NSA’s “Presumption of Regularity”

As you’ve probably heard, the most striking part of the October 3, 2011 FISA opinion finding NSA’s collection violated the Fourth Amendment is Footnote 14.

The Court is troubled that the government’s revelations regarding NSA’s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program.

In March, 2009, the Court concluded that its authorization of NSA’s bulk acquisition of telephone call detail records from [redacted] in the so-called “big business records” matter “ha[d] been premised on a flawed description of how the NSA uses [the acquired] metadata,” and that “[t]his misperception by the FISC existed from the inception of its authorized collection in May 2006, buttressed by repeated inaccurate statements made in the government’s submissions, and despite a government-devised and Court-mandated oversight regime.” Docket [redacted] Contrary to the governent’s repeated assurances, NSA had been routinely running queries of the metadata using querying terms that did not meet the required standard for querying. The Court concluded that this requirement had been “so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall … regime has never functioned effectively.” Id.

Two more entirely redacted substantial misrepresentations follow.

Footnote 32 reveals how, after NSA did a review of the communications the FISC ultimately found to violate the Fourth Amendment, the FISC caught it in downplaying the number of affected communications. After it sent the NSA back to new analysis, the problem grew from 2,000 to 10,000 a year to 48,000 to 56,000 a year. I guess the FISC found, like I have, that you can’t trust the biggest math organization in the world to do basic math.

Yet in spite of the fact that this opinion lists three substantial misrepresentations the NSA had made in recent history and caught the NSA in bad math, here’s how it decided it could trust the government’s assurances that it didn’t use this abusive communication to target non-targeted people.

Therefore, the Court has no reason to believe that NSA, by acquiring the Internet transactions containing multiple communications, is targeting anyone other than the user of the selected tasked selector. See United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”).

I’m not surprised FISC invoked this (especially not surprised that John Bates, who can be very deferential, did). It is the law.

But (as the case of Adnan Latif showed) we keep extending the presumption of regularity to the government in spite of abundant evidence we shouldn’t.

Tweet about this on Twitter11Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook7Google+0Email to someone

19 Responses to NSA’s “Presumption of Regularity”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @Gaius_Publius Infinite. It is like Dick Cheney's 1% Doctrine.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @NicoleOzer: Iceland police shot man who was shooting at them.Nation stunned. Investigating why no negotiation.What a difference...http:…
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @getoffmylawn80: #Darrenwilson fired more bullets than entire #uk #police did all of last year #ferguson #policebrutality http://t.co/90
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @CitizenCohn It would not be quite as satisfying as excising McCulloch completely, but it would be better than the nothing Nixon envisions.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @CitizenCohn and that is via MRS §27.030 as i explained a week ago here http://t.co/8WuANjSGey
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @CitizenCohn I think it is. But McCulloch said he would go if asked it seems (also murky!) Note, there is another avenue available to Nixon
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @CitizenCohn Didn't Nixon admit he has the power to remove McCulloch under emergency powers?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @swin24 RIP
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JudgeSmyth @rickhasen @LemieuxLGM I guess not. Looked like a pretty anodyne statement by Perry; not sure how get "threatening GJ members"
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold Can't even work up to a stern letter??
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold There are actually ways around that if SJC feels that strongly about it.
4hreplyretweetfavorite