A Phone Company Fought the NSA — And the NSA Won

A surveillance court ordered the company to hand over its customers’ data.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Brendan Sasso
April 25, 2014, 2:06 p.m.

An un­named phone com­pany re­cently res­isted a Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency de­mand for ac­cess to its sub­scribers’ data, ac­cord­ing to court doc­u­ments de­clas­si­fied Fri­day.

But on March 20, the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court re­jec­ted the com­pany’s mo­tion and ordered it to con­tin­ue turn­ing the re­cords over to the NSA. The gov­ern­ment re­dac­ted the name of the com­pany and oth­er in­form­a­tion from the doc­u­ments.

It was ap­par­ently the first time any phone com­pany tried to fight the NSA’s con­tro­ver­sial mass-sur­veil­lance pro­gram. A fed­er­al judge wrote last year that no phone com­pany had res­isted the pro­gram, which the NSA claims is au­thor­ized un­der Sec­tion 215 of the Pat­ri­ot Act.

The pro­gram col­lects phone “metadata” — such as phone num­bers, call times, and call dur­a­tions — but not the con­tents of any com­mu­nic­a­tions.

Last Decem­ber, Judge Richard Le­on of the U.S. Dis­trict Court for the Dis­trict of Columbia sided with a con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ist and ruled that the NSA’s bulk col­lec­tion of phone re­cords is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

“I can­not ima­gine a more ‘in­dis­crim­in­ate’ and ‘ar­bit­rary’ in­va­sion than this sys­tem­at­ic and high-tech col­lec­tion and re­ten­tion of per­son­al data on vir­tu­ally every single cit­izen for pur­poses of query­ing and ana­lyz­ing it without pri­or ju­di­cial ap­prov­al,” Judge Le­on wrote.

On Jan. 22, the un­named phone com­pany filed a pe­ti­tion with the FISC, chal­len­ging an NSA or­der it had re­cieved. The com­pany wrote that be­cause of Le­on’s rul­ing, the leg­al­ity of the NSA pro­gram is in ques­tion for the first time. Al­though the com­pany chal­lenged the or­der, it said it would con­tin­ue to com­ply with the NSA un­til the court ruled oth­er­wise.

In the 31-page rul­ing, Judge Rose­mary Colly­er of the FISC dir­ectly re­jec­ted Judge Le­on’s reas­on­ing, call­ing it “un­per­suas­ive.” Cit­ing the 1979 Su­preme Court case Smith v. Mary­land, she con­cluded that people have no Fourth Amend­ment rights over the metadata that they share with phone com­pan­ies.

“The ag­greg­ate scope of the col­lec­tion and over­all size of NSA’s data­base are im­ma­ter­i­al in as­sess­ing wheth­er any per­son’s reas­on­able ex­pect­a­tion of pri­vacy has been vi­ol­ated,” she wrote. She also noted that the FISC im­poses lim­its on how the NSA can search through and handle the phone data after it is col­lec­ted.

The NSA’s bulk col­lec­tion pro­gram is one of the most con­tro­ver­sial rev­el­a­tions from the leaks by Ed­ward Snowden. Pres­id­ent Obama has asked Con­gress to en­act le­gis­la­tion to shift the massive phone data­base out of the NSA’s hands. But for now, the agency is still col­lect­ing re­cords on mil­lions of U.S. calls.

If Con­gress doesn’t end the bulk col­lec­tion pro­gram, it looks like it’s bound for the Su­preme Court.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.