The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

Angered by leaks of sensitive information to the American media, British officials have stopped sharing information related to the Manchester Arena bombing with the United States.

President Donald Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to investigate leaks coming from U.S. government agencies, which he called “deeply troubling,” according to the Associated Press.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will confront Trump about the leaks during meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels this week.

“TRUST IS BREACHED”

On Tuesday, U.S. television networks NBC and CBS published the name of suspected bomber 22-year-old Salman Abedi, citing U.S. officials. The next day, The New York Times published photos of crime scene evidence.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said the photos caused “much distress for families that are already suffering terribly with their loss.”

A spokesman for Britain’s National Counter Terrorism Policing unit released a statement condemning the leaks.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses, and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

A British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that Manchester police will cease sharing information with the U.S. until they are guaranteed that no more information will be leaked.

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd called the leaks “irritating” in an interview with BBC Radio.

“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise,” she said. “It is irritating if it gets released from other sources, and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.”

THE MEDIA RESPONDS

The New York Times released a statement defending its decision to publish the photos, saying that it falls in line with their standards of reporting on terrorist acts.

“Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers,” the statement reads. “We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.”

A FRIENDSHIP AT RISK?

The cessation of information-sharing about this attack is significant, but likely won’t be a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the U.K.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, which originated in the 1940s, binds the U.S. and the U.K. with other English-speaking democracies–namely, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The intel-sharing alliance has survived leaks for decades, and experts have said it remains strong even post-Edward Snowden.

So far, the Manchester Arena bombing is the only topic where information is being withheld from U.S. officials. All other intelligence sharing will continue, according to the BBC. Furthermore, the decision to stop sharing information came directly from the Greater Manchester Police, not from Downing Street. The BBC reported that the department is “furious,” but hopes to return to the normal two-way sharing procedures soon.

Eyes are now on Trump–whose administration has been under fire for a stream of leaks to the media and to foreign officials–to, as Trump says, “get to the bottom” of the situation. If his proposed investigation and prosecution of leakers goes well and plugs the holes, the relationship between the U.S. and one of its closest allies likely won’t face irreparable damage.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Pledges to Investigate Leaks After UK Withholds Intel appeared first on Law Street.

On November 18, 2015, the House voted 289-137 in favor of the the newly proposed “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” or “SAFE Act,” with a larger than expected number of Democrats (47) joining the Republicans in passing the legislation. The major issue it seeks to address is national security in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis that has been plaguing Europe for the last few months.

The act itself calls for a more in-depth screening process for “covered aliens,” granting the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the power to “take all actions necessary” in order to ensure a squeaky clean security clearance prior to admission as a refugee. What this means for the general population and the citizens of the United States is nothing more than a little security blanket we can drag around made out of taxpayer dollars. What this means for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, a group that already endures the most stringent admission into the United States lasting from 18-24 months, is more time in hell as we idly stand by bureaucratic red tape and paperwork that, statistically speaking, is not likely to affect us. Particularly insulting to this irrational and illogical spread of institutionalized fear and propaganda is that the Paris terrorists that have thus been identified are of French and Belgian nationalities. So naturally, Syrian refugees bear the weight of consequence.

Image courtesy Of [Dominic Chavez/World Bank via Flickr]

What most catches the eye in the “SAFE” Act is the use of “covered alien,” which is defined as “any alien applying for admission to the United States as a refugee who A) is a national or resident of Iraq or Syria; B) has no nationality and whose last habitual residence was Iraq or Syria; or C) has been present in Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011.” While the ironic use of “covered alien” is unmistakable, the inclusion of Iraqi refugees in a discussion about national security pertaining to the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States is questionable.

American interests in Iraq have been evident long before President George W. Bush invaded the country on March 19, 2003. Following that date, the United States embarked on the longest invasion since the Vietnam War, costing an upward of $815.8 billion, claiming the lives of 149,053 civilians, as well as 4,637 military members, a majority of whom were United States soldiers, and resulting in a large migration of Iraqi people to find peace and refuge. While there is no question that many innocent Iraqi people were displaced during the invasion of Iraq for which U.S. decision-makers are responsible and have an obligation to, it appears that policy and lawmakers are, in part, trying to circumvent that obligation by lumping Iraqi refugees into a national security issue that has only been applied to Syrian refugees in an effort to cut some weight off of dues owed.

Iraqi refugees, who are not at the forefront of discussion in the Syrian refugee crisis, have now not only been displaced as a collateral consequence to the U.S. invasion, but are being further unjustly treated through cunning deceit by the hands of the very people that displaced them from their homes.

What is the political agenda here? United States citizens need to recognize the misguided policy-making taking place. The Syrian and Iraqi people are individuals trying desperately to survive. These are human beings that the United States has the capability to keep alive and an obligation to do so. Refugees are not the enemy and should not be treated as such, particularly through sloppy policy. While the focus stays on the “covered aliens,” citizens needs to be prudent and work to uncover policy truths.

While it is imprudent to say with certainty what is in store for the “SAFE” Act, speculation can be made on the basis of what has occurred. It remains unclear whether the Senate will indulge in any legislative discourse or action pertaining to the act, but if the bill were to pass Congress, President Obama has made clear that he would use his veto power to stop the act from becoming law. The problem with President Obama’s pledge is that the House only needs 290 votes, only one more than the last time it voted on the act, to override the president’s veto (with the Senate’s help too, of course). Only one thing is certain–this could lead to a power showdown between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Covered Alien?”: House Votes for the SAFE Act appeared first on Law Street.

For people choosing to travel via air, security on the plane is of the utmost importance. That is why news of a security researcher claiming he was able hack into the computer systems of several airplanes while aboard is really scaring some air travelers, and setting law enforcement on edge.

#CyberSecurity Researcher Hacks and Controls Plane – Hero or Villain? http://t.co/4eKMmkJAdb pic.twitter.com/K32kB5g0I4

— vpnforus (@vpnforus) May 18, 2015

Wired magazine reported that Chris Roberts, a security researcher with One World Labs, first told the FBI in February that he was able to hack the in-flight entertainment system (IFE) and control parts of the plane while aboard various airlines. Roberts claims that he conducted the research in order to expose the potential vulnerabilities in in-flight software. In an FBI search warrant application for Robert’s digital devices and data FBI Special Agent Mark Hurley details Roberts’ previous hacking attempts, writing:

He [Roberts] stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights. He also stated that he used Vortex software after comprising/exploiting or ‘hacking’ the airplane’s networks. He used the software to monitor traffic from the cockpit system.

The search warrant was filed after Roberts was removed from a United Airlines flight from Denver  after sending out a tweet while aboard, joking about hacking the plane and setting off the emergency oxygen masks.

According to CNN, FBI agents tracked down his plane after being informed of the tweet and “found signs of tampering and damage to electronic control boxes that connect to in-flight entertainment systems.” The boxes tampered with just so happened to be under where Roberts was sitting and the seat in front of him. Despite this, Roberts insists he did not hack that particular flight.

At the time FBI agents also seized two laptop computers and several hard drives and USB sticks from Roberts without a search warrant, telling Roberts that a warrant was pending. It’s the information in that newly obtained warrant that is cause for concern.

In the warrant, Roberts is quoted as telling the FBI that he accessed the in-flight networks more than a dozen times between 2011 and 2014 and had briefly commandeered a plane during one of those flights. This contradicts an interview he had previously given to Wired, where he claimed he had only explored the networks and observed data traffic.

However, some aircraft experts seriously doubt Roberts was able to hack IFEs in order to commandeer a plane. Business Insider reports that industry expert Peter Lemme told “Runway Girl Network” blogger Mary Kirby that  “the IFE ARINC 429 interfaces are not capable of changing automatic flight control modes” and “the claim that the Thrust Management System mode was changed without a command from the pilot through the mode control panel, or while coupled to the Flight Management System is inconceivable.” Boeing has issued statements saying that its entertainment systems are isolated from flight and navigation systems. CNN writes,

It is worth noting that Boeing airplanes have more than one navigational system available to pilots. No changes to the flight plans loaded into the airplane systems can take place without pilot review and approval. In addition, other systems, multiple security measures, and flight deck operating procedures help ensure safe and secure airplane operations.

If Roberts is not exaggerating his hacking claims, these IFEs do pose a very plausible threat to aircraft security that needs to be addressed. So far no charges have been filed against Roberts, but he could end up in some serious trouble for conducting these unauthorized tests. If he did hack those planes with passengers aboard, and in one instance even tilt the plane, he was irresponsibly putting numerous lives at stake.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Security Researcher Sparks Fear With This Plane Security Hack appeared first on Law Street.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.

In June 2013, Edward Snowden changed the course of American history when he released thousands of classified documents to the media. He has since fled the country, and remains on the run. His choice to disclose those documents fundamentally altered the perceptions that Americans have about the ways in which the government monitors them. It sparked national conversations about the role that the Patriot Act and other legislation have played in our national security landscape. A year and a half after these revelations, the United States is still collectively reeling from the information that Snowden provided. And a year and a half later, it’s easy to wonder where all of that info is today.

What exactly did Snowden leak?

Leaked by Edward Snowden, PRISM is the code name for a data-mining program operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007. It accesses user audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs from nine internet companies: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple, Facebook, Skype, YouTube, AOL, and Paltalk. Government officials involved with the program claim that PRISM is only used to focus on foreign communications that are potentially dangerous to the security of the United States. Foreign communication often flows through American servers even when sent from one overseas location to another overseas location; however, experts who analyzed the most recently leaked slides of the operation claim that PRISM guidelines require NSA analysts to be only 51 percent confident to reasonably believe that a potential “target” is a foreigner. A 51 percent confidence level can leave ample room for Americans to inadvertently become targets of this operation.

PRISM is still in operation, although there are pending legal cases against the Obama Administration over it. Since the first disclosure of information by Edward Snowden, more revelations have come to light that show very specific targeting. In addition, PRISM, has raised criticism from our international allies. President Obama has, in many cases, had to go on the defensive, and explain that PRISM is intended for legitimate intelligence collection, not Big-Brother style spying.

Courtesy of BackgroundChecks.org

Prism – Everything you need to know. [Infographic]

What is the argument against PRISM?

Opponents of the PRISM program claim that it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They argue  that the collection and surveillance of data by the NSA is too broad and “akin to snatching every American’s address book.” Yahoo initially fought the order to participate in PRISM in 2008. It argued that even if PRISM’s main goal is to focus on foreign communication, the incidental collection and gathering of American data is unconstitutional because such surveillance violates the “warrant clause” and “unreasonable searches clause” of the Fourth Amendment. Yahoo lost the case.

What is the argument in favor of PRISM?

Proponents of the PRISM program claim that cases in which the goal is to gain foreign intelligence are exempt from being subject to the Fourth Amendment’s “warrant” and “unreasonable searches” clauses. For the warrant clause, the Supreme Court has recognized a general “special needs” exception in cases like Vernonia School District v. Acton, where insisting upon a warrant would interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose. Proponents argue that there is a high degree of probability that requiring a warrant would hinder the NSA’s ability to collect time-sensitive information, and therefore would impede national security interests.

For the unreasonable searches clause, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, in Yahoo’s case, held that PRISM’s operations were not unreasonable in light of the extremely important goal of national security. It found that PRISM’s procedures for targeting, minimization, and ensuring existence of a surveillance purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information serve to mitigate potential abuse of this power and risk of error to a reasonable level. Proponents also point to United States v. Miller to argue that people have no Fourth Amendment rights after they have already divulged their personal information to third parties, such as the internet companies participating in PRISM.

Conclusion

PRISM’s depth and extensiveness were a huge revelation for the American public after the secret documents were leaked by Edward Snowden. It raises a few important questions, first and foremost: is it constitutional? That will have to be decided by the courts, but it also raised interesting questions about the tradeoff between privacy and protection. As our technological abilities continue to increase, it will be fascinating to see the steps that this administration and any future administrations take to stem or expand PRISM.

Resources

Primary

ProPublica: NSA Surveillance Lawsuit Tracker

Additional

The New York Times: Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of NSA

Huffington Post: America’s Take on the Fourth Amendment and the NSA

Concurring Opinions: Does the Fourth Amendment Regulate the NSA’s Analysis of Call Records? The FISC Might Have Ruled it Does

Assasination Archives: The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights

The Peoples’ View: A Crash Course in the NSA and the Fourth Amendment

Reason: Why the NSA’s Snooping Supposedly Complies With the Fourth Amendment

Washington Post: U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program

Washington Post: NSA Slides Explain the PRISM Data-Collection Program

Brennan Center for Justice: Are They Allowed to Do That? A Breakdown of Selected Government Surveillance Programs

Cato Institute: NSA Spying, NSA Lying, and Where the Fourth Amendment Is Going

Washington Post: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

POLITICO: NSA Memo Pushed to ‘Rethink’ 4th Amendment

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eighteen Months After Snowden Leak, What’s Next for PRISM? appeared first on Law Street.

Verizon released its first transparency report earlier this month sparking new exchanges between the government and technology companies.

Many telecommunications companies will likely follow Verizon’s lead after Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a joint statement, allowing for more detailed release national security requests. Shortly afterward the statement was made, many notable technology companies dropped a FISA petition that was jointly filed last summer.

While many other companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have already published transparency reports, Verizon was the first major telecommunications companies to do so. The new arrangement set forth by the Justice Department will allow corporations to disclose how many national security letters they’ve received in ranges of 250 or 1,000, depending on the circumstances. This report appears to be starting a trend as AT&T recently announced its plans for a similar report at the end of last year.

The release of this information comes after many articles like this one published by the Wall Street Journal indicated that American companies may be suffering financially due to surveillance concerns. A survey published by the Cloud Security Alliance concluded that non-U.S. residents are 56 percent less likely to use cloud providers based in the U.S. in light of the debate sparked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The Snowden controversy, and government’s response, has also prompted a unique partnership among many of the large technology companies in response. AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo have all joined forces to advocate for change through the creation of www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com. The site focuses on improving transparency, protecting user information, and creating oversight and accountability within the government.

Conclusions from the Verizon Report:

In its report, Verizon states that it received approximately 320,000 requests for information about its customers from federal, state, or local law enforcement in 2013. These requests consisted of:

164,184 Subpoenas – From law enforcement agencies to provide basic customer information.

70,665 Court Orders – That were signed by a judge compelling the release of information.

36,696 Warrants – That were issued based on “probable cause,” and typically sought content related data.

50,000 Emergency Requests (approx.) – For information intended to resolve situations deemed serious emergencies.

Nearly 1,500 of the court orders were “Wiretap Orders,” which provide the actual content of communication in real time. Such content can be in the form of either telephone or internet communication. Verizon states that it requires court issued warrants or a legitimate emergency situation before it will release any stored content or non-content records (See the report’s FAQ page for definitions and details).

The report also indicates the government’s growing interest in location information, as it made nearly 35,000 requests for such data. Verizon noted an increase from the previous year’s levels, but did not disclose that number in this report. 3,200 of these requests were for “tower dumps,” which disclose the phone numbers of all devices that interacted with a cellular tower during a given period of time. Such information is often used to identify and track the location of specific people. According to the Washington Post that the government made over 9,000 tower dump requests in 2013, about a third of which were to Verizon.

Finally, it is also important to note how the United States government compares to other countries around the world. According to the international data also released by Verizon, Germany made the second most requests for information. With less than 3,000 demands from law enforcement, Germany remains far behind the over 320,000 made by the American government.

Does it Matter?

Organizations like the ACLU cite Verizon’s report as a significant step forward in government openness, yet some criticize Verizon and companies releasing similar information as not going far enough. Others argue these transparency reports are inconsequential to the security debate and may purely be an effort to improve public relations. The released information only details formal requests made to those companies specifically, and because much of the recent controversy involves informal or undocumented gathering of data, the released information may not shed enough light on the situation.

[Verizon] [Washington Post] [NY Times]

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [Verizon Communications via Wikipedia]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Verizon Starts New Transparency Trend appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has changed its mission statement. For years, the primary mission of the agency has been “law enforcement.” However, as of this year, the primary mission is being labeled as “national security.”

This notable departure is both somewhat expected and surprising. It makes sense because national security has been evolving into a more central aspect of the agency since 9/11. But, at the same time, it is a big change from the FBI’s historic roots as a law enforcement agency.

One of the most notable parts of this change was the way in which the FBI did so. They didn’t have any sort of announcement, they just quietly changed the mission statement they released. Foreign Policy asked the FBI for a statement on the change, and they claimed that they were just trying to make their mission reflect the direction in which the agency has been moving in the post 9/11 world. A spokesman from the FBI named Paul Bresson stated, “we rank our top 10 priorities and CT [counterterrorism] is first, counterintel is second, cyber is third. So it is certainly accurate to say our primary function is national security.” This claim is backed up by the FBI’s actions in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents who worked on counterterrorism doubled.

The timing of the change is also interesting–why make this change now, especially if the FBI has been moving towards counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber intelligence work for years now? Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer, responded to the departure by asking, “what happened in the last year that changed?”. The FBI chose not to comment on that issue.

What the FBI does now is very different from what it did at its inception. The FBI originally and traditionally has worked on domestic issues, such as organized crime, white collar crime, high profile kidnappings and murders. While its responsibilities expanded during World War II and the Cold War to include more counter-espionage, it’s undoubtable that they have expanded into those duties even more since 9/11. This definition seemingly just makes this transition official.

There is some concern about this priority shift though. If more resources are given to counterterrorism and the others alike, resources will obviously taken from those fields on which the FBI has traditionally focused. According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2007, none of the officers that were reassigned after 9/11 were replaced. The effects are tangible–in 2000, about 31,000 cases were filed with federal prosecutors through the FBI. But 5 years later, in 2005, only about 20,000 were filed. In 2000, 10,000 white collar crimes were referred to prosecutors, but in 2005, the number dropped to 3,500. These are substantial changes, and they indicate that less work is being put into those areas.

While national security is obviously incredibly important, other cases are as well. A goal for the FBI should be emphasizing national security, while not losing other avenues of investigation.

[Foreign Policy]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Changes Mission Statement appeared first on Law Street.

Robots are the future- and they are already here. Although, the average “joe” may not interact with these human replacements, military personnel, across seas, encounter robots on a daily basis.

 Today, there is a powerful shift in robotic technology for domestic use. In fact, just last Monday, Amazon strategically released their drone delivery concept. Robotic machinery is blending into the average citizens’ everyday life. So should we be worried?

Well that depends…

A company, Knightscope, in California has recently developed a robot called K5 Autonomous Data Machine (this machine is quite remarkable).

Within months of its debut, this security robot has already created quite a ruckus — “R2D2’s evil twin,” to be exact according to Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, in Washington, DC.

What makes this robot truly evil? Well…

 The first point is obvious. This device is the NSA’s fantasy; a harmless looking device that collects images and records sound 24/7.

Now, some may say this is awfully Orwellian. Yes, that may be so, but the intentions are good. William Santana Li,  co-founder of the technology company that created K5 Autonomous Data Machine claims that they created this robot “after what happened at Sandy Hook”, based on their assertion that “[we] are never going to have an armed officer in every school”.

School shootings have become more prevalent in the United States over the past few years. There have been 34 shooting events in 1990’s contrasting with 86 shooting events between 2000-2013, according to the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Consequently, K5 Autonomous Data Machine was developed to ensure the safety and security of schools, and possibly an alternative to human guards.

But did you catch that second detriment? No? Human Security will be rendered pointless. Is our world becoming so efficient that it is destroying the working middle class?

Yeah, robots are efficient. Yeah, it’s cheap. Yeah, it’s cool and futuristic, and it feels like you are living on Tatooine.

 But this could drastically hurt our economy, on such a large economic scale proving esteemed economist, David Author, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s theory that technology decimates the working class.

In the United States, the Federal minimum wage in $7.25 an hour, while the implementation of K5 would short the American middle class by an entire dollar at a mere $6.25 an hour reported by the Department of Labor.

This also brings up the recurring argument of privacy vs. security. How much is the common citizen going to compromise in order to procure their safety?

However, I am less worried about security than I am more concerned about the dying off of the middle class. At what point do you draw the line? Case and point, robots don’t need to worry about feeding a family.

 At the end of the day, people are going to complain about both sides. Either, there is not enough protection, or it is too invasive. Myself personally? I’m conflicted. As of now, I want to see more of Evil R2D2.

[NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [littlelostrobot via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Inventions, Privacy, and Economics Intersect: R2D2’s Evil Twin appeared first on Law Street.

A military judge acquitted Pfc. Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy on Tuesday, the most serious of the 22 counts he faced.  However, he was still found guilty of charges that could total a combined 136 years in jail. The charges relate to the massive release of video, diplomatic cables, and classified reports to the website WikiLeaks back in 2010, marking the largest leak of classified material in the history of the United States. Prior to his trial, Manning had pleaded guilty to part of at least 10 different charges and was found guilty on 20 counts Tuesday. The sentencing phase of his trial will begin Wednesday, which will answer most of the remaining questions about the potential for jail time.

In addition to the charge of aiding the enemy, Manning was also found not guilty of leaking a video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed many innocent civilians in 2009.  This case is part of the rising trend in document leaking cases. It is one of seven that occurred during the Obama administration alone.  Parallels have also been drawn between this verdict and the fate of Edward Snowden, who leaked classified National Security Agency files earlier this year.  Snowden currently remains in Russia where he awaits a decision on his application for asylum.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [doodle dubz via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Manning Acquitted of ‘Aiding the Enemy’ but Still Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.