Froomkin writes: "A federal judge with the top-secret surveillance court on
Monday breezily reinstated the NSA bulk domestic surveillance program that
was temporarily halted a month ago, allowing the agency to go back to
hoovering up telephone metadata for five months while it unwinds the program
for good."
Director of the NSA, James Clapper. (photo: Reuters)
Bulk Phone Surveillance Lives Again, to Die in a More Orderly Fashion in
Five Months
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
01 July 15
A federal judge with the top-secret surveillance court on Monday breezily
reinstated the NSA bulk domestic surveillance program that was temporarily
halted a month ago, allowing the agency to go back to hoovering up telephone
metadata for five months while it unwinds the program for good.
Plus ça change, plus cest la même chose, Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court Judge Michael W. Mosman wrote in his ruling, using the
French phrase that means the more things change, the more they stay the
same to summarize the legislative and judicial back-and-forth that led to
the temporary reinstatement.
By failing to agree on how to reauthorize certain sections of the Patriot
Act, the Senate on May 31 engaged in a rare act of rebellion against the
surveillance state, forcing the National Security Agency to shutter the
program that had collected telephone metadata information about who called
who, and for how long for more than a decade, until NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden disclosed its existence in 2013.
Two days later, however, the Senate passed a milquetoast surveillance reform
bill that ordered the bulk collection program phased out by November 29, to
be replaced by one in which the NSA has to request specific records, and
explain why.
That led to Mondays paradoxical decision to revive bulk collection so it
can die again, theoretically in a more orderly fashion.
In his decision, Mosman also flippantly dismissed a major appellate court
ruling in May that the program was illegal. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was the
governments legal cover for bulk collection, didnt authorize any such
thing. The decision hinged on the common-sense conclusion that when the
Patriot Act gave the government power to obtain phone records relevant to
an authorized investigation, that wasnt power to collect all phone records
everywhere.
Second Circuit rulings are not binding on the FISC, and this Court
respectfully disagrees with that Courts analysis, especially in view of the
intervening enactment of the USA FREEDOM Act, Mosman wrote. To a
considerable extent, the Second Circuits analysis rests on
mischaracterizations of how this program works and on understandings that,
if they had once been correct, have been superseded by the USA FREEDOM Act.
Although his attempts to explain how the Second Circuit was wrong were
murky, Mosman was clear on the point that the appellate courts chief
concern that Congress had never intended for the world relevant to be
interpreted so broadly was now moot. Thats because Congress had, through
the Freedom Act, knowingly approved giving it a six-month extension.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., criticized the decision. I see no reason for the
Executive Branch to restart bulk collection, even for a few months, he said
in a statement. This illegal dragnet surveillance violated Americans
rights for fourteen years without making our country any safer.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Director of the NSA, James Clapper. (photo: Reuters)
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/30/bulk-phone-surveillance-lives-
die-orderly-fashion-five-months/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/3
0/bulk-phone-surveillance-lives-die-orderly-fashion-five-months/
Bulk Phone Surveillance Lives Again, to Die in a More Orderly Fashion in
Five Months
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
01 July 15
federal judge with the top-secret surveillance court on Monday breezily
reinstated the NSA bulk domestic surveillance program that was temporarily
halted a month ago, allowing the agency to go back to hoovering up telephone
metadata for five months while it unwinds the program for good.
Plus ça change, plus cest la même chose, Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court Judge Michael W. Mosman wrote in his ruling, using the
French phrase that means the more things change, the more they stay the
same to summarize the legislative and judicial back-and-forth that led to
the temporary reinstatement.
By failing to agree on how to reauthorize certain sections of the Patriot
Act, the Senate on May 31 engaged in a rare act of rebellion against the
surveillance state, forcing the National Security Agency to shutter the
program that had collected telephone metadata information about who called
who, and for how long for more than a decade, until NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden disclosed its existence in 2013.
Two days later, however, the Senate passed a milquetoast surveillance reform
bill that ordered the bulk collection program phased out by November 29, to
be replaced by one in which the NSA has to request specific records, and
explain why.
That led to Mondays paradoxical decision to revive bulk collection so it
can die again, theoretically in a more orderly fashion.
In his decision, Mosman also flippantly dismissed a major appellate court
ruling in May that the program was illegal. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was the
governments legal cover for bulk collection, didnt authorize any such
thing. The decision hinged on the common-sense conclusion that when the
Patriot Act gave the government power to obtain phone records relevant to
an authorized investigation, that wasnt power to collect all phone records
everywhere.
Second Circuit rulings are not binding on the FISC, and this Court
respectfully disagrees with that Courts analysis, especially in view of the
intervening enactment of the USA FREEDOM Act, Mosman wrote. To a
considerable extent, the Second Circuits analysis rests on
mischaracterizations of how this program works and on understandings that,
if they had once been correct, have been superseded by the USA FREEDOM Act.
Although his attempts to explain how the Second Circuit was wrong were
murky, Mosman was clear on the point that the appellate courts chief
concern that Congress had never intended for the world relevant to be
interpreted so broadly was now moot. Thats because Congress had, through
the Freedom Act, knowingly approved giving it a six-month extension.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., criticized the decision. I see no reason for the
Executive Branch to restart bulk collection, even for a few months, he said
in a statement. This illegal dragnet surveillance violated Americans
rights for fourteen years without making our country any safer.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
