More Clarity and Lack Thereof in the Obama Dragnet Reform

A Senior Administration Official has clarified two remaining questions I had about the President’s plan to reform the dragnet.

First and very importantly, the conference call left unclear (and most subsequent reporting often didn’t directly address) whether Obama’s plan would apply just to counterterrorism purposes (as the current phone dragnet does) or more broadly (as the House Intelligence Committee RuppRoge proposal does). But SAO is clear: Obama’s plan focuses on specific terrorist groups.

The existing program only allows for queries of numbers associated with specified terrorist groups. Our operational focus is to make sure we preserve that counterterrorism authority in any new legislation. We will continue consulting with Congress on these issues.

This, then, is another way in which the President’s plan is significantly better than the RuppRoge plan — that it sets out to only cover CT, whereas RuppRoge sets out to cover foreign intelligence purposes broadly. Though that “consult with Congress” bit seems to allow the possibility that the White House will move towards broader use for the query system.

I also wondered — particularly given Verizon’s quick statement arguing it should not have to perform analysis for the government — who would do the data integrity analysis required to narrow the query results to those genuinely in contact with a selector, rather than ordering from the same pizza joint. Here, SAO was less clear, in part, punting the issue to Congress and “stakeholders” like Verizon.

Under the President’s proposal, the government would seek court orders compelling the companies to provide technical assistance to ensure the information can be queried, to run the queries, and to give the records back to the government in a usable format and on a timely basis. As additional questions arise with respect to the proposal, we look forward to working through them with Congress and relevant stakeholders to craft legislation that embodies the key attributes of this new approach. [my emphasis]

As a reminder, here’s Verizon General Counsel Randal Milch’s full statement:

This week Congressmen Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) released the “End Bulk Collection Act of 2014”, which would end bulk collection of data related to electronic communications. The White House also announced that it is proposing an approach to end bulk collection. We applaud these proposals to end Section 215 bulk collection, but feel that it is critical to get the details of this important effort right. So at this early point in the process, we propose this basic principle that should guide the effort: the reformed collection process should not require companies to store data for longer than, or in formats that differ from, what they already do for business purposes. If Verizon receives a valid request for business records, we will respond in a timely way, but companies should not be required to create, analyze or retain records for reasons other than business purposes. [my emphasis]

Verizon — probably the most important provider for this to work (because AT&T already gives the government what it wants and because it’s got the most upside growth) — doesn’t want to be forced to change the format in which they keep their data, and it doesn’t want to do analysis. But this response seems to say it wants to receive sound query results from Verizon, which would require that analysis first.

RuppRoge, as you’ll recall, offers NSA assistance (presumably including Booz NSA contractors working onsite at Verizon) to providers to do this work. As written, the White House proposal does not.

While this is an obscure issue (I may be the only one writing on it!), it has a direct impact on how many completely Americans get sucked into the NSA and subjected to the full range of its analytical tools. And it seems to be a key point of disagreement between the White House and perhaps the most important telecom provider.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

One Response to More Clarity and Lack Thereof in the Obama Dragnet Reform

  • 1
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @TyreJim I thought it was legal so long as you have a half order of fries on the table? @dmataconis
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Anyway. Heading to bed. It's been absolutely hysterical chatting. Thanks.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Tho I agree, you defended Eli--good and bad--far more aggressively.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Starting where you said the Giants (or, oddly, the iggles) didn't qualify, but the Jehries (or whatev) did?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty It was fun. As I said, I'll link back to this next season if Bravo reups the series.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Since you missed that entire point the conversation descended into you performing my point perfectly. To a T. Thanks!
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Every single time an NFC fan raise off-point comments to fluff their team? Proved the point. Not a gender issue. Abt surface
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Yes. ENTIRE CONVERSATION was premised on similarities in irrationality and cattiness bt NFC East fans and Real Housewives
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty So no. You can't find a link? Thought so. Bravo fodder. Like I said.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Still waiting for your link where I call you a "girl." Until then you're just Bravo fodder.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty No. No. You have missed the point entirely. But apparently have real gender insecurities.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Go ahead link it.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
March 2014
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031