Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?

from the just-wondering dept

We've already discussed how the usual surveillance state defenders quickly rushed into action following the Paris attacks to demand more surveillance -- and also noted that the two attacks in Paris in the past year happened despite that country expanding its own surveillance laws twice in the past year (once right before the Charlie Hebdo attack and once soon after). And all of that raises a simple question in my mind:

If the intelligence community and its supporters will call for greater surveillance and less encryption even after the surveillance capabilities have been shown not to work at all -- is there any evidence at all that will convince them that maybe this is not the right idea? It's a strange kind of argument that repeatedly points to its own failures... and follows it up with "well, that proves we need more of that!"

Such an argument, by itself, seems self-refuting, because there is no other side. If things are working okay, call for more surveillance. If the surveillance doesn't work, just call for more surveillance. It's the default answer to anything, and thus these calls should be ignored. The fact that the surveillance community wants more power is not news and it's not surprising. It's not because of the Paris attacks -- they're always asking for this and they've mostly gotten it. And it didn't work.

A sober analysis would suggest that perhaps it's time to try something different. But that's not how these things tend to go apparently.

Filed Under: bulk collection, evidence, isis, mass surveillance, nsa, privacy, surveillance, surveillance state

FISA Court Authorizes 'As-Is' Bulk Phone Collections For The Next Six Months

from the 'six-months-same-as-Patriot-Act'-civil-liberties-fire-sale! dept

"The more things change, the more everything is just Smith v. Maryland (1979)."

Or so the FISA Court notes in its latest order authorizing the continued collection of bulk phone records under… well, not Section 215, which expired, but under a "non-hyper-literal evil genie" reading of the contradictory forces temporarily in play thanks to the passage of the USA Freedom Act.

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," well, at least for 180 days. This application presents the question whether the recently-enacted USA FREEDOM Act, in amending Title V of FISA, 2 ended the bulk collection of telephone metadata. The short answer is yes. But in doing so, Congress deliberately carved out a 180-day period following the date of enactment in which such collection was specifically authorized. For this reason, the Court approves the application in this case.

The order notes that there was much more to consider in this renewal application. It nods to the expiration of Section 215 on May 31st and its brief return to its pre-Patriot Act form for roughly 24 hours before the passage of USA Freedom pushed the expiration date up until 2019. It notes the legal challenges brought against the bulk collection by Ken Cuccinelli and FreedomWorks, as well as the stipulations added to the collection by the surveillance reform bill.

The order denies Cuccinelli/Freedomworks' request to shut down the bulk collection entirely but does grant their request to serve as amicus curiae -- a new position provided for by the USA Freedom Act. This, however, is limited solely to motions already presented to the court by FreedomWorks and Center for National Security Studies. And the FISA Court finds the opposition to the government's claim of 180 days' worth of uninterrupted, unaltered bulk collections to be lacking in merit. The culprit is (partially) the USA Freedom Act itself.

The USA FREEDOM Act prohibits the FISC from issuing an order for production of tangible things without the use of a "specific selection term." USA FREEDOM Act§ 103(b), amending FISA § 501(c). This amendment and the related amendments set forth in sections 101 through 103 of the USA FREEDOM Act prohibit the government from acquiring tangible things in bulk under a FISA business records order. Crucially for purposes of this case, however, section 109(a) of the USA FREEDOM Act states that these amendments do not take effect until 180 days after enactment (November 29, 2015).

[...]

And if that was not clear enough, the USA FREEDOM Act also states that "[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to alter or eliminate the authority of the Government to obtain an order [under the business records provisions of FISA] as in effect prior to [the ban on bulk acquisition taking effect after 180 days]." USA FREEDOM Act §109(b). In passing the USA FREEDOM Act, Congress clearly intended to end bulk data collection of business records and other tangible things. But what it took away with one hand, it gave back - for a limited time - with the other.

The rest of the order is given over to dismissing a handful of other legal challenges to the bulk collection program, including the Second Circuit Court's finding that the program -- in its current form -- is not actually authorized by law.

The FISA Court, however, finds the appeals court's analysis "flawed" and reliant on "mischaracterizations." While the Second Circuit found the program "had no endpoint," the FISA Court claims the USA Freedom Act gives it one: November 29, 2015. This is the FISA Court shifting back into "hyper-literal evil genie" mode. The Section 215 collection has always had an "endpoint." It's just always been renewed by Congress, up until 2015's expiration, which was more a result of Snowden's leaks than an autonomous decision to give the program a true endpoint. Without a doubt, the modified collection will go through the same cycle of endless renewals.

The government's access to American phone records is never going to end completely, not as long as the government and FISA Court continue to rely on the Third Party Doctrine, as defined by the 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision. The FISA order refers to this decision repeatedly in its justification of ongoing bulk collections, either in pre-USA Freedom Act form or with the new limitations in place. As long as the government can rely on this large Fourth Amendment loophole, domestic surveillance in the form of bulk collections (as well as subpoena and National Security letter abuse) will continue. There is effectively no "endpoint" for these collections, as the Second Circuit pointed out.

The only thing "correct" about the FISA Court's analysis of these collections -- including the convenient elasticity of the term "relevant" -- is that a new Fourth Amendment privacy right doesn't simply spring into existence because these programs harvest information on millions of Americans. If the government -- and the courts -- aren't willing to extend protections to certain "business records" for an individual, the same lack of protection remains in place when it's hundreds of thousands who are affected.

For what it's worth, Section 215 (now Section 501) will no longer be collected and stored by the NSA after this six-month wind-down. These records will reside with telcos and be returned only in exchange for specific searches based on "reasonable articulable suspicion."

Unfortunately, this order doesn't bode well for the newly-created position of amicus curiae. Everything examined here in ad hoc, interim form is dismissed completely by FISA judge Michael Mosman. Barring a Supreme Court examination of bulk domestic collections or a revisiting of the issues central to Smith v. Maryland, arguing the public's case against bulk harvesting is going to be an exercise in futility.

Filed Under: bulk collection, fisa, fisa court, fisc, patriot act, phone records, section 215

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

FISA Court Tackles Section 215 Mess, Public Advocates In New Opinion

from the bulk-collection-paused? dept

The FISA Court has released its opinion on the interim Section 215 collection activities. The government argued that it was owed six months of uninterrupted, plain vanilla Patriot Act collections, as provided for in the USA Freedom Act. While the new law significantly alters the NSA's collection methods, it was given 180 days to transition to an off-site "collection," housed by telcos and responsive only to targeted searches.

But a few points were still unclear. First, Section 215 did actually expire on May 31st. Only the passage of the USA Freedom Act prevented it from going completely dead, and even so, it's no longer a bulk collection. Second, the Second Circuit Court found the collection was illegal under current law. This finding has very limited jurisdiction, of course, and the appeals court has no control over the FISA Court. The FISC can consider this opinion (and it has), but the question of the legality of this bulk collection is still mostly unsettled.

Third, the USA Freedom Act provides for the appointment of five people to argue on behalf of the public and potential surveillance targets. The new order tackles this new stipulation… sort of. First of all, however, the FISA Court has the unenviable task of sorting out the numerous conflicts caused by the sunset of Section 215, and its almost immediate sunrise in mutated form, thanks to the provisions of the passed-at-the-last-minute USA Freedom Act.

Julian Sanchez at Just Security points out the FISC had a couple of options when interpreting the new law, the old law and various other legal questions.

Since reading USA Freedom as amending the post-sunset law would result in legal gibberish, in other words, the FISC reads the law as doing what Congress very obviously intended for it to do, not what a hyper-literal evil genie might read it as doing.

The opinion appears to authorize old-school Section 215 bulk collecting during the 180-day winddown. [As pointed out by Julian Sanchez, the opinion "pointedly" does not authorize this. What it does is provide for the collection as amended by the USA Freedom Act, which obviously isn't the same thing, and isn't how the government has interpreted the 180-day transition period.) What's more interesting is the order's discussion of the brand new advocates that will finally bring an adversarial presence to the court. Sanchez notes the FISC could have simply ignored this stipulation until after the 6-month temporary reauthorization was completed and USA Freedom's version of Section 215 kicked in. But it didn't. However, that doesn't exactly mean it's welcoming the additional arguments and scrutiny. In this opinion, the FISC rubberstamps itself.

First, it understatedly notes that things are all kinds of screwed up at the moment.

Although the statutory framework is somewhat tangled, the choice before the court is actually very clear and stark: as described below, it can apply well-established principles of statutory construction and interpret the USA FREEDOM Act in a manner that gives meaning to all of its provisions, or it can ignore those principles and conclude that Congress passed an irrational statute with multiple superfluous parts.

Having issued its mildly derogatory assessment of Schrödinger's Bulk Collection, the FISA Court moves on to declare that, despite the multiple legal entanglements and legislative changes, this particular request is so straightforward -- and its precedent sufficiently clear -- there's no need to ask a second opinion.

Under the circumstances, it does not appear that the assistance of an amicus curiae would materially assist the court in making that decision. The court therefore finds that it is "not appropriate" to appoint an amicus curiae in this matter, within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. §1803(i)(2)(A).

This would, of course, be the statute cited by the Second Circuit Court as not allowing for the bulk collection of records, but whatever. In this particular case, the FISA Court's assessment is likely correct. If it's expected to see this tangled mess the way legislators intended, rather than as a "hyper-literal evil genie," the government is free to collect bulk records for the next six months while transitioning to the new process. Anyone arguing on behalf of the public will just have to wait until the USA Freedom version goes into effect and attack any deficiencies then. As for the appeals court decision, it has very little bearing now that the Section 215 program is on the way to retirement. The passage of USA Freedom now provides for the legal authority needed to continue this collection, which will no longer be in bulk and much more likely to adhere to the Section 1803 provisions.

Sanchez points out an interesting omission -- if it is an omission -- that possibly indicates the government won't even be performing its long-running bulk collection for the next six months. As he notes, no additional order authorizing normal bulk collection has been issued. In the wake of the Snowden leaks, the FISA Court has been pretty punctual with the public release of authorization orders, but there's no order attached to this opinion.

Because the FISC has declined to take the 180-day escape hatch, and because they cannot plausibly invoke the “no brainer” exception, the court does intend to appoint an amicus to brief the question of whether bulk collection can continue during the six month transition window. Since it will take time to find an appropriate party, and there’s no indication of any further bulk order being issued as yet, it seems reasonable to infer that, at present, the bulk program remains suspended. Alternatively, the FISC may have issued a temporary order authorizing resumption of bulk collection for some quite short period, without an opinion, while it looks for an amicus and takes time to consider their arguments.   If they had in fact already issued an opinion and order reauthorizing bulk collection, after all, it would be quite strange to have issued a memorandum opinion dealing only with this narrow question, rather than bundling them all together.

If so, this would be the first time since 2009 that the bulk collection has been suspended for any length of time, which is significant on its own.

Filed Under: amicus, bulk collection, doj, fisa, fisa court, fisc, patriot act, public advocate, reform, usa freedom

Privacy International Files Complaint Against GCHQ's Use Of 'Bulk Personal Datasets'

from the chipping-away dept

Last month, we noted that the UK rights group Privacy International has been at the forefront of the fight against the UK's disproportionate surveillance activities, to such an extent that the UK government has changed the law just to avoid one of its legal challenges. Those have covered many different aspects of GCHQ's activities. In July 2014, Privacy International filed a complaint with the UK's spy watchdog, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), over GCHQ's surveillance tools. In September 2014, it tackled GCHQ's involvement in the "Five Eyes" system. And now it has come at things from yet another angle:

Privacy International today filed a legal complaint demanding an end to the bulk collection of phone records and harvesting of other databases, from millions of people who have no ties to terrorism, nor are suspected of any crime.

The complaint, filed in the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is the first UK legal challenge to attack the UK Government Communications Headquarters' (GCHQ) use of "bulk personal datasets" equivalent of the US s.215 bulk phone records metadata program. The s.215 program run by the NSA, which has dominated the US surveillance reform debate since Edward Snowden revealed it, was curtailed just days ago with the passing of the USA Freedom Act.

The latest challenge flows from the publication in March of the IPT report, "Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework." Even with its frequent redactions, the report provided important new information on which Privacy International is basing its complaint:

The ISC does not reveal which datasets have been collected by GCHQ, but they are described as being "highly intrusive", containing "millions" of records, which are then "linked together." In a startling admission, the datasets were separately described as pertaining "to a wide range of individuals, the majority of whom are unlikely to be of intelligence interest."

There is no proper legal regime in place, with no restrictions on which datasets can be collected, how long they can be stored, or accessed. The acquisition and subsequent use of datasets is not authorised by a judge, or even a Minister.

It gets even worse:

There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information, and abuse of the data has already happened with the ISC finding that agencies “had disciplined – or in some cases dismissed – staff for inappropriately accessing personal information held in these datasets.” It is not sufficient that misuse is dealt with by individual disciplinary measures. We need much stronger safeguards to prevent misuse occurring in the first place.

Bringing multiple cases before tribunals and courts is one way to achieve that. At the very least, it makes people more aware of what is going on, and increasingly it is leading to small but symbolically important victories too.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: bulk collection, gchq, nsa, surveillance, usa freedom act
Companies: privacy international

DOJ Argues FISC Opinion Preferable To 2nd Circuit Opinion While Defending Ongoing, Unaltered Metadata Collection

from the WE-HEART-FISC dept

The Memorandum of Law the FISA Court ordered the DOJ to make public in response to Ken Cuccinelli/FreedomWorks' challenge to the immediate return of Section 215 "business as usual" following the expiration of the authority at the end of May. (Followed almost immediately thereafter by the passage of the USA Freedom Act, carrying with it a six-month "transitional" collection period.)

In it, the DOJ makes its case for uninterrupted bulk metadata collection, as if the authority a) hadn't been allowed to expire and b) hadn't had its legality challenged by the Second Circuit Court. Right now, it's all a very gray area and the DOJ aims to take advantage of it. Due to the fact the surveillance reform bill didn't pass until after the expiration of the authority, the six-month window granted may theoretically allow for an uninterrupted collection, but it's completely unclear as to what legal authority allows the government to do so -- at least in its present, unaltered form.

The DOJ claims in its late-night FISC filing that the USA Freedom Act itself gives it permission to run an unaltered Section 215 collection for the next six months.

The USA FREEDOM Act authorizes the Government to seek and this Court to issue an order under Section 1861 for the production of tangible things in bulk for 180 days in the same manner as authorized in docket number BR 15-24 and prior related dockets. The USA FREEDOM Act bans the bulk production of tangible things under Section 1861 effective 180 days from its enactment, which is when Sections 101 through 103 take effect. Id.§ 109(a). Its brief lapse notwithstanding, the USA FREEDOM Act also expressly extends the sunset of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended, until December 15, 2019, id.§ 705(a), and provides that, until the effective date of the amendments made by Sections 101 through 103, it does not alter or eliminate the Government's authority to obtain an order under Section 1861 as in effect prior to the effective date of Sections 101 through 103 of the USA FREEDOM Act. Id.§ 109(b). Because the USA FREEDOM Act extends the sunset for Section 215 and delays the ban on bulk production under Section 1861 until 180 days from its enactment, the Government respectfully submits that it may seek and this Court may issue an order for the bulk production of tangible things under Section 1861 as amended by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act as it did in docket number BR 15-24 and prior related dockets.

As Marcy Wheeler notes, the DOJ has inferred Congressional intent by cherry-picking supporting quotes from representatives.

It cites comments Pat Leahy and Chuck Grassley made on May 22 (without, curiously, quoting either Rand Paul or legislative record from after Mitch McConnell caused the dragnet to lapse) showing that the intent of the bill was to extend the current dragnet.

What really makes the DOJ's memo worth reading is its off-hand dismissal of the Second Circuit Court's finding that the bulk collection is not actually authorized by existing law. It simply states that it finds this court's opinion less likable than the FISA Court's interpretation of this legal authority.

The Second Circuit's recent panel opinion in ACLU v. Clapper, No. 14-42 (2d Cir. May 7, 2015) does not bar this Court from authorizing the production in bulk of call detail records, notwithstanding its holding that Section 1861 does not authorize the bulk production of call detail records. The Government believes that this Court's analysis of Section 215 reflects the better interpretation of the statute, see, e.g., In Re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, docket no. BR 13-109, Amended Mem. Op., 2013 WL 5741573 (FISA Ct. Aug. 29, 2013) (Eagan, J.) and In Re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, docket no. BR 13-158, Mem. (FISA Ct. Oct. 11, 2013) (McLaughlin, J.), disagrees with the Second Circuit panel's opinion, and submits that the request for renewal of the bulk production authority is authorized under the statute as noted above.

In support of this "argument," it cites the FISA Court's own complicity in rubber-stamping order after order for several years in a row.

With respect to application of Section 1861 of FISA, as amended by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, following careful consideration of the law by nineteen different judges, this Court has authorized the bulk production of call detail records to NSA forty-one times since May 2006.

The DOJ's response to Cuccinelli's challenge has yet to arrive and, obviously, this memorandum was written before the challenge arrived at the FISA Court. But given this filing's dismissal of both the Second Circuit Court's decision and any legal vagueness surrounding the lapse of the Section 215 authority, it's likely its response will be more of the same.

Filed Under: bulk collection, doj, fisa court, fisc, nsa, section 215, surveillance

FISA Court Asked To Shut Down Bulk Collection Of Phone Records During Transition To USA Freedom Act

from the this-will-certainly-expedite-the-transition dept

Lawyer Ken Cuccinelli -- who's representing Rand Paul in his lawsuit against the government for its domestic surveillance programs -- has filed a motion in opposition of the resumption of the Section 215 program with the FISA Court. While Section 215 officially expired on May 31st, it lives on in altered form after the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which ends the collection of metadata and forces the government to approach telcos with targeted requests for data.

But the NSA and FBI don't need to cease their bulk collection immediately. The passed Act provides a six-month window for the agencies to wind down current collections and prepare for the move to a more limited collection method. This is what Cuccinelli and FreedomWorks are arguing against. Despite the expiration, the USA Freedom Act's new limitations, and the Second Circuit Court finding the collection itself unauthorized by existing law, the collection is still ongoing and will be running unaltered for 180 days. Cuccinelli says the FISA Court should halt this collection immediately based on two legal conclusions.

Movants' first argument is that Respondents' metadata collection is beyond the scope of what Congress authorized in Section 215 and this Court should deny Respondents' filed or imminent request to renew/re-institute such metadata collection. ACLU v. Clapper, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7531.

Movants' second argument is that Respondents' metadata collection, as well as the storing and searching of such metadata, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Most of the filing details these two legal arguments, with the most interesting passages dismantling the government's reliance on 1979's Smith v. Maryland decision -- something that dealt with the targeted acquisition of a suspected criminal's phone records via a pen register/trap and trace order, which is vastly dissimilar to the collection of everyone's data first, and then working backwards to locate suspects.

First, while Movants do not dispute the importance of identifying terrorist operatives and preventing terrorist attacks, such an interest does not justify a secret blanket warrantless search of all telephone metadata from all (or substantially all) American citizens. The Edmond Court noted ''the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terorist attack." 531 U.S. at 44 (emphasis supplied).

The word "imminent" is critical. Its primary definition is "an event, esp. danger or disaster: impending, soon to happen." 1 SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 1323 (5th ed. 2002) (emphasis supplied). That is, in such a scenario the Government would already have compelling evidence showing a particular terrorist attack is likely to happen in the near future (as opposed to a general concern that ''terrorists are looking to strike the United States")-the existing evidence obtained through proper methods would be the basis for claiming the "special need."

But in this case, the Government is attempting to invert the process-the Government has no evidence and instead seeks to cull through massive amounts of data attempting to ferret out terrorism. Thus, the alleged "special need" is the Government's desire to seek evidence, which may or may not exist, regarding unknown hypothetical terrorist attacks. The "nature and immediacy" of the Government's concerns do not justify the metadata collection because it is not based on thwarting an "imminent" attack.

The motion goes on to point out that while the government continues to claim it "needs" this program to thwart terrorism, it has offered up no evidence showing the bulk collection's ability to do so. To that end, Cuccinelli respectfully asks the court to kill Section 215 dead.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Government's request to reinstitute/renew metadata collection. Furthermore, the Court should declare that the metadata collection is beyond the scope of Section 215 and violated the Fourth Amendment; enjoin Respondents from conducting or operating the metadata collection; order Respondents to destroy any and all telephone metadata that has been seized, stored, retained, and/or searched, regardless where held or by whom (excepting such data as Respondents can show reasonable cause to be related to an authorized investigation); award Movants' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The FISA Court has ordered the government to respond to the motion, and it's not being given much time to do so.

Any response by the Government to the motion shall be submitted no later than June 12, 2015. Such response shall be limited to the merits of whether the bulk acquisition of noncontent call-detail records is lawful under Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-23, and consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and shall not address any issues regarding whether the Movants have standing under FISA or Article III of the Constitution to seek the relief requested by the motion.

The government may not be used to working so quickly, but it certainly seems to be able to kick it into a higher gear when it serves its purposes. The Section 215 program was stalled for all of about 48 hours before the administration placed it back online with the signing of the USA Freedom Act, as can be discerned from this part of the FISA Court's order.

The Government shall immediately serve on the Movants a copy of its unclassified "Memorandum of Law," captioned "In Re Application of the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things" and filed with this Court on the night of June 2, 2015, and submit to the Court a certificate of such service.

The government's response should be interesting, considering the ongoing legal challenges to its surveillance programs, especially since it won't be allowed to spend several pages arguing why the movants shouldn't even be allowed to challenge bulk collections. This challenge may also prompt a faster transition period, especially if the involved agencies face the prospect of 180 days "in the dark."

Filed Under: bulk collection, doj, ken cuccinelli, nsa, patriot act, section 215, surveillance, usa freedom
Companies: freedomworks

House Overwehelmingly Passes Amendments Blocking Funding For Undermining Encryption

from the closing-the-backdoor dept

As we've been saying, the passage of the USA Freedom Act is just a small first step in the long road to real surveillance reform. On Wednesday, the House took another small step, voting overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment to an appropriations bill put forth by Rep. Thomas Massie that blocks funding to the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) for working with the NSA or CIA to undermine or backdoor encryption. This appears to be quite similar to part of the similar amendment last year that banned both this kind of NIST coordination, but also the NSA's use of backdoor searches under Section 702. As far as I can tell, this new amendment does not include that latter bit. Either way, this amendment passed 383 to 43.

It appears that another amendment, put forth by Rep. Ted Poe also passed by voice vote and it would block the use of funds from the DOJ/FBI from being used "to mandate or request that a person alter the product or service of the person to permit electronic surveillance of any user or service" except in cases required under existing wiretapping law.

Both of these are very big deals, and the fact that they passed so easily suggests that the House is nowhere near done on pushing for real surveillance reform. Of course, whether or not these actually go anywhere is another story. As you may recall, after passing overwhelmingly last year, under pressure to get a big omnibus bill done at the end of the year, the House leadership agreed to drop those provisions under pressure from the intelligence community.

Also, one other interesting amendment also appears to have passed easily by voice vote, which is an amendment put forth by Jared Polis, and would make it clear that the DEA cannot do bulk collection under its subpoena authority. As was detailed a few weeks ago, for many years, the DEA had been using this authority to collect tons of phone records, and the program only ended once the administration realized that the claims it was using in support of the NSA's bulk collection didn't apply to the DEA's collection, and thus they couldn't really continue it. Polis's amendment means that this particular loophole is closed for good (not that others might still be open...).

Again, all three of these may not survive all the way into law, but it does show that there's still a very strong interest in the House to continue pushing back against surveillance abuse.

Filed Under: backdooring encryption, bulk collection, cia, dea, doj, encryption, fbi, jared polis, nist, nsa, subpoenas, ted poe, thomas massie

Three PATRIOT Act Provisions Likely To Sunset, Briefly, But USA Freedom Will Pass Shortly

from the what-happens-next-is-what-matters dept

On Friday, we posted a story looking at the divergent views of two of my favorite privacy experts: Jennifer Granick favoring just letting the three PATRIOT Act clauses to sunset... and Julian Sanchez arguing that just letting those provisions sunset would unfortunately leave aside many of the important reforms in the USA Freedom Act. But, as we noted, both of them seemed to agree that either such result, without further reforms, wouldn't be enough.

Well, now it appears that both things will happen. After some debate, a late vote this evening, the Senate voted 77 to 17 to move forward on the USA Freedom Act -- but a vote will not occur until Monday at the earliest. That means, in a few hours, those three provisions of the PATRIOT Act will expire (and, no, this does not mean -- as some have falsely stated that the PATRIOT Act itself is dead). And then, a few days later, the USA Freedom Act will be passed (even Rand Paul admitted this is what's going to happen, even as he sought to block USA Freedom). Paul and some others are going to try to add some important amendments to the bill, but they're unlikely to pass.

In other words, both of the arguments that Granick and Sanchez made seem to have happened. Section 215 will "sunset" briefly -- hence a symbolic win. And USA Freedom Act, which has some useful reforms, will pass. And... then we'll still have a long way to go to get even more important surveillance reform. The events of this evening are an important step forward. Until just recently, the very idea that we might limit the Section 215 program for real seemed unlikely. And yet, now that's happening -- with both a brief sunset and the reforms in the USA Freedom Act.

But it's not enough. There is still plenty of excessive surveillance happening -- under other provisions, including Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and Executive Order 12333. Those need to be dealt with if we're to have real surveillance reform. The end result is that this is a an important victory for surveillance reform -- which never would have happened without Ed Snowden's actions -- but it's just a step. And a lot more is needed. And it's needed now.

Filed Under: bulk collection, business records, executive order 12333, mass surveillance, nsa, patriot act, rand paul, section 215, section 702, sunset, surveillance

Sunsetting A Few Parts Of The PATRIOT Act May Be Symbolic And Good, But It Won't Really Change Much By Itself

from the we-need-reform dept

As you likely know, barring some sort of last minute deal this weekend (which is a distinct possibility) a few sections of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire (or, as the cool kids are saying: "sunset"). It is not -- as some have falsely claimed -- the entire PATRIOT Act ending. It just a few pieces -- with most of the publicity focused on Section 215, which had been the rationale for the bulk phone records collection that was the first big leak from the Snowden documents. There's been a bit of a debate among some about whether or not this sunset is really that important, beyond the clear symbolism of finally killing off part of the PATRIOT Act. Two of the people I most respect on privacy and surveillance issues -- Jennifer Granick and Julian Sanchez -- have come down on seemingly different sides of the issue, so it seemed worth comparing what they had to say (and realizing that they're really not that far off from each other). Granick takes the position that letting the provisions sunset is important and a big deal. She admits that it's still limited:

If Congress does nothing, section 215 will sunset. And this is exactly what reformers should be asking for. The fact is, sunset is the only thing that will definitely stop massive spying under section 215. It won’t stop mass surveillance more generally, but killing the law that NSA and FBI have abused for years is the first step.

But, still, she says, it's important and will have an impact. In particular, she notes that while basic reform -- a la the USA Freedom Act -- might have made sense before, "the political winds have shifted." In particular, she points to the the big 2nd Circuit appeals court ruling that noted that Section 215 never really authorized the bulk records collection program in the first place -- along with a growing number of elected officials who appear to believe the intelligence community has gone too far. Her fear, is that if we passed something like the USA Freedom Act, it will take away any chance at real reform, whereas sunsetting may force the issue:

Americans want real, not symbolic change. Sixty percent of likely voters from both political parties believe the rules on surveillance have to become more restrictive. Groups that were heavily involved in the USAF compromise negotiations are concerned that if it doesn’t pass, if 215 sunsets, civil liberties advocates will have to struggle to ensure that something worse than USAF doesn’t become law. But there’s a clear and present danger that if USAF passes, everyone will pat themselves on the back for a job well done, suspicionless domestic spying will continue, the amazing and expansive Second Circuit opinion will be mooted, and it’ll be suspicionless spying as usual until the next big surveillance provision, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act sunsets at the end of 2017, and we’re in the same position again. The truth is, this struggle to be a robust democracy in the face of the threat of terrorism, is here to stay, regardless of what happens in the next week or so.

So, let’s don’t just do something, let’s stand here. Let’s let 215 sunset. It was unthinkable a month ago. Today it’s likely. In combination with the Second Circuit opinion, the sunset will, irrefutably, put laws on the books that will end domestic dragnets. Then, let’s get serious. Let’s have hearings, really understand all the spying being done in our name, how the information is being used. Let’s set up real, comprehensive, robust checks and balances, starting with declassifying interpretations of law and changing the role of the FISA judges.

On the flip-side, however, we have Sanchez, who argues that the benefits to sunsetting Section 215 are massively overstated. He highlights how the intelligence and law enforcement communities have a number of other authorities under which they have collected similar "bulk" records, and that they would likely shift to pretty quickly after Section 215 goes away.

But while "Sunset the Patriot Act" makes for an appealing slogan, the fact remains that the vast majority of the Patriot Act is permanent—and includes an array of overlapping authorities that will limit the effect of an expiration.

While section 215 covers business records, section 214, also known as the "pen register/trap & trace" authority, covers the acquisition of communications “metadata” (things like dialed phone numbers and email or Internet Protocol addresses) in real time.

Years before the current version of the NSA telephone program under 215 was born, the government employed similar arguments to persuade the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to bless a bulk program vacuuming up international internet metadata under the aegis of section 214. Though that program was ended in 2011—likely at least in part because NSA was able to obtain much of the same data by collecting it overseas, with fewer restrictions—the authority is permanent.

Also permanent are National Security Letters or NSLs, which that allow the FBI to obtain a more limited range of telecommunications and financial records without even needing to seek judicial approval. Unsurprisingly, the government loves these streamlined tools, and used them so promiscuously that the FBI didn’t even bother using 215 for more than a year after the passage of the Patriot Act. Inspector General reports have also made clear that the FBI is happy to substitute NSLs for 215 orders when even the highly accommodating FISC manages a rare display of backbone. In at least one case, when the secret court refused an application for journalists’ records on First Amendment grounds, the Bureau turned around and obtained the same data using National Security Letters.

Even worse, there's actually something of a "grandfather clause" that will let the NSA keep on keeping on anyway:

Even 215 itself doesn’t really expire when it expires. In theory, the law reverts to a pre–Patriot Act version of the business records authority that is restricted to records that "pertain" to a suspected foreign agent or terrorist—language the government is sure to read as broadly as possible. But thanks to a little-noticed grandfather clause in the law, the current souped-up version of the law, which covers any records “relevant” to an authorized national security investigation, will remain available for investigations already open at the time of sunset, as well as new investigations into offenses committed before the sunset. Since the FBI routinely maintains massive “enterprise” investigations covering entire terror groups, which can continue for years if not decades, we can expect section 215 to have a lengthy afterlife.

In short: sunsetting may be symbolic, but it won't really change much on its own. Sanchez points out that what we really need is real reform -- and his fear is that by focusing so much on championing the "sunset," people advocating for such a solution may miss out on then adding the necessary surveillance reforms that are needed beyond that:

...the celebration may not only be premature, but counterproductive if the impending expiration is perceived as a substantial victory in itself. Some legislators and activists are now so fixated on the symbolism of sunsetting "the Patriot Act" that they’re even urging opposition to broader reforms.

Sanchez readily admits that the USA Freedom Act isn't perfect either, but that it does have many features that are important:

That’s not to say that the USA Freedom Act is by any means an ideal alternative, or that its critics shouldn’t use the sunset of 215 as leverage to push for stronger reforms. USA Freedom, for instance, doesn’t even touch massive surveillance within the United States under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, or the even more massive spying enabled by Executive Order 12333, a Reagan-era order that covers surveillance conducted outside the United States. But the Freedom Act does at least cover the full range of Patriot Act authorities that employ the "relevance" standard, preventing a tricky shell game that simply moves collection from expired authorities to permanent ones.

The way USA Freedom seeks to do this is also hardly perfect: The law creates a streamlined process for obtaining specific telephone records from multiple phone carriers (addressing objections that a massive NSA database was the only way to avoid the cumbersome necessity of serving many companies with orders for records stored in incompatible formats) and requires that, across all these authorities, "specific selection terms"—like a phone number or billing address—be used to identify the particular records sought. That means instead of evaluating whether an entire database might be “relevant” when considered in aggregate, the court would have to consider whether the government had demonstrated the relevance of the particular records corresponding to a set of selection terms.

Both are very interesting reads -- and while they appear to be taking the opposite viewpoint, they really are a lot closer than they may appear on the surface. Both are advocating for the need for real surveillance reform, going beyond just this program. Both recognize that sunsetting Section 215 is largely symbolic. Where they differ is in their thinking about how best to get there. Sanchez worries that the sunset will be seen as "mission accomplished" and real reform won't occur. Granick fears the same "mission accomplished" feeling with the too weak USA Freedom Act.

To be honest, they both may have a point. The common message remains there, however: we need real surveillance reform to stop an awful lot of bad activity on the part of the intelligence (and law enforcement) community. Sunsetting Section 215 is a possible step. USA Freedom is another possible step. Either one, on their own, is not nearly enough.

That said, the fact that either are seriously on the table is a huge step forward on its own. For years, surveillance has only expanded. And we're actually at a rare point in history where things are going to go the other way. Now we just need to make it meaningful in creating something that goes beyond either just sunsetting or just USA Freedom.

Filed Under: bulk collection, mass surveillance, nsa, patriot act, phone records, section 215, sunset, sunsetting, surveillance, surveillance reform, usa freedom act