Obama’s Spying Has a Bigger Problem Than Public Outcry

Despite the attempt to calm privacy fears, lawsuits against the NSA are moving ahead.

  he Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments on the President Obama's health care reform bill in Washington The United States Supreme Court is seen one day before the court will begin hearing arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care reform bill, in Washington on March 25, 2012. UPI/Kevin Dietsch    
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Jan. 26, 2014, 11:55 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama says his spy­ing over­haul is aimed at bal­an­cing pri­vacy and se­cur­ity, but the power to draw that line may not be his for long.

Re­gard­less of their im­pact on pub­lic per­cep­tion, Obama’s pro­posed re­forms to the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency do little to ad­dress the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s leg­al woes. And they’ve thus far done noth­ing to per­suade the NSA’s leg­al op­pon­ents to drop law­suits aimed at for­cing — rather than ask­ing — the ad­min­is­tra­tion to change its ways.

If the Su­preme Court sides with the pres­id­ent’s crit­ics, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s self-poli­cing would be re­placed by a leg­al or­der.

The leg­al fight cen­ters around the NSA’s col­lec­tion of phone re­cords — such as num­bers, call times, and call dur­a­tions — on vir­tu­ally all U.S. calls. For his part, Obama has in­sisted all along that the NSA’s sur­veil­lance is per­fectly leg­al, al­though he has said some changes are ne­ces­sary to re­store the pub­lic’s trust.

The prob­lem with Obama’s changes, the pri­vacy ad­voc­ates say, is that they don’t ad­dress the core leg­al ques­tions: Their first ar­gu­ment is that Con­gress nev­er au­thor­ized the pro­gram; the second is that the pro­gram vi­ol­ates the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans.

The NSA claims the pro­gram is au­thor­ized un­der Sec­tion 215 of the USA Pat­ri­ot Act, which gives the gov­ern­ment the power to col­lect busi­ness re­cords “rel­ev­ant” to a ter­ror­ism in­vest­ig­a­tion. The NSA ar­gues it needs the full phone data­base to track pos­sible ter­ror­ist cells, but the pri­vacy ad­voc­ates claim the agency is grossly dis­tort­ing the mean­ing of “rel­ev­ant.”

And Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Jim Sensen­bren­ner, the ori­gin­al House au­thor of the act, has said Con­gress nev­er meant to ap­prove such sweep­ing sur­veil­lance.

Un­der Obama’s re­forms, which take ef­fect im­me­di­ately, the NSA needs ap­prov­al from the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court every time it wants to search through its vast data­base of phone re­cords. Obama also re­duced the de­grees of sep­ar­a­tion that NSA ana­lysts can stray from their ini­tial tar­get from three to two

The pro­gram’s crit­ics, however, are de­term­ined to pare it back fur­ther.

“Un­til the gov­ern­ment ends bulk col­lec­tion, the law­suits should go for­ward,” said Alex Abdo, an at­tor­ney for the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on who is hand­ling the group’s case against the NSA. “I don’t see how any­thing short of that will af­fect the pos­ture of those cases.”

“The col­lec­tion it­self is what vi­ol­ates the Fourth Amend­ment. The gov­ern­ment is not en­titled to cre­ate a data­base of in­form­a­tion for which they should be ob­tain­ing a war­rant be­fore col­lect­ing,” he said. “So the fact that they have slightly stronger pro­tec­tion on the back end doesn’t an­swer the ques­tion of wheth­er they should be ob­tain­ing a war­rant to be­gin with.”

The ACLU’s suit is part of a broad­er leg­al on­slaught.

A fed­er­al judge in Wash­ing­ton ruled last month that the NSA pro­gram is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al in a case brought by con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ist Larry Klay­man. But an­oth­er fed­er­al judge in New York re­jec­ted the ACLU’s law­suit. Both cases could be heard by fed­er­al Ap­peals Courts some­time this year.

The Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, which is rep­res­ent­ing a co­ali­tion in­clud­ing a Unit­ari­an Church and a gun-rights group, is await­ing a de­cision at the Dis­trict Court level in Cali­for­nia on its law­suit against the NSA.

The law­suits re­ceived a boost last week when the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board, a gov­ern­ment watch­dog agency, con­cluded that the bulk data col­lec­tion is il­leg­al and should end.

The pres­id­ent may be open to fur­ther modi­fic­a­tions of the pro­gram, but he has giv­en no in­dic­a­tion that he plans to aban­don it en­tirely. He asked At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er and top in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials to come up with a plan for the gov­ern­ment to give up con­trol of the phone data­base.

But the de­tails of how the pro­gram could still op­er­ate without the NSA main­tain­ing the data­base re­main murky. The gov­ern­ment could set up some kind of en­tity that would hold the data and al­low the NSA to mine through it.

Cindy Cohn, the leg­al dir­ect­or for the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, said that from a leg­al stand­point, it doesn’t mat­ter if some new en­tity holds the data in­stead of the NSA.

“The gov­ern­ment doesn’t get to out­source un­con­sti­tu­tion­al be­ha­vi­or,” she said. “If the third party is just act­ing as the gov­ern­ment’s agent, that doesn’t change the leg­al ana­lys­is at all.”

The gov­ern­ment could also al­low the phone com­pan­ies to hold on to the data them­selves. Keep­ing the data with the phone com­pan­ies could bol­ster the gov­ern­ment’s case, the pri­vacy ad­voc­ates ad­mit.

But the NSA would still want easy ac­cess to the phone re­cords to map pos­sible ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions across all of the dif­fer­ent pro­viders. That could mean the gov­ern­ment would im­pose a man­date on the com­pan­ies to re­tain their cus­tom­ers’ re­cords. A data-re­ten­tion man­date would raise a new host of pri­vacy and leg­al prob­lems, the ad­voc­ates say.

An­drew Ames, a Justice De­part­ment spokes­man, de­clined to com­ment, cit­ing the on­go­ing lit­ig­a­tion.

Stew­art Baker, a former NSA law­yer and Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment of­fi­cial who cur­rently works in private prac­tice, agreed that Obama’s changes to the NSA don’t help the gov­ern­ment much in court.

But he ar­gued that the pri­vacy groups have nev­er had a par­tic­u­larly strong case against the NSA.

“They look like losers to me,” Baker said of the law­suits, not­ing that 15 judges on the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court have en­dorsed the gov­ern­ment’s po­s­i­tion in secret cases over the years.

Ever since a 1979 Su­preme Court de­cision, the courts have typ­ic­ally held that people have no ex­pect­a­tion of pri­vacy over metadata such as phone num­bers and call times (as op­posed to the con­tents of com­mu­nic­a­tions). The courts are also of­ten re­luct­ant to rule against the gov­ern­ment with na­tion­al se­cur­ity at stake.

Baker pre­dicted that the Su­preme Court will nev­er ac­tu­ally ad­dress the leg­al­ity of the con­tro­ver­sial NSA pro­gram. In­stead, Con­gress will be forced to take a po­s­i­tion on the pro­gram when the USA Pat­ri­ot Act comes up for reau­thor­iz­a­tion next year.

At that point, law­makers will have to choose between end­ing the pro­gram en­tirely or re­new­ing the pro­gram with some pri­vacy changes, Baker said.

“It’ll be a choice between ‘yes, but’ and ‘hell, no,’ and the ques­tion is what fol­lows the ‘but.’ How many changes are go­ing to be made to try to win a ma­jor­ity of both houses for re­new­al?”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
16 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
22 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×