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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

  • 1
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @joshgerstein I think he was indeed toast b/c of age, but may be back in play as a moderate compromise. Top of list still is Sri I think.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @AnthonyMKreis And, really just Sri.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @AnthonyMKreis Love kelly, but ima take your money from you. My bet is either Sri or Garland
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @AriBerman: This @rickhasen piece more relevant than ever: Why The Most Urgent Civil Rights Cause Of Our Time Is Supreme Court https://…
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Aw, that's nice, thanks Jack! https://t.co/vnLkBYHbjP
56mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz I really am not a fan of Sri in the least. But at least he would break the Harvard/Yale mold so currently extant. https://t.co/wlHnzkX8iW
57mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield I shudder to think of where Confrontation Clause would be without him. Will always be thankful for that.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield Hey, I found something decent to say about Scalia as well. He had some good moments to go along with the bad.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @kevinjonheller I've never had anything good to say about Sunstein. Cause there is nothing good to say.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LOLGOP "Dead-Ender"
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Well, this is some batshit crazy fearmongering https://t.co/nEES3ggcZ2
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @amy10506 But coming from MI it's a lot easier to see how someone plays an open primary, I guess.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031