How NSA Bypassed the Fourth Amendment for 3 Years

On October 3, 2011, the FISA Court deemed some of the NSA’s collections to violate the Fourth Amendment. Since Ron Wyden first declassified vague outlines of that ruling a year ago, we’ve been trying to sort through precisely what practice that decision curtailed.

A new WSJ story not only expands on previous descriptions of the practice.

The systems operate like this: The NSA asks telecom companies to send it various streams of Internet traffic it believes most likely to contain foreign intelligence. This is the first cut of the data.

These requests don’t ask for all Internet traffic. Rather, they focus on certain areas of interest, according to a person familiar with the legal process. “It’s still a large amount of data, but not everything in the world,” this person says.

The second cut is done by NSA. It briefly copies the traffic and decides which communications to keep based on what it calls “strong selectors”—say, an email address, or a large block of computer addresses that correspond to an organization it is interested in. In making these decisions, the NSA can look at content of communications as well as information about who is sending the data.

But it reveals the illegal program continued for 3 years, during which the telecoms and NSA simply policed (or did not police) themselves.

For example, a recent Snowden document showed that the surveillance court ruled that the NSA had set up an unconstitutional collection effort. Officials say it was an unintentional mistake made in 2008 when it set filters on programs like these that monitor Internet traffic; NSA uncovered the inappropriate filtering in 2011 and reported it.

[snip]

Paul Kouroupas, a former executive at Global Crossing Ltd. and other telecom companies responsible for security and government affairs, says the checks and balances in the NSA programs depend on telecommunications companies and the government policing the system themselves. “There’s technically and physically nothing preventing a much broader surveillance,” he says.

The entire WSJ article (and an accompanying explainer) is actually quite polite to the NSA, suggesting that minimization protects Americans better than the plain letter of the procedures do, remaining silent about NSA’s refusal to count how many Americans get sucked up in this, and focusing on terrorism more than the other applications of this. That’s not meant as a criticism; they got the story out, after all!

Most of all, though, it doesn’t question the claim that NSA set the filters too broadly in 2008 unintentionally.

Remember, those filters got set in the wake of the FISA Amendments Act. The telecoms doing the initial pass had just gotten immunity. While I think it possible that one of the telecoms got cold feet and that led to the FISA Court’s discovery of a practice that had been going on 3 years, I’m highly skeptical that the timing of the immunity and the overly broad filters was randomly coincidental.

I think we’re getting closer and closer to the iceberg Ron Wyden and Mark Udall warned us about.

Tweet about this on Twitter21Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook11Google+8Email to someone

15 Responses to How NSA Bypassed the Fourth Amendment for 3 Years

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @csoghoian That only applies if THEY have the phone, the cops?
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Just in time for USAF, I might add. http://t.co/n0578eXsTt
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel In addition to being great marketing this is a nice list of the things Apples has already been asked for. http://t.co/n0578eXsTt
4mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @ArifCRafiq: Reports are wrong. They got an al-Zawahiri. But it was one of his brothers. Tito or Jermaine.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @McCully11 Agree. Too bad that doesn't work for most defendants.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jilliancyork LOL. Yup. Just being an asshole.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jilliancyork Shush now. I'm supposed to be the nihilist who won't compromise, you know.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KevinBuist TY. Now I know to sneak in at the opening.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ddayen Olive Garden was exquisite. But still...
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jilliancyork My gripe is that I don't think she has done a thing differently than Rendell, but she's getting taken out.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jilliancyork Pelosi or DWS? Is the Q whether I'd prefer Pelosi to Steny? DWS to Steve Israel? Or do I get better choices?
20mreplyretweetfavorite