Judge Says NSA Can Continue To Destroy Evidence

from the bad-ruling dept

Well, this is unfortunate. After yesterday's back and forth between the DOJ and the EFF over the ongoing destruction of key evidence in the Jewel v. NSA case, the court ordered an emergency hearing for this afternoon. About an hour before the hearing, the DOJ presented its opposition to the temporary restraining order, arguing, basically, that it would be too damn complicated to stop destroying evidence in the case. Part of this is because the data collected under the Section 702 program apparently isn't just one big database, but is quickly fed into all sorts of other systems.

. Unlike the Section 215 telephony metadata program, which resides on a discrete computer systems architecture, communications acquired pursuant to Section 702 reside within multiple databases contained on multiple systems. Those databases and systems are designed to effectuate FISC-approved minimization procedures that require (with certain limitations) the destruction (purge) upon recognition of certain communications and the age-off of certain raw data within either two years or five years from the expiration of the certification authorizing its acquisition. Halting these purges and age-offs to preserve all Section 702 material, as we understand the Court to have ordered, would require significant technical changes to these databases and systems and would have the effect of forcing NSA into non-compliance with FISC-approved minimization procedures, thus placing the entire program in legal jeopardy

In short: because we're ordered to delete some data by the law to avoid spying on Americans, to now ask us not to delete any data would violate the law that says we have to delete some data. And, to figure out how to do this would be crazy confusing, because the NSA is a giant bureaucratic machine of spying, and you can't just throw a rock into it like that. Or something:

Changes of this magnitude to database and systems architecture normally take months to engineer and test; to comply immediately with the Court’s order, the NSA may have to shut down all the databases and systems that contain Section 702 information. Such a shutdown would suspend acquisition of communications pursuant to Section 702 and analyst access to communications acquired under Section 702. NSA would lose access to what would be otherwise lawfully collected signals intelligence information on foreign intelligence targets that are vital to the performance of NSA’s foreign intelligence mission. Section 702 is the most significant tool in NSA’s arsenal for detecting, identifying, and disrupting terrorist threats to the United States and around the world. The impact of a shutdown of the databases and systems that contain Section 702 information cannot be overstated.

After the hearing, the judge sided with the NSA/DOJ, basically saying that the original temporary restraining order blocking the destruction of evidence (from back in March) still stands, but that the issue of whether or not it actually also covers data collected under Section 702 will be briefed at a later date, and until that time the DOJ/NSA are free to continue destroying evidence.

If there's some sort of silver lining to all of this, it's at least the acknowledgement that the NSA really does have a minimization process to not hang onto information it's not supposed to have, and that it's not immediately easy to turn off the process of getting rid of that data. But, still, that's a small consolation, given the seriousness of the issues in the case, and the fact that the destroyed evidence may highlight more serious abuses by the NSA in conducting surveillance on Americans.

Filed Under: destruction of evidence, doj, jewel v. nsa, minimization, nsa, section 702, surveillance
Companies: eff

DOJ Admits It's Still Destroying Evidence In NSA Case; Judge Orders Them (Again) To Stop; DOJ Flips Out

from the hey-you-guys dept

So, remember how we wrote about the big EFF filing in the Jewel v. NSA case, about how the NSA and DOJ had been knowingly destroying key evidence by pretending that they thought the preservation orders only applied to one kind of spying, and not the kind that was approved by the FISA Court (despite at other times admitting that the surveillance at issue in the case was approved by the FISA Court)? Yeah, so, yesterday, the EFF realized that despite the big kerfuffle this whole thing had caused, the NSA and DOJ were still destroying that evidence, and sprinted over to the court to file for an emergency temporary restraining order on the government.

In its TRO, the Court ordered the government to refrain from any further destruction of evidence pending final resolution of the parties’ dispute over the government’s evidence preservation obligations: “Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with them are prohibited, enjoined, and restrained from destroying any potential evidence relevant to the claims at issue in this action, including but not limited to prohibiting the destruction of any telephone metadata or ‘call detail’ records, pending further order of the Court.” ECF No. 189 at 2 (emphasis added). In its Amended Minute Order, the Court reiterated that the TRO’s prohibition on any evidence destruction remains in effect until the Court has finally decided the evidence preservation dispute: “The Court extends the temporary restraining order issued on March 10, 2014 until a final order resolving the matter is issued.” ECF No. 206 at 1.

In communications with the government this week, plaintiffs learned to their surprise that the government is continuing to destroy evidence relating to the mass interception of Internet communications it is conducting under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This would include evidence relating to its use of “splitters” to conduct bulk interceptions of the content of Internet communications from the Internet “backbone” network of AT&T, as described in multiple FISC opinions and in the evidence of Mark Klein and J. Scott Marcus....

Ridiculously, the DOJ claimed that it did not believe the original TRO covered internet content interceptions, and thus was still destroying such evidence. It just said it believed the court was still determining if the TRO applied to such evidence. It took very little time for the court to respond, telling the DOJ to file an immediate response and in the meantime to stop destroying the freaking evidence.

On June 5, 2014, the Court received an emergency filing from Plaintiffs in which they contend that the government may be in violation of the Court’s restraining order. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ emergency filing by no later than 12:00 noon PST on Friday, June 6, 2014. At that time, the Court shall decide whether and when to have a hearing on this matter. In the interim, the restraining order remains in effect: Defendants are ordered not to destroy any documents that may be relevant to the claims at issue in this action, including the Section 702 materials

This is pretty damn egregious. There is simply no way that the DOJ could properly read the original TRO to mean that it can continue to destroy this evidence. To pretend that's a possible reading, especially given all the clear notifications of both EFF's and the court's concerns, is clearly the DOJ and NSA just playing dumb for the sake of being able to destroy more evidence.

And while the DOJ had until today to file its response, late yesterday it filed a very short response, demanding the judge issue an emergency stay on the TRO it had just issued, saying that complying with it would "cause severe operational consequences."

Undersigned counsel have been advised by the National Security Agency that compliance with the June 5, 2014 Order would cause severe operational consequences for the National Security Agency (NSA’s) national security mission, including the possible suspension of the Section 702 program and potential loss of access to lawfully collected signals intelligence information on foreign intelligence targets that is vital to NSA’s foreign intelligence mission.

It also promises to file a more complete response today, which we'll try to add here once it's out. This response seems bizarre. It's unclear why an order to not destroy evidence would mean that the Section 702 program would need to be suspended entirely. Either way, EFF lawyers had to stay up late last night, rushing out their own reply to the DOJ's frantic freakout.

It is not credible that, as the government contends, simply refusing to destroy during the next 18 hours the communications it has intercepted will cause “the possible suspension of the Section 702 program.”... How can the preservation of these intercepted communications cause a “loss of access to lawfully collected signals intelligence information”? ... That information will remain accessible even though it is being preserved.

More fundamentally, the unspoken but unmistakable foundation of the government’s position is a contention that it never understood before this afternoon that the Court’s TRO required it to preserve evidence relating to its interception of Internet communications. This, too, lacks any credibility, especially in light of the extensive discussions between Court and counsel at the March 19, 2014 hearing on the evidence preservation dispute. The government’s disregard for the past three months of its obligations under the Court’s TRO should not be retroactively blessed by granting a stay that permits the government to continue destroying evidence.

I imagine there will be more very soon.

Filed Under: destruction of evidence, doj, evidence, jewel v. nsa, nsa, section 702, surveillance, tro
Companies: eff

EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance

from the because-of-course-they-did dept

We followed the back and forth situation earlier this year, in which there were some legal questions over whether or not the NSA needed to hang onto surveillance data at issue in various lawsuits, or destroy it as per the laws concerning retention of data. Unfortunately, in the process, it became clear that the DOJ misled FISA court Judge Reggie Walton, withholding key information. In response, the DOJ apologized, insisting that it didn't think the data was relevant -- but also very strongly hinting that it used that opportunity to destroy a ton of evidence. However, this appeared to be just the latest in a long history of the NSA/DOJ willfully destroying evidence that was under a preservation order.

The key case where this evidence was destroyed was the EFF's long running Jewel v. NSA case, and the EFF has now told the court about the destruction of evidence, and asked the court to thus assume that the evidence proves, in fact, that EFF's clients were victims of unlawful surveillance. The DOJ/NSA have insisted that they thought that the EFF's lawsuit only covered programs issued under executive authority, rather than programs approved by the FISA Court, but the record in the case shows that the DOJ seems to be making this claim up.

EFF filed its first lawsuit challenging illegal government spying in 2006. The current dispute arises from Jewel v. NSA, EFF's 2008 case that challenges the government's mass seizure of three kinds of information: Internet and telephone content, telephone records, and Internet records, all going back to 2001. EFF's brief notes that the government's own declarations make clear that the government has destroyed five years of the content it collected between 2007 and 2012, three years worth of the telephone records it seized between 2006 and 2009, and seven years of the Internet records it seized between 2004 and 2011, when it claims to have ended the Internet records seizures.

"The court has issued a number of preservation orders over the years, but the government decided – without consent from the judge or even informing EFF – that those orders simply don't apply," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Regular civil litigants would face severe sanctions if they so obviously destroyed relevant evidence. But we are asking for a modest remedy: a ruling that we can assume the destroyed records would show that our plaintiffs were in fact surveilled by the government."

The full filing is worth reading as it highlights how ridiculous the DOJ's "oh we didn't think that stuff mattered to this case" argument really is. As EFF notes, all the way back in 2010, it had filed a brief that explicitly noted that they were challenging the use of exactly this kind of data.

The filing lists out the history of the government repeatedly destroying relevant information, despite the preservation orders from the court, and despite clear language noting that the government had to preserve exactly this kind of data. The DOJ's argument that it thought the data under FISA-approved programs didn't count seems especially weak, given that the DOJ itself was part of trying to hide that those programs even existed. As the EFF filing notes, the argument seems preposterous in context. For example, at one point, the DOJ claims that it thought EFF didn't mean FISC-approved programs because it talked about "warrantless" surveillance. However, as EFF notes, even FISC-approved programs are still warrantless, because a FISC order is not a warrant.

Even more damning for the DOJ, the EFF filing points out that in the DOJ's own attempts to kill this case under state secrets claims, it said that the activity had been approved by FISC. So, for all the talk about how it had no idea that EFF was interested in FISC-approved surveillance, that's clearly untrue or it wouldn't have invoked FISC as having approved the collection! After listing out numerous examples of government officials making official statements in the case talking about FISC approval and how revealing this would reveal FISC-related state secrets, EFF points out:

The Government cannot have it both ways, as it seeks to do here. It cannot present one understanding of the scope of plaintiffs' claims -- a very broad one -- when asserting state secret privilege, but claim a much narrower understanding when it is destroying evidence.

As EFF points out, when evidence like this is destroyed:

the law presumes that the destroyed evidence goes to the merits of the case, and the burden is on the spoliating party to show that no prejudice resulted." .... After having repeatedly and vociferously claimed that the plaintiffs must produce evidence from the government of individual seizure of their communications and records (as opposed to the boxes of their evidence plaintiffs have long presented), the government cannot meet its burden to show no prejudice has occurred here. Unsurprisingly, it has made no attempt to do so.

And now we wait to see how the DOJ tries to tap dance out of this one.

Filed Under: destruction, evidence, jewel v. nsa, nsa, spoliation, surveillance
Companies: eff

Judge Walton Catches The DOJ Withholding Info About NSA Metadata Lawsuits

from the I-may-actually-miss-this-guy-once-he's-gone dept

Another FISC opinion and order has just been released dealing with the NSA's retention of metadata that may be used as evidence in some ongoing lawsuits against the government. The DOJ had originally asked to hold onto the pertinent data past the five-year expiration date because of these pending lawsuits. This request was shot down by FISC judge Reggie Walton, who stated that holding Americans' data past the disposal date put the surveillance programs on shaky Constitutional grounds, while also pointing out that the government's arguments relied on caselaw dealing with the retention of corporate documents, something which clearly wasn't in the same league as data collected on Americans.

Shortly thereafter, a federal court handling two lawsuits (Jewel v. NSA [this is an EFF lawsuit originally filed in 2008], First Unitarian Church v. NSA) centered on NSA domestic surveillance issued a temporary restraining order on the destruction of relevant metadata. This was brought about by the DOJ's announcement that it would begin destroying the relevant data for these two cases based on Walton's February order.

This is where the DOJ starts looking very shady, according to Judge Walton's recounting of the events.

The March 10 Motion further indicated that one of the MDL cases, Virginia Shubert, et al., v. Barack Obama, et al. No. 07-cv-0603 (N .D. Cal.) remains in litigation, and the MDL preservation order remains in effect for that case. Additionally, the March 10 Motion stated that the Jewel case, which was filed in 2008, was designated by the District Court as a related action to the Hepting matter, and that Court entered an evidence preservation order in Jewel, based on the MDL evidence preservation order, which remains in effect. LCL The March 10 Motion noted that the plaintiffs in Jewel and First Unitarian contacted the government on February 26, 2014, regarding the relevance of these preservation orders to the February 25 Motion, and made a "specific request" that the government inform the FISC of their existence.

The plaintiffs asked the government to inform the FISC about their existence so that their data could be retained as well. That never happened. Instead, they were forced to file a Temporary Restraining Order in order to prevent this data destruction. This was granted by the circuit court judge and brought to the FISA Court, where Judge Walton ordered the extended retention of data specifically related to these cases. In its response filing, the DOJ had this to say about the plaintiffs who asked them to speak to the FISA court.

A footnote in the March 13 Response indicated that, "[c]ontrary to their representation . . . [the m]ovants did not make a 'specific request' that the government inform this Court about the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert."

The DOJ included (as an exhibit) email correspondence between it and the plaintiffs of the lawsuit as support for its claim that no request was made. Upon review by Judge Walton, that assertion was false. Walton gives the government an out by claiming it may have just misperceived which surveillance program was being discussed (Section 215 vs. an "executive authority" program -- Section 501), but even then, he points out that the plaintiffs disagreed with the DOJ's reading of the situation.

From this point on, Walton takes the DOJ to task for deceiving the court (whether deliberately or otherwise).

As the govemment is well aware, it has a heightened duty of candor to the Court in ex parte proceedings. Regardless of the government's perception of the materiality of the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert to its February 25 Motion, the government was on notice, as of February 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs in Jewel and First Unitarian believed that orders issued by the District Court for the Northem District of California required the preservation of the FISA telephony metadata at issue in the government's February 25 Motion. [E-mail Correspondence at 6-7.] The fact that the plaintiffs had this understanding of those preservation orders -- even if the government had a contrary understanding - was material to the FISC's consideration of the February 25 Motion. The materiality of that fact is evidenced by the Court's statement, based on the information provided by the government in the February 25 Motion, that "there is no indication that any of the plaintiffs have sought discovery of this information or made any effort to have it preserved.

The above might be written off as a failure to communicate, but Walton's next paragraph details even more DOJ malfeasance.

The government, upon learning this information, should have made the FISC aware of the preservation orders and of the plaintiffs' understanding of their scope, regardless of whether the plaintiffs had made a "specific request" that the FISC be so advised. Not only did the government fail to do so, but the E-mail Correspondence suggests that on February 28, 2014, the government sought to dissuade plaintiffs' counsel from immediately raising this issue with the FISC or the Northern District of Califomia.

The next filing entered should be rather informative, based on Walton's demands.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall make a filing with this Court pursuant to Rule 13(a) of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure Rules of Procedure") no later than April 2, 2014. As part of this filing, the government shall explain why it failed to notify this Court of the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert and of the plaintiffs' understanding of the scope of those orders, upon learning that plaintiffs' counsel viewed those orders as applying to the Section 501 telephony metadata at issue in the February 25 Motion.

This latest order from Judge Walton shows that the government wants to destroy data that might be used as evidence. There was some back-and-forth previous to this, but the DOJ probably had a good idea what Judge Walton would say back in February when it showed up to ask to hold on to domestic surveillance records indefinitely, deploying civil litigation guidelines and common law requirements as its only rhetorical weapons. Walton refused and the DOJ went happily off to tell plaintiffs that the FISA court had overridden their existing preservation orders. If the plaintiffs hadn't asked for a temporary restraining order, it might have gotten away with it.

Filed Under: doj, evidence, evidence destruction, fisa court, fisc, jewel v. nsa, metadata, reggie walton
Companies: eff

Feds Declassify Court Filings In Two Long-Running Cases Against NSA... But Still Say 'State Secrets' Mean Court Should Kill Cases

from the no-one-believes-them dept

We've written a few times in the past about Jewel v. NSA, one of a few long-running (since well before the Snowden revelations) cases against the NSA over its warrantless wiretapping efforts. If you haven't been following the case, it's bounced around a bit, as a district court initially tossed out the case, only to have it reinstated by an appeals court. When the feds again tried to have the case dismissed claiming "state secrets," that got soundly rejected by the district court back in July (soon after the Snowden revelations started coming out). The court also told the government to go back and review both its "state secrets" claims, as well as various classified documents that had been filed in the case, to see if it made sense to declassify them, given what had been revealed publicly in the press.

On Saturday morning, James Clapper declassified a bunch of documents, which were classified depositions in that case, and another similar case, Shubert v. Obama. The headline story there is this is the first time that it's ever been officially declassified that, in the wake of 9/11, President Bush authorized the NSA to massively ramp up their email and phone information collection and start collecting "bulk metadata" of both phone and internet information. Here's how Clapper describes these revelations, so take the wording with a grain of salt. They're almost guaranteed to be misleading in some key way.

President Bush issued authorizations approximately every 30-60 days. Although the precise terms changed over time, each presidential authorization required the minimization of information collected concerning American citizens to the extent consistent with the effective accomplishment of the mission of detection and prevention of acts of terrorism within the United States. NSA also applied additional internal constraints on the presidentially-authorized activities.

Over time, the presidentially-authorized activities transitioned to the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). The collection of communications content pursuant to presidential authorization ended in January 2007 when the U.S. Government transitioned the TSP to the authority of the FISA and under the orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”). In August 2007, Congress enacted the Protect America Act (“PAA”) as a temporary measure. The PAA, which expired in February 2008, was replaced by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which was enacted in July 2008 and remains in effect. Today, content collection is conducted pursuant to section 702 of FISA. The metadata activities also were transitioned to orders of the FISC. The bulk collection of telephony metadata transitioned to the authority of the FISA in May 2006 and is collected pursuant to section 501 of FISA. The bulk collection of Internet metadata was transitioned to the authority of the FISA in July 2004 and was collected pursuant to section 402 of FISA. In December 2011, the U.S. Government decided to not seek reauthorization of the bulk collection of Internet metadata.

As we have more of a chance to dig through the newly declassified documents, we may have more to comment on, but perhaps even more insane is that, even with these newly declassified documents, the feds are clinging to the state secrets claim in seeking to make sure that the whole warrantless wiretapping programs (for both phone and internet) are never constitutionally tested.

Specifically, the government is arguing that the plaintiffs who are suing the government simply can't prove that they were spied upon without revealing state secrets, and thus the court should not and cannot rule on this particular program. The government's argument is as circular as it is maddening. It notes that, yes, the law says that the government "may disclose" information to an "aggrieved person" if "such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance" -- which would certainly seem to apply here. Yet, it says that because the law does not require that they reveal this info, the government won't do so, because it still regards these programs as classified (despite all the widespread media coverage about them). The government claims that even though some details have been revealed (thank you, Snowden):

The Government continues to assert privilege over certain still-classified information concerning the scope and operational details of these intelligence activities, including but not limited to information that would tend to confirm or deny that particular persons were targets of or subject to NSA intelligence activities, or that particular telecommunications providers have assisted NSA in conducting intelligence activities.

And why must they continue to pretend that these details are still secret? Because James Clapper claims:

disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of NSA intelligence activities implicated by Plaintiffs’ allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States.

Basically, if we confirm details of the surveillance programs everyone's been discussing for months in this particular court case, you're all going to die and the terrorists will win! Boo!

The EFF is representing Jewel in the case against the NSA and put out the following statement:

"The government seems to be trying to reset the clock to before June 2013 or even December 2005," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "But the American people know that their communications are being swept up by the government under various NSA programs. The government’s attempt to block true judicial review of its mass, untargeted collection of content and metada by pretending that the basic facts about how the spying affects the American people are still secret is both outrageous and disappointing."

The whole thing really is quite ridiculous. You've got the feds finally declassifying some documents, while trying their damnest to make sure that no court can ever test whether or not the programs they ran for a decade or more were constitutional, and pulling out the "grave damage" bullshit card to block a legal challenge on the details of programs that are already known.

Filed Under: declassified, james clapper, jewel v. nsa, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping