Revealed:
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily
Exclusive:
Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data
shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama
26
January, 2013
The
National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone
records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's
largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in
April.
The
order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires
Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA
information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US
and between the US and other countries.
The
document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration
the communication records of millions of US citizens are being
collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they
are suspected of any wrongdoing.
The
secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the
order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited
authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period
ending on July 19.
Under
the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call
are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique
identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of
the conversation itself are not covered.
The
disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over
the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.
Under
the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed
to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the
NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents
have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale
under President Obama.
The
unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is
extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production
of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of
being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set
of individually named targets.
The
Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and
the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on
Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the
opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the
publication of the court order.
The
court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public
either the existence of the FBI's request for its customers' records,
or the court order itself.
"We
decline comment," said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon
spokesman.
The
order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to
the NSA electronic copies of "all call detail records or
'telephony metadata' created by Verizon for communications between
the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United
States, including local telephone calls".
The
order directs Verizon to "continue production on an ongoing
daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order". It
specifies that the records to be produced include "session
identifying information", such as "originating and
terminating number", the duration of each call, telephone
calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile
Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and "comprehensive
communication routing information".
The
information is classed as "metadata", or transactional
information, rather than communications, and so does not require
individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such
"metadata" is not limited to the aforementioned items. A
2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest
cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data,
and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.
While
the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or
the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell
number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a
comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when,
and possibly from where, retrospectively.
It
is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be
targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has
suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile
networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the
three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar
orders.
The
court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings
by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the
Obama administration's surveillance activities.
For
roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising
the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal
interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the
American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of
domestic spying being conducted.
Because
those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the
Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying
which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the
information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings
perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court
order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.
Julian
Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained:
"We've certainly seen the government increasingly strain the
bounds of 'relevance' to collect large numbers of records at once —
everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but
vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary
repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized
suspicion." The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does
precisely that.
The
law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called "business
records" provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That
is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when
warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration's
extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic
surveillance.
In
a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that
"there is now a significant gap between what most Americans
think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law
allows."
"We
believe," they wrote, "that most Americans would be stunned
to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have
interpreted" the "business records" provision of the
Patriot Act.
Privacy
advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect
and store unlimited "metadata" is a highly invasive form of
surveillance of citizens' communications activities. Those records
enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom
an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and
their location at the time of the communication.
Such
metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in
order to discover an individual's network of associations and
communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all
Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is
continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush
administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.
The
NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4
October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic
telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when
USA Today reported that the NSA had "been secretly collecting
the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data
provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth" and was "using
the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist
activity." Until now, there has been no indication that the
Obama administration implemented a similar program.
These
recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA's mission has
transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign
intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on
domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William
Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the
agency's focus on domestic activities.
In
the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the
surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate
of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus
domestically.
At
the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic
senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned:
"The NSA's capability at any time could be turned around on the
American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is
the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations,
telegrams, it doesn't matter."
Google
MUST hand over sensitive details for thousands of users to FBI - even
without a warrant
Google
must comply with the FBI's warrantless demands for large amounts of
customer data, a federal judge has ruled.
1
June, 2013
In
a ruling written May 20 and obtained on Friday, U.S. District Court
Judge Susan Illston ordered the company to accede to the FBI's secret
requests for information.
She
rejected Google's argument that the government's practice of issuing
so-called national security letters to telecommunication companies,
Internet service providers and banks was unconstitutional and
unnecessary.
FBI
counter-terrorism agents began issuing the secret letters, which
don't require a judge's approval, after Congress passed the USA
Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The
letters are used to collect unlimited kinds of sensitive, private
information, such as financial and phone records and have prompted
complaints of government privacy violations in the name of national
security.
The
FBI made 16,511 national security letter requests for information
regarding 7,201 people in 2011, the latest data available.
Many
of Google's services, including its dominant search engine and the
popular Gmail application, have become daily habits for millions of
people.
Judge
Illston ordered Google to comply with the FBI's demands on May 20 but
put her ruling on hold until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
could decide the matter.
Until
then, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company must comply with the
letters unless it shows the FBI didn't follow proper procedures in
making its demands for customer data in the 19 letters Google is
challenging, she said.
After
receiving sworn statements from two top-ranking FBI officials,
Illston said she was satisfied that 17 of the 19 letters were issued
properly. She wanted more information on two other letters.
It
was unclear from the judge's ruling what type of information the
government sought to obtain with the letters. It was also unclear who
the government was targeting.
The
decision from the San Francisco-based Illston comes several months
after she ruled in a separate case brought by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation over the letters.
She
ruled in March that the FBI's demand that recipients refrain from
telling anyone - including customers - that they had received the
letters was a violation of free speech rights.
Kurt
Opsah, an attorney with the foundation, said it could be many more
months before the appeals court rules on the constitutionality of the
letters in the Google case.
'We
are disappointed that the same judge who declared these letters
unconstitutional is now requiring compliance with them,' Opsah said
on Friday.
Illston's
May 20 order omits any mention of Google or that the proceedings have
been closed to the public.
But
the judge said 'the petitioner' was involved in a similar case filed
on April 22 in New York federal court.
Public
records show that on that same day, the federal government filed a
'petition to enforce National Security Letter' against Google after
the company declined to cooperate with government demands.
Google
can still appeal Illston's decision. The company declined comment
Friday.
In
2007, the Justice Department's inspector general found widespread
violations in the FBI's use of the letters, including demands without
proper authorization and information obtained in non-emergency
circumstances. The FBI has tightened oversight of the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.