 program.
- A 2013 order detailing "unauthorized NSA surveillance."
The government would like these to remain secret, which is why it's interpreted the new law to only affect decisions reached after the implementation of the USA Freedom Act. But that runs counter to the whole point of surveillance reform and the administration's own transparency directives: to better inform the public about the government's actions. Transparency goes hand-in-hand with accountability and keeping these out of the public's hands does nothing to further either goal.
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: fisa court, fisc, foia, nsa, transparency
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency goes hand-in-hand with accountability and keeping these out of the public's hands does nothing to further either goal.
Given the government cares for neither when it's under the lens and being held accountable rather than the public, stonewalling and silence absolutely furthers both, just not in the public's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not holding my breath
And even if they do this round, there is appeal. And it's all on the taxpayers' bill anyway, so why not appeal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]