FISA Amendments Act Minimization: Preventing Serious Harm to Corporate Persons

As I was working through some other things last night, I had an opportunity to compare the minimization standards for the FISA Amendments Act (see section h) with the standards under which the actual minimization procedures allow the retention of purely domestic communications (that is, between parties that are all within the United States). These procedures are in addition to procedures that affect foreign communications (with one of the participants a non-US person outside the US).

Last night, I suggested there were 3 “normal” standards and one that doesn’t appear in the law pertaining to cybersecurity and encrypted communications. But that’s not entirely right. The last standard in the actual law reads,

(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

That is, the actual law allows retention of information for up to 72 hours (presumably to process, which is moot anyway, since they’re actually keeping this data 5 years), unless the court or the Attorney General says it must be kept longer because it pertains to threat of death of serious bodily harm.

But in the minimization standards themselves, here’s how that reads.

A communication identified as a domestic communication will be promptly destroyed upon recognition unless the Director (or Acting Director) of NSA specifically determines, in writing, that:

the communication contains information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property. [my emphasis]

In plain language, the law seems to be about saving human lives. But in paragraphs marked Secret, the government has redefined threat of death or “serious bodily harm to any person” as “serious harm to life or property.”

And while it’s just a guess here, I’m guessing that they switched this language, protecting property, not people, to protect corporate people.

In any case, spying on entirely domestic communications to protect against threats entirely to property, not life, sure seems like a giant loophole in a program that is supposed to be focused exclusively on foreign intelligence.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

8 Responses to FISA Amendments Act Minimization: Preventing Serious Harm to Corporate Persons

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV #TBT 1998: Bethany hanging out in my ladybug lab. http://t.co/xEGEy5W3kH
14mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @BBCWorld: Liberia goes one week without reporting any new cases of #Ebola for first time since May 2014 http://t.co/oEByCGQfsR http://t…
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @thegrugq Agree. But also, calls with Merkel (which include MoCs, presumably) one of few things that concerns MoCs.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @drfarls If you wait just a few days Fat Al Gore will melt it all for you, w/potentially exciting results.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NoahShachtman Also the concept of sending "Young Christian men" to help.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NoahShachtman Especially appreciate the retired General saying there's no reason the govt needs a "monopoly" on this stuff.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @nitpicker777 @the_intercept @ggreenwald What he wants is ability to argue a justification defense for whistleblowing; diff than nullifcatin
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel So it's March: In like a polar bear, out like a soggy penguin this year?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @the_intercept: The "Snowden is ready to come home" story is a case study in media deceit, writes @ggreenwald. http://t.co/Fxo1RKgM4U ht…
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @MarcACaputo Shockingly little general focus on Chevron though. I am stunned.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich Sharknado was an instant classic too you know. (And no, I'm not watching.)
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @CUEwindsearch No. You sign NDAs when you work w/govt. Snowden did. That's why he's being prosecuted. @korch
11hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2013
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30