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 Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+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 @JasonLeopold To be fair, DOJ has been using CI tools to combat "cyber" for over a decade.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Fred Upton apparently wants campaign finance code where outside groups agree not to describe how GOP hurt seniors. http://t.co/DMuYqam8k0
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @jilliancyork All good, up and doing her morning routine of hopping around like a bunny rabbit.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Anyway, I'll believe it when they behead their first terrorist financier. And let us investigate al-Rajhi.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis But they said this in 2004 and 2005 and 2007 and 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Because nothing will make for better news programming than out-of-touch coastal elite in an RV "talking to voters." https://t.co/sQs2p3D9L7
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Chuck Todd, w/health insurance so he doesn't think 500,000 people getting it anew is big deal, will Meet the Voters https://t.co/sQs2p3D9L7
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Amazing story shows why law enforcement use of "confidential informants" is so pernicious http://t.co/LaAAEgO0yP
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @bmaz to be fair, PAA was birthed after all but Mueller moved on, and the problems came in part bc they changed things after Baker moved on
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @OrinKerr: Supreme Court denied cert in case on Davis good-faith exception to exclusionary rule, Aguiar v. US. Good news if you like exc…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @EFF: In Smith v. Obama, the gov't seems to argue that the constitution has a national security exception. It doesn't: https://t.co/KZpY
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel But, but, but....Hospital heroism!!
3hreplyretweetfavorite