NSA Phone Program Is Illegal, Privacy Board Says

The government board deals another blow to the controversial spying program.

A sign stands outside the National Security Administration (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md., Thursday, June 6, 2013.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Brendan Sasso
Jan. 23, 2014, 4:37 a.m.

The Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s pro­gram col­lect­ing re­cords on vir­tu­ally all U.S. phone calls vi­ol­ates the law, ac­cord­ing to a gov­ern­ment pri­vacy board.

In a 238-page re­port re­leased Thursday, the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board calls for an end to the pro­gram, say­ing it has nev­er stopped a ter­ror­ist at­tack and threatens the pri­vacy of mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans.

The re­port is yet an­oth­er blow to the con­tro­ver­sial pro­gram, which was first re­vealed by Ed­ward Snowden last year.

Last Fri­day, Pres­id­ent Obama an­nounced his sup­port for cer­tain re­forms to the pro­gram, in­clud­ing re­quir­ing court ap­prov­al for the NSA to search through the phone data and mov­ing the data­base out of the gov­ern­ment’s hands. But Obama in­sisted that the NSA keep its cap­ab­il­ity to mine mil­lions of phone re­cords, even if the struc­ture of the pro­gram is changed.

Con­gress cre­ated the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board at the re­com­mend­a­tion of the 9/11 Com­mis­sion, which called for an in­de­pend­ent gov­ern­ment agency to guard pri­vacy rights. The small agency only re­cently be­came op­er­a­tion­al, and Thursday’s re­port is its first ma­jor salvo against gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance.

The board voted 3-2 to back the con­clu­sions that the bulk col­lec­tion of phone re­cords is il­leg­al and should end. But all five board mem­bers called for a series of im­me­di­ate changes, such as re­quir­ing court ap­prov­al for searches, re­du­cing how long the NSA holds the data, and lim­it­ing the de­grees of sep­ar­a­tion ana­lysts can stray from their ini­tial tar­get from three to two. Obama backed sim­il­ar re­forms in his speech last Fri­day.

The board’s re­com­mend­a­tions go farther than the ad­vis­ory group Pres­id­ent Obama cre­ated last year to re­view the NSA’s pro­gram. But that re­view group also called for ma­jor changes to the bulk data col­lec­tion and con­cluded the pro­gram has not thwarted any ter­ror­ist at­tacks.

The NSA claims that bulk col­lec­tion is au­thor­ized un­der Sec­tion 215 of the Pat­ri­ot Act, which gives the gov­ern­ment the power to col­lect busi­ness re­cords that are “rel­ev­ant” to a ter­ror­ism in­vest­ig­a­tion. The For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court has ap­proved the NSA’s ar­gu­ment, say­ing all U.S. phone calls are “rel­ev­ant” be­cause the agency needs the full data­base to map po­ten­tial ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions.

But the pri­vacy board called the gov­ern­ment’s jus­ti­fic­a­tion “cir­cu­lar” and “un­ten­able.”

“If Sec­tion 215’s rel­ev­ance re­quire­ment is to serve any mean­ing­ful func­tion, however, rel­ev­ance can­not be premised on the gov­ern­ment’s de­sire to use a tool whose very op­er­a­tion de­pends on col­lect­ing in­form­a­tion without lim­it,” the board wrote.

The pri­vacy group also claimed the pro­gram vi­ol­ates the Elec­tron­ic Com­mu­nic­a­tions Pri­vacy Act, which re­quires that tele­phone com­pan­ies only turn over re­cords to the gov­ern­ment in cer­tain cir­cum­stances.

The board mem­bers wrote that the pro­gram raises con­sti­tu­tion­al ques­tions un­der the First and Fourth Amend­ment. They noted that the Su­preme Court ruled in 1979 that po­lice do not need a war­rant to ob­tain re­cords such as phone num­bers, call times, and call dur­a­tions. But the board ar­gued that the Su­preme Court nev­er en­vi­sioned the kind of sweep­ing sur­veil­lance the NSA is now con­duct­ing, and said it is un­clear how the cur­rent Su­preme Court would view the pro­gram.

A fed­er­al judge in Wash­ing­ton ruled last month that the NSA’s phone-data col­lec­tion is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, but oth­er fed­er­al judges in New York and Cali­for­nia have up­held the pro­gram.

Caitlin Hay­den, a White House spokes­wo­man, said Obama and oth­er ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials met with the pri­vacy-board mem­bers mul­tiple times as they were pre­par­ing their re­port, and he took their views in­to ac­count while pre­par­ing last week’s speech.

But she said the White House re­jects the board’s find­ing that the NSA pro­gram is il­leg­al.

“As the pres­id­ent has said though, he be­lieves we can and should make changes in the pro­gram that will give the Amer­ic­an people great­er con­fid­ence in it,” she ad­ded.

Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Patrick Leahy said the board’s re­com­mend­a­tions “add to the grow­ing chor­us call­ing for an end to the gov­ern­ment’s drag­net col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords.”

“The re­port re­af­firms the con­clu­sion of many that the Sec­tion 215 bulk phone-re­cords pro­gram has not been crit­ic­al to our na­tion­al se­cur­ity, is not worth the in­tru­sion on Amer­ic­ans’ pri­vacy, and should be shut down im­me­di­ately,” he said.

Leahy and Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, the ori­gin­al au­thor of the Pat­ri­ot Act, are push­ing the USA Free­dom Act, which would end the bulk col­lec­tion and im­pose oth­er lim­its on the NSA’s powers.

The pri­vacy board also re­com­men­ded that Con­gress cre­ate an in­de­pend­ent ad­voc­ate to push for pri­vacy rights be­fore the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court. The court cur­rently only hears ar­gu­ments from the gov­ern­ment in fa­vor of sur­veil­lance.

The board said the gov­ern­ment should re­lease more in­form­a­tion to the pub­lic about the NSA’s pro­grams and the in­tel­li­gence court’s rul­ings.

The re­port was backed by Board Chair­man Dav­id Med­ine, a former Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion law­yer; James X. De­mp­sey, a pri­vacy ad­voc­ate with the Cen­ter for Demo­cracy and Tech­no­logy; and Pa­tri­cia M. Wald, a re­tired fed­er­al judge.

Rachel L. Brand and Elise­b­eth Collins Cook, both former law­yers for the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion, agreed with some of the find­ings, but not that the pro­gram is il­leg­al and should end.


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.