Emmons writes: "The ACLU has identified 23 legal opinions that contain new
or significant interpretations of surveillance law - affecting the
government's use of malware, its attempts to compel technology companies to
circumvent encryption, and the CIA's bulk collection of financial records
under the Patriot Act - all of which remain secret to this day, despite an
ostensible push for greater transparency following Edward Snowden's
disclosures."
The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington D.C. (photo:
Evan Vucci/AP)
ACLU Wants 23 Secret Surveillance Laws Made Public
By Alex Emmons, The Intercept
20 October 16
The ACLU has identified 23 legal opinions that contain new or significant
interpretations of surveillance law - affecting the government's use of
malware, its attempts to compel technology companies to circumvent
encryption, and the CIA's bulk collection of financial records under the
Patriot Act - all of which remain secret to this day, despite an ostensible
push for greater transparency following Edward Snowden's disclosures.
The opinions were written by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. On
Wednesday, the ACLU and the Yale Law School Media Freedom Clinic filed a
motion with the court requesting that those opinions be released.
"The people of this country can't hold the government accountable for its
surveillance activities unless they know what our laws allow," said Patrick
Toomey, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "These
secret court opinions define the limits of the government's spying powers.
Their disclosure is essential for meaningful public oversight in our
democracy."
Some of the opinions identified by the ACLU offer interpretations of Section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a controversial provision
that allows the government to conduct mass surveillance on American's
transnational communications. The authority is set to expire in December
2017.
Disclosure of the opinions would shed light on how the government
understands the boundaries of its spying power. Earlier this month, for
example, after Reuters reported that Yahoo is secretly scanning every
customer's incoming email, anonymous officials told the New York Times that
that action was based on an individualized order from the secret court.
Disclosure of the order would offer insight into why the government thinks
that is legal. Yahoo, for its part, on Wednesday urged the Director of
National Intelligence to release and explain the court order in question.
The ACLU identified the 23 still-secret opinions by combing through press
clippings and publicly released opinions. A report released Tuesday by the
Brennan Center for Justice, which was based on documents obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act, similarly found that the government has kept
classified 25 to 30 significant court opinions and orders dating from 2003
to 2013.
Congress established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in
1978 to approve warrants against foreign agents and spies. But after the
attacks of September 11, 2001, it took on a dramatically expanded role,
secretly interpreting surveillance laws for law enforcement and intelligence
agencies.
The court meets in secret, and until the recent inclusion of specially
designated "friends of the court," only the government was represented
before it. Critics of the FISC argue that its opinions amount to "secret
law" that is not approved by Congress, and cannot be appealed.
In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the FISC had
authorized the bulk collection of American's phone records, despite the fact
that the law only allowed the collection of records "relevant to an
authorized investigation."
Calls for transparency in the wake of the Snowden disclosures prompted the
government to undertake a declassification review of past FISC opinions; a
process they say is still ongoing.
The Snowden disclosures also prompted Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act,
which requires the government to disclose legally significant FISC opinions
going forward, but the government maintains that the legal requirement does
not apply to past opinions.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington D.C. (photo:
Evan Vucci/AP)
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/aclu-wants-secret-surveillance-laws-made
-public/https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/aclu-wants-secret-surveillance-l
aws-made-public/
ACLU Wants 23 Secret Surveillance Laws Made Public
By Alex Emmons, The Intercept
20 October 16
he ACLU has identified 23 legal opinions that contain new or significant
interpretations of surveillance law - affecting the government's use of
malware, its attempts to compel technology companies to circumvent
encryption, and the CIA's bulk collection of financial records under the
Patriot Act - all of which remain secret to this day, despite an ostensible
push for greater transparency following Edward Snowden's disclosures.
The opinions were written by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. On
Wednesday, the ACLU and the Yale Law School Media Freedom Clinic filed a
motion with the court requesting that those opinions be released.
"The people of this country can't hold the government accountable for its
surveillance activities unless they know what our laws allow," said Patrick
Toomey, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "These
secret court opinions define the limits of the government's spying powers.
Their disclosure is essential for meaningful public oversight in our
democracy."
Some of the opinions identified by the ACLU offer interpretations of Section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a controversial provision
that allows the government to conduct mass surveillance on American's
transnational communications. The authority is set to expire in December
2017.
Disclosure of the opinions would shed light on how the government
understands the boundaries of its spying power. Earlier this month, for
example, after Reuters reported that Yahoo is secretly scanning every
customer's incoming email, anonymous officials told the New York Times that
that action was based on an individualized order from the secret court.
Disclosure of the order would offer insight into why the government thinks
that is legal. Yahoo, for its part, on Wednesday urged the Director of
National Intelligence to release and explain the court order in question.
The ACLU identified the 23 still-secret opinions by combing through press
clippings and publicly released opinions. A report released Tuesday by the
Brennan Center for Justice, which was based on documents obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act, similarly found that the government has kept
classified 25 to 30 significant court opinions and orders dating from 2003
to 2013.
Congress established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in
1978 to approve warrants against foreign agents and spies. But after the
attacks of September 11, 2001, it took on a dramatically expanded role,
secretly interpreting surveillance laws for law enforcement and intelligence
agencies.
The court meets in secret, and until the recent inclusion of specially
designated "friends of the court," only the government was represented
before it. Critics of the FISC argue that its opinions amount to "secret
law" that is not approved by Congress, and cannot be appealed.
In 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the FISC had
authorized the bulk collection of American's phone records, despite the fact
that the law only allowed the collection of records "relevant to an
authorized investigation."
Calls for transparency in the wake of the Snowden disclosures prompted the
government to undertake a declassification review of past FISC opinions; a
process they say is still ongoing.
The Snowden disclosures also prompted Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act,
which requires the government to disclose legally significant FISC opinions
going forward, but the government maintains that the legal requirement does
not apply to past opinions.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
