The Obama administration announced Monday that it will permit Internet companies to disclose government data requests for consumer information.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper announced the policy change in a joint statement that the administration “is acting to allow more detailed disclosures about the number of national security orders and requests issued to communications providers, the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests, and the underlying legal authorities.”
The data gleaned from national security orders had been classified until Monday, but the administration decided the “public interest in disclosing the information now outweighs the national security concerns that required its classification,” the statement said.
The policy change appears to be the result of negotiations brokered with key technology companies that had filed lawsuits against the federal government arguing they should be allowed to disclose more information about National Security Agency surveillance of their users.
“We filed our lawsuits because we believe that the public has a right to know about the volume and types of national security requests we receive,” Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Yahoo responded in a joint statement obtained by National Journal. “We’re pleased the Department of Justice has agreed that we and other providers can disclose this information. While this is a very positive step, we’ll continue to encourage Congress to take additional steps to address all of the reforms we believe are needed.”
The government will allow companies to choose between two options when informing customers about data requests. The first option allows for the disclosure of the number of national security letters received, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders for content and “non-content,” and the number of customers whose data is targeted—all within “bands of 1,000” beginning with a range of 0 to 999. FISA and NSL numbers may be published every six months.
The second option allows companies to report data detailing the total number of “all national security process received” and customers targetered in a single number within a band of 250, beginning with a range of 0 to 249.
The administration said the new reporting methods are an important step that will help assuage concerns from communications providers and the public. Holder and Clapper’s letter also noted that “additional steps must be taken in order to fully implement the reforms directed by the president.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, welcomed the announcement, but added that “further changes still must be enacted into law by Congress.”
Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, quickly hailed the decision as “a victory for transparency and a critical step toward reining in excessive government surveillance.”
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."