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+2Email 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
bmaz Nueske's Wild Cherry or Zingermam's Long John Pepper? Inquiring minds?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Let the record reflect serious bacon worship and consumption on the premises: http://t.co/bqTGWRwf6O
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @SunsetGunShot (Need good stereo separation to get how good it really is)
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @SunsetGunShot Hey, if you haven't seen this yet, its a great early version of Dead Flowers with road video: http://t.co/9IyeWXxhZO
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @jsc1835: @bmaz @ColMorrisDavis @CNN All of MSM has become obsessed with covering Trump. Where's that 'left wing' media again?
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Alternatively, I am a fucking moron. Which is getting ever closer to the real answer.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Already gave up on MSNBC for most part (and they are supposedly closer to my ethos, but CNN always been better news).
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff I am a sucker for news, and, as said before, like it on in background while working. Getting hard to take though.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @WALLACHLEGAL Man, I dunno. Doesn't sound like the Johnnie I knew.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JPughMI I'm so old I remember when Abdullah was Barry Sanders.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @digby56 She thinks she's a libertarian.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @digby56 Look. The RNC gave her that loot fairly. No reason she should be taxed on loot!
5hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2013
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30