If George Bush Can Close NSA’s Back Door Loophole, Why Can’t Barack Obama?

As per usual, there was a tidbit of news in Ron Wyden’s questions at yesterday’s hearing on the USA Freedumber.

He revealed that the back door loophole was closed during the Bush Administration.

Let me start by talking about the fact that the House bill does not ban warrantless searches for Americans’ emails. And here, particularly, I want to get into this with you, Mr. Ledgett if I might. We’re talking of course about the backdoor search loophole, section 702 of the FISA statute. This allows NSA in effect to look through this giant pile of communications that are collected under 702 and deliberately conduct warrantless searches for the communications of individual Americans.  This loophole was closed during the Bush Administration, but it was reopened in 2011, and a few months ago the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged in a letter to me that the searches are ongoing today. [my emphasis]

I’m not sure precisely what he’s talking about, though I assume either the transition from the illegal program to Protect America Act, or the transition from PAA to FISA Amendments Act, removed NSA’s ability to conduct back door searches. Reading between the redactions in John Bates’ October 3, 2011 opinion, FBI apparently has had the authority to do back door searches on both traditional FISA and warrantless collection from 2008, so from the beginning of FAA.

But from what Wyden said, the NSA had the ability to do back door searches, lost it, and now has it again.

I’d sure like to know more about what happened to lead people to believe NSA should have that authority taken away from it.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

5 Responses to If George Bush Can Close NSA’s Back Door Loophole, Why Can’t Barack Obama?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz Well, this instant part of Obama's routine is just fucking embarrassing and horrible. What blithering idiot thought this was appropriate?
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Better "killing" it there than innocent civilians in signature drone strikes I guess. https://t.co/btveeFatS9
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @fordm No shit. Hello DiFi.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @Will_Bunch Is it really any different in this context? It is an access journalism incestuous bacchanal either way.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Stupid, stupid, stupid. #FireSully #Gators Idiot called for squeeze with two outs.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @jamisonfoser: Says it all —> MT @mlcalderone: Cable news roundup: CNN, MSNBC covering WHCD, No Baltimore.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @charlie_savage Sure. But that would not include informants that would be in 1.2%, right? @joshgerstein
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @bsdtectr Oh darn.
44mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @charlie_savage And I would assume hit rates go up when including CI assessments. @joshgerstein
47mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @charlie_savage Still, 4.6% is higher than 1.2% @joshgerstein
48mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel The only thing this article is missing is calling out DiFi also for championing Kappes, too. http://t.co/351g15LEgL
1hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2014
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930