NSA Phone Dragnet Will Be Emptied, Feds Say, If Foes Allow It - Printable Version +- IOPList.Org (https://www.ioplist.org) +-- Forum: Off Topic (https://www.ioplist.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Forum: World News (https://www.ioplist.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=27) +--- Thread: NSA Phone Dragnet Will Be Emptied, Feds Say, If Foes Allow It (/showthread.php?tid=521)

NSA Phone Dragnet Will Be Emptied, Feds Say, If Foes Allow It - IceWizard - 08-01-2015 Eye rolls greet the professed desire to purge databases. By Steven Nelson July 29, 2015 | 3:03 p.m. EDT The U.S. government says it wants to empty the National Security Agency's databases of domestic call records that were collected in bulk, but that it can't because surveillance foes seeking a courtroom win for privacy rights have forced their retention. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Monday stored records will be accessible only to technical personnel for three months after the phone call dragnet ends in November pursuant to reforms in the USA Freedom Act, which became law last month. Then, "as soon as possible [after Feb. 29, 2016],” the government will “destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations," the statement says. A spokeswoman for the ODNI, Kathleen Butler, tells U.S. News that authorities would delete all records collected in bulk under a contested reading of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, not just those now held longer than the standard five years in response to court-issued preservation orders. [tb]READ:[/b] Pardon Snowden? Nah, White House Says in Petition Response] Several individuals and organizations are challenging the call record dragnet, the first and best-known program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. But only the Electronic Frontier Foundation appears to have specific preservation of evidence orders. Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s executive director, says the group will gladly agree to lifting the preservation orders – thus allowing the records’ destruction – if government attorneys admit their clients’ records were taken. But that seemingly reasonable offer, previously made in court filings, is unlikely to be accepted. Government attorneys generally refuse to concede the point so they can argue groups and individuals can't prove their records were taken and, therefore, lack standing to sue. “What they want is for folks like you to paint us privacy advocates as the reason that records aren’t being destroyed,” Cohn says. “But if they would just own what they did to millions of Americans, instead of still hiding behind game- playing like their standing arguments, we could move forward with a reasonable destruction plan.” [FBI DIRECTOR: Authorities Will 'Go to Jail' If They Browse U.S. Snapchats Without Warrant] Though authorities have conceded bulk collection happened and will continue through November, attorneys defending the NSA say the government has not confirmed that any provider other than Verizon Business Network Services is affected. That Verizon subdivision was named in a document leaked by Snowden that authorities acknowledge is authentic. Cohn suspects there’s logic behind the Department of Justice’s dogged refusal to concede such basic and commonly known facts about mass phone-record collection. “I think their strategy in the cases has always been to throw as many roadblocks up as possible to prevent the courts from ruling on whether these programs are legal or constitutional,” she says. “Because if the courts rule, especially on the constitutionality of mass surveillance, it could have longer lasting impact than even a statute does. Congress can change its mind easier than the Supreme Court does in interpreting the Constitution.” Other attorneys leading lawsuits against the program – none of which yet have been found moot after passage for the Freedom Act – say they don’t currently have preservation of evidence orders. [POLL: Edward Snowden Unpopular at Home, A Hero Abroad] “We are certainly not asking for preservation,” says Alex Abdo, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which in May won a ruling finding the program unlawful and not authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Legal activist Larry Klayman, who in 2013 won the first and thus far only District Court ruling against the program – with Judge Richard Leon finding it likely violates the Fourth Amendment – says his cases (one is a yet-to-be-considered class-action, the other was heard in November by an appeals court) don’t have preservation orders. A third case is on appeal against the program, brought on behalf of Idaho nurse Anna Smith with support from EFF and the ACLU. It does not have preservation orders. Nor does a long-stalled lawsuit brought by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and the libertarian group FreedomWorks. Luke Malek, an attorney working on Smith's case, and Ken Cuccinelli, who is representing Paul and FreedomWorks, say they agree with Cohn. "The data should be destroyed, but it is imperative that the standing of the citizens whose records were collected is preserved," Malek says. [ALSO: House Votes -- Again -- to Stop Backdoor NSA Searches] "At this point, we would have the same condition as EFF," says Cuccinelli. He adds he also wants an accounting of call-record collection from before 2006, when the program came under supervision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Cohn’s offer to allow the government to purge records, however, likely is for naught. Klayman says even if authorities satisfy EFF’s condition, he’ll step in to block record deletion. “You need to know what they’ve got,” he says. “You know what it sounds like? That would be like Hillary Clinton purging her email server. That’s destroying evidence of their wrongdoing.” The enterprising attorney is asking a king’s ransom (in the 10-figure range) as punishment for the government allegedly violating constitutional rights and feels the evidence will help the effort. He doubts intelligence officials are being honest about their willingness to part with the records anyhow. Klayman wants the dragnet databases in the meantime put under the supervision of ordinary courts rather than the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the shadowy institution that secretly approved the NSA program for years before Snowden’s disclosures.