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+4Email 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
bmaz Restrained him on the ground.....for what?? Gray ends up with a severed spine for making eye contact with a cop?
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz How can this be proper basis? http://t.co/tmhnSmgPwt
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Why did the Baltimore police start chasing Freddie Gray to begin with? What was probable cause for physical arrest?
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DanCBarr I had season tix and was at nearly every game that season+playoffs. Incredible energy. You are right, Warriors now do seem like it
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DerekGossler @william_pitts Ive been going to+then giving money to my alma mater for 40 years, don't pull that be a solution shit with me
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DerekGossler @william_pitts And, yes, it is clearly downgraded from what originally revealed in 2012-2013.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DerekGossler @william_pitts I have been giving money to ASU for decades. I do not owe anything additional to what I already do.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @marcorandazza: Nevada #SB444 makes it easier for public figures to survive Anti-SLAPP motions, even in cases that are doomed. Who hate…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DerekGossler @william_pitts Plenty of my money goes to ASU already. And news plan looks like garbage dreamed up after renovation funds cut.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @rickhasen: #ELB: “Judge Blasts Prosecutors in Foreign Bribe Case”: The Recorder: With harsh words for… http://t.co/0ei0ddjx9v
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @JasonLeopold: New Docs in Zero Dark Thirty Affair Raise Questions of WH-Sanctioned Intelligence Leak & Inspector General Coverup http:/…
3hreplyretweetfavorite