USA Freedumb Act and RuppRoge Both Adopt Intelligence Community Definition of “Bulk Collection”

Update: An updated version of the Managers Amendment does define the term:

(2) SPECIFIC SELECTION TERM.—The term  ‘specific selection term’ means a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account.

This is far better than nothing. Though I have concerns about “entity” and I suspect there will be some pushback here, since not even phone numbers “uniquely describe a person,” much less IPs. (Update: see my post on my concerns about the definition.)

As I noted in this post, USA Freedumb Act (what I’ve renamed the compromised USA Freedom Act) purports to limit bulk collection by tying all collection to specific selection terms. It does this for Section 215.

No order issued under this subsection may authorize the collection of tangible things without the use of a specific selection term that meets the requirements of subsection (b)(2).

It does it for Pen Register/Trap and Trace.

(3) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for selecting the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied;

And it does for all four NSL types, as here with call records under ECPA.

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACCESS TO TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS.—Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘may’’ and inserting ‘‘may, using a specific selection term as the basis for a request’’.

In fact, that’s the same mechanism RuppRoge (the House Intelligence Committee’s bill) uses to prevent bulk collection — though it limits bulk collection for fewer categories of things.

It does so for electronic communications records.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government may not acquire under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) records of any electronic communications without the use of specific identifiers or selection terms.

And it does so for sensitive business records.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government may not acquire under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearm sales records, tax return records, education records, or medical records containing information that would identify a person without the use of specific identifiers or selection terms.

And this limitation, both bills proclaim, will prevent bulk collection.

Neither bill defines what they mean by selection term or specific identifier.

Before I consider whether these bills will, in fact, prevent what you and I might consider bulk collection, note what has happened: both of these bills — the crappy Intelligence Committee wish list bill and the allegedly less crappy “reform” bill — have adopted the definition of “bulk collection” used by the notoriously Orwellian Intelligence Community.

This is perhaps best explained in Obama’s President’s Policy Directive on surveillance.

References to signals intelligence collected in “bulk” mean the authorized collection of large quantities of signals intelligence data which, due to technical or operational considerations, is acquired without the use of discriminants (e.g., specific identifiers, selection terms, etc.).

Now, we’re at a huge disadvantage to be able to assess whether this definition of bulk collection bears any resemblance to what ordinary humans might understand bulk collection to mean, because the government is being very disingenuous about what they claim it to mean.

The government often publicly claims selectors are things “like telephone numbers or email addresses,” as they did repeatedly at the last PCLOB hearing.

I can assure you, however, that when they refer to “selectors like email or telephone,” they’re downplaying their use of things like other IDs (phone handset and SIM card IDs, credit card numbers, Internet IDs or even passwords, IP address, and site cookies). And nothing in the definition says selection terms have to have anything to do with actual people (as the evidence they use malware code as a selector would indicate). Plus, I could envision many things — such as “Area Code 202″ or “Western Union transfers over $100″  – that would seem to qualify as selection terms.

But we can measure whether limits to selectors or search terms prohibits bulk collection via another means — by looking at the program about which we’ve gotten most details on selector searches: upstream 702 collection.

While we can’t assess how many “innocent” Americans get sucked up in this purportedly non-bulk collection (and I doubt NSA can either!), we do have an idea how many American communications get sucked up who shouldn’t according to the one-end foreign rule on the collection.

Up to 56,000 American communications a year, according to FISC Judge John Bates’ estimate (because the NSA refused to provide him the real numbers).

56,000 American communications that should not, under the law, have been targeted, sucked up using “identifiers” and “selection terms.”

And the government doesn’t consider that bulk collection at all.

That, my friends, is the standard two different Committees in Congress have adapted as well, doing the intelligence community’s bidding, claiming they’ve solved the bulk collection problem.

Tweet about this on Twitter77Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook6Google+0Email to someone

One Response to USA Freedumb Act and RuppRoge Both Adopt Intelligence Community Definition of “Bulk Collection”

  • 1

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel RT @SamWangPhD: Sudden nerdy thought: should I calculate the house effects of all the polling sites and pundits?
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @astepanovich Once went into an interview having just heard a smutty joke, got asked, "what's the last joke you heard."
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @WeMeantWell Hmm. I see your point. Not Clara, not IZYQ. But something else.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel To think Olive Garden could lose its land just because it doesn't salt its water. http://t.co/YqRCeM2LyA
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @Krhawkins5: Daash. Pejorative, authentic, & what Syrian tweeps have used for while (I think it's acronym of transliterated Arabic name)?
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @WeMeantWell Nut uh. Must be a Google killer. Where else are you gonna find the string IZYQ except in a really frustrating scrabble hand?
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @mcdoobie What if they become the by-comparison-not-so-bad-guys in a few months? Happened with Assad.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Since no one has settled on its name yet, can we rename ISIS/ISIL/IS something that's easier to Google? Maybe IZYQ?
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ErikLoomis But hey. If it wins us back SCOTUS and keeps McCain out of SASC chair, cliche away.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ErikLoomis Cue "what's the matter with Kansas" headlines.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Krhawkins5 On many problems think the Courts are poised to fix. This one should be Congress' turn. @matthewstoller @JohnWonderlich
42mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031