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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @saramayeux: but, as this article shows so graphically, in prisons w/worst abuses, grievance process is chimera. threats of retaliation…
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @saramayeux: PLRA says, judges have to toss out lawsuit if prisoner did not first exhaust all administrative grievance procedures w/in t…
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @saramayeux: finally read @EyalPress's horrifying account of how Florida prisoners are tortured, largely with impunity: https://t.co/6Dk
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @adamgoldmanwp @DanLamothe It's funny, I've not seen a single report mention his mother Krista, who was so central to C-4 when was younger.
31mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @StephStradley Can't argue with some of us, because we've been in agreement from the get go!
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TimothyS Yup.
51mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @reason: Trump vs. Clinton Is Terrible News for Fans of Free Speech and the First Amendment https://t.co/R5oOxXpdQc
53mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TimothyS No, "Oh Henry"!
53mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @GreggJLevine Exactly. Should be painting Trump as the epitome of mainstream Republican party ideology.
54mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @GovDucef That @thucydidesAz chap is a riot though.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz No clue why anybody thought differently https://t.co/HJVgZNsQOi
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @brahmresnik @3ameam Interesting! I always end up with the prosecutors after such a referral. Thank.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2013
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30