NSA's Rules Allowing Warrantless Searches On Americans Came THE SAME DAY It Was Told Searches Violated 4th Amendment

from the legal-loopholes dept

We already wrote about the bombshell revelation from the Guardian that the NSA changed the rules in October of 2011, so that it had permission to do warrantless searches on US persons (contrary to public claims). However, Marcy Wheeler recognized the date of that update is the very same date that the FISA court supposedly smacked down the NSA for violating the 4th Amendment with some searches.

If you don't recall, about a year ago, under pressure from Senator Wyden, the US government admitted (late on a Friday evening) that, indeed, the FISA court had "on one occasion" ruled that certain activities concerning Section 702 "minimization" (i.e., trying to avoid searches on US persons) were "unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." And yet, that very same day, the NSA announced that the rules had changed and it could do searches on US persons, following a certain (undisclosed) "oversight process." Wheeler notes that the NSA seems to have interpreted the FISA court smacking it down for spying on Americans as a form of permission to spy on Americans:

The FISC Court didn't just "approve" minimization procedures on October 3, 2011. In fact, that was the day that it declared that part of the program violated the Fourth Amendment.

So where the glossary says minimization procedures approved on that date "now allow" for querying US person data, it almost certainly means that on October 3, 2011, the FISC court ruled the querying the government had already been doing violated the Fourth Amendment, and sent it away to generate "an effective oversight process," even while approving the idea in general.

And note that FISC didn't, apparently, require that ODNI/DOJ come back to the FISC to approve that new "effective oversight process."

Wheeler goes further, providing details from the discussion in the Senate Intelligence Committee during the debate over reauthorizing the FISA Amendments Act (which is where 702 comes from), in which it was strongly hinted that the FISA court had "concerns" about this very type of backdoor searching, and despite acknowledging this, no one bothered to close that backdoor. In fact, it now appears that the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence may have used all of this as a cover to argue that they are authorized to do these kinds of searches.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, faa, fisa amendments act, fisa court, fisc, nsa, nsa surveillance, searches, section 702, surveillance

ISP CEO Explains What Happens When The NSA Shows Up At Your Door

from the police-state dept

As a bunch of folks have been sending in, Buzzfeed has the incredible story from the CEO of independent ISP XMission, Pete Ashdown (who, by the way, has also run for Senator in Utah, and has a really good take on copyright law), talking about what happened when the NSA knocked on his door. Ashdown talks about how the company deals with various law enforcement warrants it gets, and how what they get from the FISA court is different, because, as he notes, "I have a hard time with secret courts." However, the time they got one -- with an order to monitor one single customer -- his lawyers told him they couldn't fight back, and the NSA said that they needed to install their own box on his network.

It was also different [from other warrants] because it was for monitoring. They wanted to come in and put in equipment on my network to monitor a single customer. The customer they were monitoring was a particular website that was very benign. It seems ridiculous to me. It was beyond absurd. It wasn’t like a guns and ammo website.

They came in and showed me papers. It was a court order from the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for the intercept, with the agent’s name… and the court’s information. I think it was three or four pages of text. They wouldn’t let met me copy them. They let me take notes in regards to technical aspects of what they wanted to do.

We had to facilitate them to set up a duplicate port to tap in to monitor that customer’s traffic. It was a 2U (two-unit) PC that we ran a mirrored ethernet port to.

[What we ended up with was] a little box in our systems room that was capturing all the traffic to this customer. Everything they were sending and receiving.

He talks about employees asking about it, and him not really being able to tell them. He also notes that the whole thing was totally open-ended, with the NSA never saying when the monitoring would end. He also notes that there's more he could tell, but it would likely violate the gag order (in fact, he wonders if what he wrote for Buzzfeed violates the gag order already). Ashdown, then, rightly points out just how ridiculous this gag order is:

These programs that violate the Bill of Rights can continue because people can’t go out and say, “This is my experience, this is what happened to me, and I don’t think it is right.”

There is absolutely [a] need for secrecy when you are dealing with a criminal investigation. You don’t want to tip off criminals being monitored. But you can’t say, “You can never talk about this ever, for the rest of your life.”

The FISA court should be a public court, and documents should be sealed for a set period of time, [to] let people audit the actions later.

He notes that this particular monitoring experience ended about two years ago, and he wonders if he'll hear from them for talking about the experience, but he's willing to face up to that. Of course, there are very, very few ISP owners who are willing to stand up and talk like this. Beyond Ashdown, the short list includes Nicholas Merrill and I'm not sure who else. If more internet companies were willing to speak up, it would help bring more clarity to what's going on, even if they faced some significant backlash in doing so.

Also, wouldn't it have been really nice if Ashdown had won his Senate race last time around and been in the Senate right now instead of Orrin Hatch. While all these surveillance stories have been going down, what has Hatch been up to, other than trying to give his friends in Hollywood more power to negotiate trade agreements that benefit themselves?

Filed Under: black box, fisa court, gag orders, nsa, nsa surveillance, pete ashdown, secrecy
Companies: xmission

FISA Court Rubber Stamps Continued Collection Of All Phone Records, While DOJ Insists No One Can Challenge This

from the well-isn't-that-great dept

As of this morning, the Feds didn't want to say if they'd asked the FISA court to renew the order allowing it to collect the data on every single phone call from Verizon (and likely every other major phone carrier, though it's unclear if the orders for those others also expired today). However, as more and more people raised the question, the office of the Director of National Intelligence apparently recognized that they couldn't avoid answering the question forever, and admitted what everyone already knew: yes, it had asked for a renewal of the order and yes (of course) the rubber stamp FISA court had rubber stamped its approval:

Consistent with his prior declassification decision and in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program, the DNI has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the Government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the Court renewed that authority.

The Administration is undertaking a careful and thorough review of whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified, consistent with the protection of national security.

It may be undertaking that internal review, but one thing that it does not want is to have to defend the whole shebang in court. Because the DOJ has now filed its response to the ACLU's lawsuit over the very same program (one of many such lawsuits, but one of the most high profile ones). The DOJ is asking for the case to be thrown out, of course. There are a bunch of reasons suggested, including arguing that the ACLU doesn't have standing. That's quite an argument, because the leaked order makes it clear that all customers of Verizon business services have had their data collected, and the ACLU just happens to be a customer. However, the DOJ argues "nuh uh," saying it doesn't actually count until someone in the government looks at the data it collected, and the ACLU has no proof that the government actually looked at the data.

Plaintiffs cannot meet this essential requirement, even assuming their metadata have been or will be collected, because it is no more than speculation that their metadata have been or ever will be among the very small percentage of the records in the database that are ever reviewed. They neither allege nor point to any basis on which to conclude that any identifier of theirs is among the small number authorized for queries under the RAS standard. See Complaint, IN 25-27. Indeed, the chances that their metadata will be used or reviewed in a query are so speculative that they lack Article III standing to seek the injunctive relief requested in their July 2 letter.

In other words, because the feds only look at a few records, they can collect them all. That's the theory they've been working under for a while, but that would require you to believe that there is no "search and seizure" of information that the government collects until it actually does something with that data. While the FISA court may agree with that, it's not at all clear that a real federal court -- or even the Supreme Court -- would do so too.

Next, the DOJ argues that since this data is collected under &sec;215 it's clearly legal, end of story. Furthermore, they claim that collecting all the data (all of it!) meets the standard of "relevant" to an investigation, as required by the statute -- though, as others have described, much of this requires a handy-dandy redefining of the word "relevant." Don't you just love the malleability of the English language?

The large volume of telephony metadata is relevant to FBI investigations into specific foreign terrorist organizations because to identify potential terrorist communications under this court-imposed query standard requires collecting and storing a large volume and high percentage of information about unrelated communications, to ensure that the much smaller subset of terrorist-related telephony metadata records are contained within the dataset. These data allow the Government to make connections related to terrorist activities over time and can assist counter-terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, including persons and activities inside the United States. If not collected and held by the Government, the metadata may not remain available for the period necessary for these national security purposes, because it need not be retained for that period by telecommunications service providers. Moreover, unless the data are aggregated, it may not be possible to identify telephony metadata records that cross different telecommunications networks. In short, because the telephony metadata must be available in bulk to allow the Government to identify the records of terrorist communications, there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that the data are relevant to authorized investigations to protect against international terrorism, as Section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the database are not associated with terrorist activity.

Basically, "all your data belong to us" because some of it might be relevant to some investigation at some undefined point. If that's the rule, then the government can collect anything and everything.

The DOJ also pulls out the expected Smith v. Maryland "third party doctrine" claim to say that the collection of the data from phone companies is legal because there's no expectation of privacy in the metadata about your calls held by a third party. We've pointed out multiple times how that stretches the interpretation of that case, perhaps well past the breaking point.

Either way, combine these two stories, and what you get is that, yes, the feds are still collecting every bit of data on every call you make... and there's no legal way you can challenge it because you don't have standing and it's all legal -- but not so legal that we're comfortable with it being tested in court. Doesn't that seem wrong?

Filed Under: business records, doj, dragnet, fisa court, nsa, nsa surveillance, section 215
Companies: aclu

FISA Order To Verizon Expires Today, No One Wants To Say If It's Being Renewed

from the because-it-is dept

The very first of the Ed Snowden leaks was a FISA court order to Verizon, ordering it to hand over information on every single phone call, on an "ongoing, daily basis." That order expired on July 19, 2013. Today. It quickly came out that the FISA court has been approving nearly identical orders every 90 days for about seven years, though the defenders of the program like to use that "it's only for 90 days" excuse to suggest there's "oversight." Still, given that the existence of this effort is now actually public, plenty of people are wondering whether or not the FISA court issued the expected followup. Of course, no one who knows wants to say anything.

The Obama administration is refusing to say whether it will seek to renew a court order that permits the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records on millions of Verizon customers when it expires at the end of this week.

Officials declined to discuss what action they intend to take about the order at the center of the current surveillance scandal, which formally expires at 5pm Friday.

That's because it's almost certain that it's already been renewed and rubber stamped by the FISA court. The White House told Guardian reporters to ask the Justice Department. Guess where that went:

The White House referred queries to the Justice Department. "We have no announcement at this time," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon. The NSA and office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to questions.

A spokesman for the Fisa court, Sheldon Snook, said the court "respectfully declines to comment".

In other words: please, please, go away and can we hope this story dies down by the time the next 90-day window rolls around?

Thankfully, some members of Congress have told the White House not to seek a renewal, but it seems unlikely that the White House will do anything, other than keep on sucking up all that data.

Filed Under: business records, fisa court, fisc, metadata, section 215, telcos
Companies: at&t, sprint, verizon

The Differences Between Obama And Bush On NSA Surveillance, According To Virtual Obama

from the watch-this dept

It feels like it's been a while since I've seen Xtranormal videos, but someone who shall remain nameless has put together a rather hysterical video of President Obama explaining why massive NSA surveillance under his watch is different than when it was done by President George W. Bush. As you may recall, President Obama criticized these programs while he was "Candidate Obama," but has now expanded them massively. This video explains why -- and is likely to make you laugh: Below are some of my favorite lines... which is actually nearly a full transcript, because as I was picking out "favorite" lines, most of the video fell into that category.

It was concerning when the Bush administration was secretly collecting your information. Heck, I had concerns back then myself. But, everyone knows that George W. Bush was not a good President. Whereas, I am a good President. See the difference? So, while you could not trust George W. Bush to secretly collect your data, you can trust me. I'm a trustworthy guy.

Another important difference between my administration and the Bush administration is that when the Bush administration secretly spied on you, the Bush administration could not point to a single judge willing to say their program was legal. We, on the other hand, can point to such a judge. I'm not going to tell you who this judge is, or why he or she thinks our program is legal. If I did that, it would, obviously be harder for me to convince you that the program is legal. Instead, I'm just going to tell you that we secretly found one judge who was willingly to secretly say that it was legal for us to collect all of your data....

The Bush administration could not tell you that it had informed Congress. Whereas my administration took steps to ensure that if you ever found out about our secret surveillance program, we could tell you that we informed Congress. To be clear, when I say 'we informed Congress,' I am not saying that we did out best to ensure that Congress had enough information to have an informed debate on this vital national security issue. What I am saying is that we informed Congress enough for me to stand here and tell you that 'we informed Congress.' What Congress actually knew is not important....

If Congress did not want us to secretly interpret the law, then Congress should not have passed a law for us to secretly interpret....

If you, the American people, did not want me to secretly collect your data, then you should not have elected me President. Yes, I know many of you were probably unaware that I wanted to secretly collect your data, especially since I said I would not secretly collect your data. But, I choose to believe that you elected me to be your President, because you believe that if someone has to secretly collect your data, that someone should be me. And, as we all know, my secret interpretations of your support are more important than the reasons you actually supported me.

Finally, while I do not believe there is any reason to debate this issue, I will tell you that I welcome a debate on this issue. In fact, I'm so grateful that Edward Snowden started this debate that I have decided to stop at nothing to ensure he spends the rest of his life in a federal prison.

Filed Under: barack obama, fisa court, fisc, george w. bush, nsa surveillance, secret interpretations, surveillance

Former FISC Judge Quit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Now Argues FISC Is Out Of Control

from the needs-an-adversary dept

Last year, we noted that after five years of nothingness, despite what the law required, the federal government finally had a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), after years of nominations that went nowhere. The PCLOB does now exist and has been charged with looking into the government's surveillance efforts. While the PCLOB does have some really good members who are strong privacy/civil liberties advocates, there are significant questions about how much authority it actually has. Still, on Tuesday, the PCLOB held hearings on the ongoing surveillance programs, and perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of them were the comments from James Robertson, a former FISC judge, who had quit the court, but had not spoken publicly about why until now.

Specifically, he claims that he quit because of revelations about the Bush administration using warrantless wiretapping and going around the court's approval process.

Robertson said he asked to join the FISA court "to see what it was up to," had previously played a central role in national security law. He was the judge who ruled against the Bush administration in the landmark Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case, which granted inmates at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detentions. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006.

Robertson quit the FISA court in 2005, days after the New York Times revealed widespread NSA warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush's administration. Robertson had previously refused to explain his decision. But during a break in the hearing Tuesday he confirmed for the first time to the AP that he had "resigned in protest because the Bush administration was bypassing the court on warrantless wiretaps."

Robertson argued that the "rubber stamp" claims about the FISA Court were inaccurate, saying that they left out the fact that FISC frequently pushed back on requests, requiring changes from the government, which were not seen in the overall stats on requests "approved" by the court. That said, he notes that the approval/disapproval of warrants was supposed to be all that FISC was about -- but since the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the role of FISC has changed entirely, from a narrowly focused court approving specific warrants to what is effectively a judicially run administrative agency designed to approve entire surveillance programs:

But he warned that Congress' 2008 reform of the FISA system expanded the government's authority by forcing the court to approve entire surveillance systems, not just surveillance warrants, as it previously handled. Under the FISA changes, "the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don't think that is a judicial function," he said.

Robertson said he was "frankly stunned" by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

This is a really key point that has not received nearly enough attention. Under the old rules, the FISC would look at specific warrants and approve or (rarely) refuse to approve those warrants. But now it basically is issuing a blanket "approval" of methods and techniques, such as the infamous dragnet of all information on all phone calls from various telcos. That's a really different function.

Furthermore, Robertson highlighted what many of us have been saying all along: when you have a secret court that only hears one side of a case, it should be no surprise that the court keeps pushing further and further in the direction of the single party (the government) that presents information before it. Robertson's suggestion to try to fix this is to somehow come up with an adversarial process -- whether it's (for example) someone from a public interest group, such as the ACLU, or someone appointed by the PCLOB itself, to act as an advocate for those on the other side of the government's surveillance desires.

Filed Under: adversarial hearings, civil liberties, fisa court, fisc, james robertson, pclob, privacy, warrantless wiretapping

DOJ Says Public Has No Right To Know About The Secret Laws The Feds Use To Spy On Us

from the what,-you-want-to-know-that-stuff? dept

So, we were just discussing the insanity of the FISA court (FISC) basically acting as a shadow Supreme Court, making broad rulings in total secrecy that have created a secret body of law that the public is not allowed to know about. Given increasing revelations about these shadow laws, the ACLU and other public interest groups are trying, yet again, to get access to some of these key rulings. All along, they've been extremely careful to note that they're not asking FISC to reveal specific foreign intelligence issues, operations or targets: merely the parts of the rulings that identify what the law is -- i.e., how it's being interpreted by the courts. Because that seems rather fundamental to a functioning democracy.

However, as you might expect, the Justice Department has now hit back with a new filing that says, flat out, the public has no right to know what the secret court is ruling on and how it's codifying secret laws. The argument is, basically, that because FISC rulings have almost always been secret, then it's perfectly reasonable that they're secret. In other words, it's perfectly legal for secret laws to remain secret, because they're secret. Later it also argues that actually revealing the law would be (oooooooh, scary!) dangerous.

Let's make this simple: yes, revealing specific details of various surveillance efforts and targets could create security issues, no doubt. But revealing how a United States' law is interpreted can never by itself create a national security issue. And that's all that's being asked of here. The DOJ is being incredibly dishonest and disingenuous in conflating the two issues, arguing that because the FISC deals with intelligence operations, that its rulings on the interpretation of the law must also be secret. But that's wrong. You can reveal the basic interpretation of the law without revealing the specific intelligence efforts and methods. The only reason to keep the interpretation of the law a secret is because it'll be a huge embarrassment and show widespread abuse.

Filed Under: doj, fisa, fisa court, fisc, nsa, secret laws, surveillance

A Secret Court Making Secret Laws? That's No Democracy

from the get-rid-of-the-fisa-court dept

Last December, well before the Ed Snowden leaks revealed some information about the FISA court (FISC) and its rulings, we had already noted that the court itself was almost certainly unconstitutional. More recently, we talked about how the fact that all the court's judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court means that the court has turned into a rubber stamp made in the image of some of the most "law and order"-minded Chief Justices from the past few decades. Ezra Klein has since expanded on that to discuss the oddity of how current Chief Justice John Roberts is basically the Chief Justice of the Surveillance State, answerable to absolutely no one: "You have exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state."

Over the weekend, the NY Times put out a powerful piece discussing how FISC has basically become a shadow Supreme Court, doling out all sorts of important rulings in total secrecy. It rules on cases where it only hears one side, and where there are no appeals, no guarantee that the full story is presented, and involves a bunch of judges who tend to have law enforcement backgrounds before being appointed to the court. In the end, you have a secret court issuing secret rulings by ex-law enforcement officials, allowing their former colleagues ever greater power to spy on everyone.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

[....] Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case — the government — and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court’s history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court.

As an example of how FISC has basically completely overturned the rules of surveillance in secret, the NY Times reveals the details of some of its thinking, taking a extremely narrow ruling meant to apply in special cases, and turning it into a general rule that has allowed the vast capture of information:

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.

The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.

That legal interpretation is significant, several outside legal experts said, because it uses a relatively narrow area of the law — used to justify airport screenings, for instance, or drunken-driving checkpoints — and applies it much more broadly, in secret, to the wholesale collection of communications in pursuit of terrorism suspects. “It seems like a legal stretch,” William C. Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University, said in response to a description of the decision. “It’s another way of tilting the scales toward the government in its access to all this data.”

I don't care where you come down on the importance of widespread surveillance -- I just don't see how you can possibly square the above interpretation of the law with the 4th Amendment. If "special needs" can be used to justify mass collection of data on just about everyone "just in case" it might stop some sort of terrorist attack, then you no longer have a 4th Amendment. At all.

But, the bigger issue here is just the fact that we have a secret court issuing secret interpretations of the law that have a massive impact on our privacy. This is supposed to be an open democracy. An open democracy doesn't involve secret courts and secret laws. We have laws that everyone knows, and which the public can discuss and weigh in on through their elected officials. When you set up a secret court, making secret rules with no oversight, and with all of the judges appointed by a single Supreme Court Justice with a particular bias, you no longer have a functioning democracy at all. And that's downright scary.

This is a point that some Senators have been making for years now, but the leaks from Ed Snowden have really made it that much clearer just how insane the situation is. Earlier, it had seemed like perhaps there was one or two rulings from FISC that had some oddities in the interpretation, and which should probably be revealed to the public. However, the various revelations so far suggest that the issue is much, much bigger, and we have a secret "shadow court" system that is systematically obliterating the 4th Amendment and helping to create and then "legitimize" the vast surveillance state.

The Snowden leaks have shone a number of lights on various bad things within our government, but one thing that they have made abundantly clear is that the FISC needs to go. Whether that means it needs to be opened up, or to have greater oversight, or just be done away with completely, could be up for discussion. But if it remains the way it is, it's clear that we've thrown away our basic democratic principles, and moved towards the same sorts of autocratic regimes with secret courts that the US has always presented itself as being against.

Filed Under: democracy, fisa, fisa court, fisc, rulings, secret law, secret rulings

FISA Court Judges Aren't Happy That The Public Is Upset Secret Court Issuing Secret Rulings Allowing NSA To Spy On Them

from the well,-perhaps-they-should-have-thought-about-that-earlier dept

Shockingly, it appears that the various judges who make up the secretive FISA Court, which issues secret rulings on secret interpretations of the law that allow the government to spy on Americans, aren't particularly happy about the sudden attention they're getting. In fact, they're complaining that the claims that they're a rubber stamp are unfair, and that they're human beings too. Specifically, they're upset about the recent leaked revelations that include an inspector general's report about some FISA court activities:

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, took the highly unusual step Friday of voicing open frustration at the account in the report and court’s inability to explain its decisions.
“In my view, that draft report contains major omissions, and some inaccuracies, regarding the actions I took as Presiding Judge of the FISC and my interactions with Executive Branch officials,” Kollar-Kotelly said in a statement to The Post. It was her first public comment describing her work on the intelligence court.

You see, they're not just FISA court judges, but they're human too. When you cut them, do they not bleed? When they issue secret rulings that appear to go completely against the 4th Amendment, are their phone call records and emails not subject to mass collection as well?

Kollar-Kotelly disputed the NSA report’s suggestion of a fairly high level of coordination between the court and the NSA and Justice in 2004 to re-create certain authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created the court in response to abuses of domestic surveillance in the 1960s and 1970s.

“That is incorrect,” she said. “I participated in a process of adjudication, not ‘coordination’ with the executive branch. The discussions I had with executive branch officials were in most respects typical of how I and other district court judges entertain applications for criminal wiretaps under Title III, where issues are discussed ex parte.”

Of course, it's nice to say this, but when it's all done in total secrecy, without any sunlight or real oversight, it's difficult to believe that the process really is all that careful. Given the additional leaks that show that the NSA more or less signed off on massive data collections, it's hard not to see that as a very cozy and "collaborative" setup, rather than particularly adversarial, where anyone is looking out for the rights of the public and the limits on government overreach as presented in the Constitution.

Filed Under: fisa court, nsa surveillance, rubber stamp, surveillance state

How Three Decades Of Conservative Chief Justices Turned The FISA Court Into A Rubber Stamp

from the FISC:-both-the-wheels-AND-the-grease dept

The FISA court has been deemed a "rubber stamp" and with good reason. Not a single request was rejected over the last two years and over the last twelve years, the court has only rejected 10 out of 20,909 requests.

Reuters has put together a long and detailed piece showing why the court is so compliant. Much of it has to do with who was selected and who selected them.

Selected by the Chief Justice of the United States, FISA judges serve for staggered seven-year terms. Although the court carries 11 judges at a time, 14 have served this year because of routine turnover.

Six of the 14 were originally appointed to the trial courts by George W. Bush; five by Ronald Reagan; two by Clinton and one by George H. W. Bush.

"Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans, so I think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University's Washington College of Law.

The court is currently comprised of 14 judges, 12 of which are Republican. Half are former prosecutors. Reggie Walton helped lead the War on Drugs under William Bennett. James Zagel spent seven years as the director of the Illinois State Police, following a dozen years in the state attorney's office (including three years as Chief Prosecutor). John Bates spent some time as an assistant state's attorney but more notably has spent a large part of his judicial career dismissing cases brought against the US government and its officials, including a challenge to an Obama-approved targeted killing and Privacy Act claim brought against the DOJ. Mary McLaughlin (the sole Democrat) spent four years as a prosecutor. Raymond Dearie has years of experience as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of NY, along with other work done in conjunction with law enforcement. Thomas Hogan was involved in a ruling that restricted public access to Nixon's White House records (and ordered Playboy to continue printing copies in Braille) as well as jailing a NY Times writer for refusing to disclose a source and authorizing an FBI raid on a congressman's office -- a first in the government's history.

It's unsurprising that George W. Bush would find the makeup of the court to his liking when pushing his "War on Terror" policies -- conservatives with backgrounds in crime and (especially) punishment. (There's no bigger crime than terrorism.) Obama should have been the wild card -- someone who could have attempted to tilt things back in a more moderate direction or at least questioned the court's overwhelmingly partisan composition. Instead, he extended and expanded many of Bush's policies and realized there was no one better to carry out these directives than adherents to the party line.

Almost all of the current FISA judges declined to comment or be interviewed. Only one (Reggie Walton) responded, issuing this rather indignant statement:

"The perception that the court is a rubber stamp is absolutely false. There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts, and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."

Walton may not like the "rubber stamp" designation but the only information the public is allowed to look at indicates a vast majority of requests are granted, no matter how wide a net the requesting agents wish to cast.

Walton's claim that the court's authorizations "comport with what the applicable statutes authorize" is similarly hollow. What's been at least as surprising as the scope and reach of the NSA and FBI's granted requests is the fact that this massive-scale domestic surveillance still somehow falls under the protection of existing laws, or at least the secret interpretation of these laws.

Other information gathered by Reuters suggests some sort of oversight is being applied, but without further details, it's very hard to determine its effect on granted requests.

The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants

The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376.

There are a few educated guesses as to what "substantially modified" means, and it very likely doesn't mean "protecting the privacy of US citizens."

Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.

"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger. "But I don't think it answers the bigger, more important question of whether this court is acting as a balanced check on the government's authority."

To date, the court has been little more than a complicit tool of two consecutive administrations. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that the Chief Justice of the United States is free to pick FISA judges that align with their viewpoints on crime, terrorism and security. What may have originally served as a functioning part of our system of checks and balances has now become an administrative lapdog and a willing cog in the War on Terror machinery.

William C. Banks pointed this out to current and former FISA judges in his keynote speech given at an American Bar Association dinner celebrating the 35th anniversary of the FISA court.

"FISA envisioned case-specific surveillance, not a generic surveillance operation, and its approval architecture was accordingly geared to specific, narrowly targeted applications," Banks told the FISA judges, according to a transcript. The 2008 changes to the law, he said, have "strained its utility as an independent arbiter of lawful FISA surveillance."

His speech received "polite, if tepid, applause."

Judge Walton may bristle at the "rubber stamp" label and everyone from the administration all the way on down to the requesting agent may insist that nothing is done with oversight and strict adherence to applicable laws, but the track record speaks for itself. 12 years. 20,909 requests. 10 rejections. 36 withdrawn by the court.

Either the court is stocked with judges who can rubber stamp their approval and still somehow delude themselves into believing they're giving everything their full attention and consideration, or they've simply bought into the "terrorist" rhetoric and see no other option but complicity to keep this country "safe." Either way, it's a travesty.

Filed Under: fisa, fisa court, fisc, law enforcement, prosecutors, supreme court, surveillance