If you were one of the millions of people entranced by James Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week, here’s some of the stories you may have missed. ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy?

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

Reality Winner: NSA Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified Materials

A federal government contractor was charged with removing and mailing classified materials about Russian interference in the 2016 election to a news outlet, the Justice Department announced June 5. Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor, printed and retained classified intelligence reporting from the National Security Agency, containing classified national defense information, on or about May 9, according to the Justice Department.

Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro. But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. T

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NSA Contractor Charged with Leaking Classified Info on Russian Hacking

Yesterday, more information came to light about a top-secret NSA report regarding the Russian involvement in the presidential election last year. The document stated that Russian hackers did attack at least one company providing voting software, just days before the election. It also states that Russian military intelligence was responsible for the cyber attack.

.@theintercept blew its source’s cover by giving the NSA a copy of the leaked document, according to @nytimes https://t.co/PG73Pqe4ZX

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) June 6, 2017

Barely an hour after the article was published online by the Intercept, the Justice Department charged the suspected leaker with sharing classified material with a news organization. The suspect is Reality Winner, a 25-year-old federal contractor at the NSA. According to the government, there is evidence that Winner printed the documents and was in touch with the Intercept. She is the first alleged leaker arrested under President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to crack down on leaks. Now a lot of people are applauding Winner for sharing the information, and for having a pretty cool name.

Daily Recap: Woman named Reality Winner leaked info showing Russia tried to hack elections that gave us a POTUS many think is Surreal Loser.

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) June 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn, the ousted former national security adviser, appears to have violated federal law by accepting money during a trip to Moscow in 2015, according to top lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee. In a press conference after a review of classified documents related to Flynn’s brief stint as the head of the NSA, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the committee, said that Flynn’s failure to disclose the payment could be a prosecutable offense.

“As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else,” Chaffetz said, referring to Flynn’s consulting firm’s undisclosed work with a company tied to the Turkish government. “And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law.” Chaffetz, who delivered remarks on Tuesday with his colleague, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, added: “There was nothing in the data to show that Gen. Flynn complied with the law.”

According to Chaffetz, Flynn failed to disclose the payments when he was seeking a security clearance for his appointment as national security adviser. Moscow reportedly paid Flynn tens of thousands of dollars to make a speech in the capital in 2015, at an event organized by the state-owned Russia Today, or RT. White House officials on Tuesday said they would not turn over documents pertaining to Flynn’s foreign contacts while he served in the administration.

Flynn was pressured to resign from his post in mid-February, less than a month after being sworn in. After reports leaked that Flynn misled administration officials–including Vice President Mike Pence–about the content of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, a public maelstrom ensued. Last month, Flynn offered to testify in the House and Senate investigations into President Donald Trump’s and his campaign advisers’ communications with Russia in exchange for immunity. His offer immediately raised a question: what did he seek immunity from? The latest revelations might offer a clue.

Following Chaffetz’s remarks on Tuesday afternoon, Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, released a statement, denying any wrongdoing on Flynn’s part: “As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of (the Defense Department), extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings.”

Also on Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is probing the Trump-Russia ties, announced it would hold a hearing on May 8. Testifying at the hearing will be former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who initially told the White House about Flynn’s misleading statements to Pence, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

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 Jason Chaffetz: Michael Flynn May Have Broken Federal Law with Moscow Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

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 What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks unleashed its latest trove of secrets: thousands of documents seemingly detailing the espionage techniques the Central Intelligence Agency has developed in recent years. Vault 7–the title WikiLeaks has given its latest series of potentially damaging info dumps–is the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency,” according to the anti-secrecy outfit. Here is what you need to know.

What the Leaks Reveal

Basically, the documents–nearly 9,000 in total–show that the CIA is capable of compromising smartphones, messaging systems, and televisions, and using them as modes of surveillance. Anything that connects through the internet, the CIA can hijack as a listening or viewing portal. Produced by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence from 2013 to 2016, the documents are highly technical, and clearly meant for in-house viewing only. The documents, which have not been verified by the agency, come from an unidentified source.

Some of the programs detailed in the documents have colorful names: Wrecking Crew, CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake, and McNugget to name a few. One program, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung televisions that have internet capabilities and, according to a WikiLeaks description of the program, “operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”

It’s unclear where these documents came from. Some analysts say Russia, which provided WikiLeaks with Democratic operatives’ emails it hacked before the presidential election, could be responsible. While the CIA does not appear to penetrate already-encrypted messages, it is able to intercept messages before the content is encrypted. Encrypted messaging apps–Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram–had also been cracked by the agency.

CIA and NSA: How Are They Different?

There are a number of differences between the National Security Agency’s espionage tools–revealed in 2013 in a WikiLeak dump provided by Edward Snowden–and the CIA’s abilities. For one (and this might save the agency from the same blowback the NSA experienced) there is no evidence that the CIA has spied on Americans. There is also no evidence the CIA, unlike the NSA, has engaged in a massive data collection effort of U.S. citizens.

Instead, the picture the documents paint is one of targeted espionage, focused on foreign actors. Another key distinction: the NSA poked holes that weren’t there to peer through; the CIA uses existing holes, or vulnerabilities in an app or device for surveillance purposes. But it does not appear the agency alerts companies of the vulnerabilities it unearths.

Despite the differences between the NSA’s program and CIA’s, Snowden called the documents “a big deal.” Snowden, who has been holed up in Russia, a country that routinely interferes in the democratic processes of sovereign nations, tweeted:

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

On Tuesday’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, defended the CIA’s tactics. Hayden said the agency does not spy on Americans, but “there are people out there that you want us to spy on.” He added: “You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

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 What You Need to Know About the WikiLeaks CIA Document Dump appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

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 Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! Catch up on what you missed last week with Law Streets’s top stories. An innocent man seeks a new trial after Gov. Mike Pence declined to pardon him, Crime in America has release the top ten most dangerous cities under 200,000, and an NSA contractor has been arrested for stealing and leaking classified codes. ICYMI–Check out these top stories below!

1. Innocent Man Seeks New Trial After Governor Mike Pence Declined Pardon

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence is being criticized for his response to a controversial case in which a man was wrongfully convicted. Now the man is asking to go back to court for another trial since Pence, as Indiana’s Governor, won’t grant him a pardon until he has tried all other judicial options. Read the full article here.

2. Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

Rockford, Illinois, is the most dangerous city in the U.S. with a population between 100,000-200,000 people, displacing Little Rock, Arkansas, which now ranks as #2. Tallahassee, Florida moved onto the list at #8 after just missing the cut at #12 last year; Odessa, Texas also moved from #11 to #9. Many of the rest of the positions held steady and only saw small increases or decreases in their violent crime rates. Read the full article here.

3. NSA Contractor Arrested For Stealing and Leaking Classified Codes

The FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor suspected of stealing and leaking highly classified material that is used for hacking foreign governments’ networks. The suspect, Harold Thomas Martin, has been in custody since August and worked for the same firm as famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, Booz Allen Hamilton. This firm is responsible for some of the most secretive and sensitive operations of the NSA. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No, All Chinese People Don’t Know Karate

On Monday night, the “O’Reilly Factor” showed reporter Jesse Watters on a mission to find out what people on the streets of Chinatown are thinking about the 2016 election. Instead he ended up making fun of Chinese people by using blatantly racist stereotypes. He asked people if they know karate (the Japanese martial art), or if he should bow while saying hello to them, if in China they call Chinese food just “food,” and he made fun of old people who didn’t speak English.

The segment was immediately criticized by a whole bunch of journalists and pundits as blatantly racist. Did Fox apologize? Of course not…instead, the network tweeted that it was “hilarious.”

Hilarious #WattersWorld: @JesseBWatters Goes Down to Chinatown to Find Out What They Think of @realDonaldTrump: https://t.co/HBQCGdHO01

— Fox Nation (@foxnation) October 4, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI secretly arrested a National Security Agency contractor suspected of stealing and leaking highly classified material that is used for hacking foreign governments’ networks. The suspect, Harold Thomas Martin, has been in custody since August and worked for the same firm as famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, Booz Allen Hamilton. This firm is responsible for some of the most secretive and sensitive operations of the NSA.

Maryland Man Charged With Removal of Classified Materials and Theft of Government Property https://t.co/fHMngJZQ6x

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) October 5, 2016

Martin is suspected of stealing a “source code” that the NSA uses to break into the computer systems of hostile foreign countries like China, North Korea, and Russia. It is unclear if he has shared the code with anyone yet. If leaked, the documents could “cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the U.S.,” according to a statement from the U.S. Justice Department.

Here’s how the criminal complaint describes the NSA contractor’s response. pic.twitter.com/TCExbnoDPl

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) October 5, 2016

The 52-year-old Maryland man now faces one year in prison if found guilty of removing the materials, and ten more for the theft. The FBI searched his home and car, where it found several documents and digital information marked as “top secret.” They also found unspecified “government material” up to a value of $1,000.

The formal charges are theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials by a government employee or contractor. This case is different from Snowden’s because of the material stolen and the purpose of it. Snowden was a whistleblower who acquired classified documents and leaked them for the public benefit. Martin stole the actual code software that is used in NSA operations and that can be sold and used for cyber warfare.

Edward Snowden, currently exiled in Russia, tweeted about the news.

This is huge. Did the FBI secretly arrest the person behind the reports NSA sat on huge flaws in US products? https://t.co/otgOwB5efm

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 5, 2016

According to the Independent, the material in this case could be connected to the recent theft of secret material by the hacker group Shadow Brokers, which also included a source code that was traced to the NSA. The hackers also left a cryptic message in broken English, saying, “We want make sure Wealthy Elite recognizes the danger cyber weapons, this message, our auction, poses to their wealth and control.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Contractor Arrested For Stealing and Leaking Classified Codes appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Yahoo: “U.S. Intelligence Made Us Do It!”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Yahoo has been doing broad sweeps of its users’ incoming emails under the (no longer) classified directive of the NSA or the FBI. The details of what the company was supposed to be looking for are still unclear. When asked about the matter, Yahoo said: “Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States.”

Which is legalese for: Yahoo denies any semblance of wrongdoing. This news comes weeks after Yahoo announced a 500 million account hack.

*Suspicious squint*

Also Yahoo’s pending deal to be purchased by telecom giant Verizon for $4.8 billion is looking pretty rickety.

via GIPHY

Sources say that it is likely other tech companies have been ordered by the government to conduct this type of surveillance too. Reuters says Google and Microsoft have not responded to requests for comment on the issue.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Intercept released a batch of 166 previously unseen documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The release fulfilled Snowden’s wishes for the classified information, by pairing it with context that makes it accessible and understandable to the general public. The Intercept also attempted to protect the personal welfare of innocent individuals associated with the information.

On its website, the Intercept declared that it will release the documents in batches, starting with the oldest ones from 2003 and going all the way until the most recent documents, from 2012. The documents in question are from the NSA’s internal newsletter called SIDtoday, short for Signals Intelligence Directorate.

On Tuesday, reports came that the CIA “mistakenly” destroyed a 6,700 page U.S. torture report, containing thousands of confidential files about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation. Something that does sound very fishy, and Snowden said:

I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it's never a mistake. https://t.co/S1VULfE4NY

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 18, 2016

Along with the release of information, the Intercept published four accompanying articles. One went through how closely the NSA was involved in the Guantánamo interrogations, explaining how staff were sent to the military base during the time that the torture-like interrogations took place. It states:

The NSA LNO might pull together intelligence to support an upcoming interrogation, formulate questions and strategies for the interrogation, and observe or participate in the interrogation.

The documents and corresponding articles also account for how the staff spent their free time doing water sports, going to a Tiki bars, or:

Pottery, hiking, nature walks, biking, paintball, martial arts, tennis, racquetball, basketball, softball, and bowling.

This all sounds like a relaxing, enjoyable vacation. But reports from FBI agents who were disturbed by the conditions under which the prisoners were questioned all stem from the same time period. They state that prisoners were questioned while lying chained to the floor in fetal positions, while exposed to aggressive dogs, and while starved as just a few of the examples. The reports also stated that the interrogators claimed to be FBI agents, to avoid later blame for abuse and possible repercussions.

Another article from the Intercept goes through the most intriguing spy stories that have come to light as a result of the documents. For example, it highlights North Korean nuclear plans, Russian mobsters, and information about the rescue of a kidnapped female soldier.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 and is dedicated to fearless reporting. The site is known especially for its coverage of the Snowden documents–editor Glenn Greenwald was one of the original recipients. Batches of more documents are coming shortly, so stay tuned as more of Snowden’s revelations come to light.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Intercept Releases New Snowden Documents, Details About Guantánamo appeared first on Law Street.

The Twittersphere was treated to a particularly strange dose of conspiracy theory nuttiness this week when rapper B.oB. went head-to-head with famed scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson over whether or not the earth is flat. Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans published an excellent rundown of the bizarre feud on Tuesday, but it got me thinking: why do so many seemingly insane conspiracy theories exist? After all, we all know that the earth is round, and vaccines don’t cause autism, and that Elvis Presley is probably dead. But then, some conspiracy theories do kind of turn out to true–take, for example, the NSA spying on Americans. So, how do we separate the crazy from the not-so-crazy? Turns out University of Oxford postdoctoral research associate David Robert Grimes has figured out a way, by determining how long it would take conspiracy theories to be debunked.

Grimes essentially set out to answer a simple question: how long would it take for the truth to come out about a conspiracy theory? In order to test the equation he developed, Grimes looked at three conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true, and compared them to four other long-standing theories, in an attempt to figure out how long it would have taken those theories to be debunked, whether intentionally or accidentally.

The three “true” conspiracy theories that Grimes looked at were:

• The NSA’s spying program, which whistle-blower Edward Snowden released information about in 2013.
• The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a horrifying “clinical study” that involved researchers essentially experimenting on and withholding treatment from 600 African-American male participants.
• The FBI’s use of questionable techniques and pseudo-science in sworn testimony, particularly involving the FBI’s microscopic hair comparison unit, that led to hundreds of wrongful convictions.

According to Grimes, these conspiracy theories were exposed in six years, 25 years, and six years respectively. Grimes’ equation takes into account conditions like how many people would have to be involved in each coverup and the amount of effort the coverups would require. So he was able to mathematically calculate how long it should take a secret to be exposed–whether from a whistle-blower’s actions or accidentally.

Using that calculation, he was able to determine how long it would take four popular conspiracy theories to have been debunked:

• NASA faking the moon landing would have been uncovered in four years.
• Climate change, if only concealed by climate scientists, would have taken 27 years to be debunked. But, if you involved scientific bodies and agencies, the possible cover up time drops to under four years.
• The conspiracy theory that vaccines aren’t safe would take just over three years if drug companies were involved, but much longer (35 years) if it was limited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.
• If pharmaceutical companies knew how to cure cancer but were withholding those cures from the public, we would have found out in a little over three years.

According to Think Progress’s Lauren C. Williams:

For a conspiracy to last five years, just over 2,500 people could actively know the truth before it’s revealed. Fewer than 1,000 people can know about it to keep the conspiracy alive for 10 years, and only 125 people could be involved to keep a conspiracy going for a century, the study found.

So, is the world flat? Well, we already know it’s not, but now here’s proof that if it is, it defies what science tells us in more ways than one.

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 The Earth isn’t Flat: The Science of Waiting Out Conspiracy Theories appeared first on Law Street.

A U.S. Appeals Court just issued a decision that threw out a preliminary injunction that would have prevented bulk data collection by the government. This decision is important, but also very confusing because the NSA program that it challenges was changed in June following the passage of the USA Freedom Act. There is a lot going on here so let’s break down the ruling and what it means for the case’s future.

Friday’s decision came from a panel of three DC Circuit Court judges who in a 2-1 ruling threw out an injunction from the district court ruling. In the initial ruling in December 2013, DC District Court Judge Richard J. Leon found that there are “significant privacy interests at stake and the unprecedented scope of the NSA’s collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment.” Judge Leon issued an injunction that would end the collection of bulk data under the NSA’s program and would require the agency to destroy previously collected records. However, given the national security interests at stake the judge stayed, or put on hold, his injunction pending an appeal decision from the circuit court. That ruling was issued on Friday and two of the three judges on the panel decided that there were not sufficient grounds for the injunction to be issued. But the judges’ decision to throw out the injunction does not mean that the case is over. In fact the judges did not really rule on the facts of the case, instead they remanded it back to the lower court.

First, it is important to understand why the case remains valid even after Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which effectively ended the government’s bulk phone metadata collection. Parts of the USA PATRIOT ACT–which was what the government used to justify the NSA data collection program–expired on June 1 following a Rand Paul filibuster. The next day, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act that maintained the government’s ability to get phone call metadata information using court warrants, but moved the actual collection of data to individual wireless carriers (like AT&T and Verizon) rather than the NSA. This compromise settled a lot of the debate about the NSA’s program, but in order to allow for a transition the existing program was allowed to continue for 180 days after the law took effect on June 2. The judges in Friday’s ruling decided that the case was not moot because the previous form of collection continued during the 180 day period.

So what does the ruling mean? The DC Circuit Court’s ruling will not necessarily affect the outcome of the case as it focused on whether the present facts constitute sufficient ground for the injunction issued by Judge Leon. The issue at hand for the plaintiffs–Larry Klayman and Charles Strange–is providing sufficient evidence to show that the NSA’s bulk data collection affected them specifically. The judges ruled that while Klayman and Strange provided enough evidence to indicate that they had legal standing to challenge the program, they did not meet the higher threshold required for injunctive relief.

The lack of specific information about the program creates an issue for the plaintiffs because they are unable to provide direct proof that their data was collected. The crux of their claim focuses on the fact that the bulk data collection system exists and that the government has acknowledged that it collected data from Verizon Business customers. Both plaintiffs are Verizon Wireless customers, not Verizon Business customers, but they speculate that their data was most likely collected based on what we know about the program.

Per Circuit Court Judge Stephen F. Williams’ opinion:

Plaintiffs claim to suffer injury from government collection of records from their telecommunications provider relating to their calls. But plaintiffs are subscribers of Verizon Wireless, not of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.—the sole provider that the government has acknowledged targeting for bulk collection… plaintiffs lack direct evidence that records involving their calls have actually been collected

Judge Janice Rogers Brown joined the court’s opinion and also wrote separately to reiterate:

While plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible—not substantially likely—that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing.

The case will now go back down to the district court to see if further discovery between the plaintiffs and the government is appropriate. While the judges did not stop the case outright, they do note that it will likely be difficult for Klayman and Strange to get sufficient evidence indicating that their data was collected. Doing so will depend on the government’s willingness to release information about a program that it desperately wants to keep secret. So far, the only court to rule on the facts of the bulk data collection program, the Second Circuit Court in New York, ruled against the NSA–and if this case gets that far it will likely follow suit. According to the initial ruling from Judge Leon, the case will likely show that the program was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that will only happen if they are able to get sufficient information from the government. We will have to keep watching this case to see whether the plaintiffs have a reasonable chance.

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 Court Reverses Injunction on Bulk Data Collection: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Portions of a law known as the Patriot Act were allowed to expire on May 31, 2015. The Patriot Act is one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history, originating in a time of fear and later being at the heart of leaks by Edward Snowden that revealed a massive data gathering effort by the NSA of Americans’ information. Read on to learn more about what exactly the Patriot Act is, where it originated from, and the future outlook of its laws.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is one of most divisive laws passed in recent history; however, like many other boogeymen, the actual details of what it entails are unclear to much of the American public. So what exactly is the Patriot Act?

What is the Patriot Act?

The USA Patriot Act or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed in October 2001. The act dramatically expanded the ability of the United States government to conduct surveillance and investigate citizens without their knowledge.

Unlike similar preceding pieces of legislation, this act lacked the familiar protections that preserve rights in the face of legislation; its statutes were also hard to define and limit. This was due to the speed at which the law passed through congress and was signed by President George W. Bush. The bill was passed quickly due to widespread fear mongering immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, including on the part of Attorney General John Ashcroft who warned any delay could result in another devastating attack.  Watch the video below for more details on the Patriot Act.

Illegality

In the first legal challenge to the act, despite it being in place since 2001, a three-judge panel ruled the law illegal. The panel, however, did not say the law was unconstitutional; instead that the federal government’s mass-data collections had gone beyond what the original creators of the act envisioned when they signed it into law. This is an important distinction in that it effectively says that lawmakers have power to create such an all-encompassing law, but that the Patriot Act was no such law.

Expired Provisions

While the recent ruling may have impacted the decision to let parts of the law expire, the Patriot Act was actually created with built in sunset provisions that were designed to expire unless extended by congress. Thus, after much deliberation, key components of the act were allowed to expire. One such aspect was the so-called Lone Wolf provision, which basically allowed the U.S. intelligence system to monitor individual people even if they had no known terrorist affiliation. This clause was supposedly never used and it was only allowable against non-citizens.

Another major aspect allowed to expire was the roving wiretap. As the name implied, it allowed the surveillance network to maintain taps on any one of a person’s devices, not just a single phone.

Probably the most well-known provision of the law allowed to expire was section 215. This section was the grounds the NSA used to collect data on a large number of Americans without their express permission, even if they were not suspected of terrorism or of any other crime. This section had also been used by agencies such as the CIA and FBI to track financial records of suspected terrorists and criminals.  The video below highlights what provisions of the Patriot Act will expire and what that means, specifically in relation to section 215.

Its Future and Its Successors

While these unpopular parts of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire, a similar successor was quickly passed. Known as the Freedom Act, this new law allows for greater transparency and puts the onus for compiling phone records on companies. Additionally, the Freedom Act also requires the disclosure of how often data collection is requested and allows for more opinions from judges from the mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the aftermath of the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act and following the passage of the Freedom Act, opinions quickly poured in. While those who supported the Patriot Act claim that this has led to a degradation in U.S. security, many others actually view the two bills as essentially the same. In fact, for this latter group, the new Freedom Act does little more than privatize the collection of people’s data while offering the vaguest efforts at greater transparency. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA was compiling the data, but now the onus will fall on the telecom companies themselves. Now the companies will store the data and whenever the NSA or FBI wants to use it they will need to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Aside from changing who collects the data, the new law really does not do much. This new collection method may actually cost more due to private inefficiencies and also the money the government will pay the companies for their efforts. It also protects these same companies, such as AT&T, from lawsuits. Meaning, regardless of opinion, Americans may now be paying more money to spy on themselves. The video below explains the specifics of the new Freedom Act, even suggesting that it might lead to more widespread surveillance.

When the Freedom Act successfully passed through congress, despite repeated efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama immediately signed the legislation. While he and others in the government and business community lauded the new act and its potential for greater oversight and transparency, the reality remains to be seen.

The Origins of the Act

Most people associate the Patriot Act with the events of 9/11. In actuality, many of the ideas contained in the act had been debated for years but had not won the necessary support. The Patriot Act was actually the result of a compromise over another proposed bill known as the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, while the events of 9/11 did not necessarily spawn the ideas for the Patriot Act, they did serve as the catalyst to convince lawmakers that a law of that type was at last needed to prevent any further attacks.

However, how they came to this decision and how it was passed has only added fuel to the fire of those who find it controversial and even illegal. The law was originally introduced to congress by Ashcroft, who gave congress a week to pass the bill or risk the consequences of another attack. Members in both houses attempted to make changes to the law, but most were scrapped in order to meet the deadline. Certainly no one wanted to be responsible for another terrorist attack against the United States due to idleness.

While the law itself has generated controversy, extending its provision has also led to extended debates. In 2009 when it was first up for review, certain provisions were set to expire, which led to a lengthy debate and even a delayed vote. In the end, though, President Obama reauthorized the act in 2010 for one more year.

The president had another opportunity the following year, in 2011, to refuse to authorize the act or at least to add amendments. One such amendment, suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), called for government oversight and transparency for how the act was used by the FBI. Leahy had actually been the one leading the charge for more oversight measures for the original act, too. Despite these attempts, the amendment was ignored once more and President Obama confirmed the act yet again.

Public Sentiment

An act this controversial and requiring so much support would seem to be a likely candidate for the legislative trash heap; however, even following the disclosure made by Edward Snowden about the NSA monitoring civilians’ phones, this law is still far from unpopular. In fact, the opposite is true. In light of the act expiring, CNN polled people across party lines to gather their opinions. According to that poll, 61 percent of people felt the law should have been renewed.

Additionally, while lawmakers in Washington did not agree that the Patriot Act as it was originally constructed should be renewed, they did agree that something similar was still needed to support America’s anti-terrorism efforts. In an odd coupling, Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans united to defeat the expiring Patriot Act and then pass its successor, the Freedom Act. While the Freedom Act was overwhelmingly passed, small groups on both sides held out. On one side were those in the old-guard of Republicans, such as McConnell and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who felt the Patriot Act should have been renewed as it was. Conversely, some legislators such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) wanted it scrapped altogether. Paul and his like-minded supporters viewed the whole program as an example of government overreach.

The public and congress therefore still view the Patriot Act and its successor as necessary and vital to national security, even after the Snowden revelations revealed that security is coming at a cost to everyone’s privacy.

Conclusion

The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial law, passed during a time of public terror in the wake of the greatest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. The law itself gave the American intelligence community widespread powers to spy on and investigate its own citizens, without discretion and often without reason.

After much public outcry, the most contested parts of the law were allowed to die off; however, its  successor the Freedom Act guarantees nearly the same all-encompassing powers for the intelligence community, while merely shifting the effort to compile data onto communications companies. All this, even in the face of revelations, that data compiled through the Patriot Act did not aid in any major terror investigation.

Sources

Primary

Electronic Privacy Information Center: USA Patriot Act

Additional

USA Today: Here’s what happens now that the Patriot Act provisions expired

Reuters: USA Freedom Act vs. expired Patriot Act Provisions: How Do the Spy Laws Differ?

Daily Tech: Despite Support From Senator Sanders, Senator Paul Loses USA Freedom Act Fight

Politifact: Revise the Patriot Act to Increase Oversight on Government Surveillance

CNN: Six in Ten Back Renewal of NSA Data Collection

Law Street Media: NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal

NPR: NSA’s Bulk Collection of American’s Phone Data is illegal, appeals court rules

Business Insider: Obama’s Signature on the Freedom Act Reverses Security Policy That Has Been in Place Since 9/11

CNN: NSA Surveillance Bill Passes After Weeks-Long Showdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expiration of Patriot Act Reignites Security v. Privacy Debate in America appeared first on Law Street.

On December 24, the National Security Agency (NSA) released 12 years of internal reports that detailed improper surveillance procedures used on Americans. It was either the world’s weirdest attempt at an early Christmas present, or the NSA was just trying to release the news while no one was paying attention. Either way, the NSA essentially detailed a twelve year history of spying on the American people.

The NSA put out the following statement when they released the reports:

These materials show, over a sustained period of time, the depth and rigor of NSA’s commitment to compliance. By emphasizing accountability across all levels of the enterprise, and transparently reporting errors and violations to outside oversight authorities, NSA protects privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies

The reports weren’t just released out of the benevolence of the NSA’s heart, of course. The agency released the documents as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The reports were originally prepared for the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board. They stretched from the end of 2001 to the middle of 2013. After Edward Snowden released information about the NSA’s transgressions in June of 2013, the American people have been concerned about the extent to which the NSA has kept a close watch on electronic means of communication.

While heavily redacted, the documents detail instances in which NSA employees either conducted unauthorized surveillance, made mistakes, shared data with others, and/or committed other types of transgressions. While none of what was released by the NSA was particularly surprising, it definitely included many incidences that could be seen as embarrassing to the agency.

One such incident was a situation in which an NSA employee snooped into her spouse’s personal communications. According to the report this employee:

reported that, during the past two or three years, she had searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting.

Apparently that’s a common enough problem that such violations have earned the name “LOVEINT,” presumably some abbreviation of a phrase like “Love Intelligence,” although it is difficult to be completely sure.

It’s understandable that an agency the size of the NSA would occasionally have mistakes occur, but the reports really just seem to confirm the suspicions of American people that there’s been unauthorized spying for the last decade or so. While it’s difficult to see how many times laws were actually broken, there’s definitely evidence of privacy violations here. While it was certainly no surprise, people have every right to be mad about the confirmation of misbehavior by the NSA.

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 NSA Confirms Improper Surveillance of Americans 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.

On Thursday, January 20, 2014, President Obama nominated Vice Admiral Michael S. Rogers to replace General Keith Alexander to be the new Chief of the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has been buffeted by controversy after controversy due to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Considering all of the new allegations coming to light on a continual basis, it is important to ask how Michael Rogers, if confirmed by the Senate, can change the NSA — and if he can change it for the better.

Vice Admiral Rogers is a decorated, longtime member of the armed forces, specializing in cryptology in the Navy shortly after graduating Auburn University in 1981. Beginning in 2003, Rogers served the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Iraq War as part of the Joint Staff, the advisory team tasked with analyzing current and future strategies in warfare, including the network defense capabilities overseen by Rogers himself. The Vice Admiral has had a smooth career progression since that stint, shooting up to Director of Intelligence for Pacific Command in 2007, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2009, and finally becoming the first-ever commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command.

Rogers’ Senate confirmation most likely will take another month, and citing a tradition barring any media interviews until after confirmation, it is unlikely that average Americans will get to know their future NSA Chief ahead of that. He is most likely going to be asked about his operations in Cyber Command, as that agencies, as well as the NSA, are pertinent to national cybersecurity. President Obama, ignoring recommendations from an NSA advisory panel and Director of Intelligence James Clapper, Jr., has decided to keep the NSA and Cyber Command leadership posts under the same roof.

Yet, now that we know Vice Admiral Rogers is an exemplary officer, the question arises whether he’ll be looking to safeguard Americans’ privacy in this new digital age. The Snowden documents have outlined numerous programs designed to collect bulk data from Americans every day, and there is a new public shift in opinion toward reigning in these programs. According to an Associated Press/GfK poll released January 27, 60 percent of respondents reported valuing privacy over terrorism concerns regarding NSA activities. In a statement following Rogers’ nomination, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said, “I am…confident that Adm. Rogers has the wisdom to help balance the demands of security, privacy, and liberty in our digital age.” Confidence in Rogers would be appropriate considering his admirable service to our country, but it remains to be seen how Rogers will deal with the politics that come along with the country’s concerns over domestic surveillance programs.

One issue to ponder during Rogers’ confirmation hearings include possible clemency for Edward Snowden, as interest in this topic has picked up in recent weeks. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that the majority of Americans think Snowden should be charged with committing a crime, as opposed to allowing full clemency (52-38%). Reconciling this information with editorial boards, such as the New York Times, calling for forgiveness for the former systems administrator, will be tough, indeed. Rogers will have to work with the NSA’s new privacy advocate, Rebecca Richards, in order to properly safeguard Americans’ privacy rights. On top of these new responsibilities of the newest NSA leader, there are reports that privacy advocates aren’t too sure of the President’s nominee. This is natural, considering Rogers’ extensive experience within the nation’s armed forces.

President Obama introduced new reforms into the government’s phone metadata collection program, one of the first operations revealed by the Snowden leaks through the Guardian and the Washington Post. It is not clear as of now how Vice Admiral Rogers will handle changes such as acquiring a warrant before searching the metadata database; tracking individuals two steps removed from a suspected terrorist as opposed to the former three steps; and deciding where the metadata information will be stored. The pressure’s on for the experienced cryptologist, as there are conflicting court decisions over the legality of the phone surveillance program, as well as a federal commission voting 3-2 that the metadata practices are unconstitutional.

Whether one thinks that the National Security Agency programs are constitutional or illegal, it will take some time for there to be a consensus within the federal court system — most likely to be determined by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’ll be important to see how Vice Admiral Rogers answers the questions at his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. This will be the key to how America’s spy programs will be run for the time being.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Rogers via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Who Is Our Next NSA Chief? 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.

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. His name continues to circulate the news press this week, as the government privacy board is set to release a report on Thursday January 23rd, saying that the National Security Agency’s wide spread collection of phone records, violates the law and should be shut down.  

Let us go back to the beginning, where this controversy first ignited. In June 2013, Snowden released the operations of the United State’s global surveillance program including the monitoring of both Internet and phone use of US citizens to The Washington Post and The Guardian. Rather than staying in the shadows and remaining anonymous, this whistleblower chose to take responsibility for his actions, saying, “my sole motive is to inform the public, as to which is done in their name.”

This leak of secret NSA documents spurred debate across the country. Just as Snowden had hoped, citizens have become more informed about governmental actions. American’s are now questioning the link between national security and privacy as well as wondering what else the government is going to great lengths to hide.

The NSA claims that they have the right to obtain phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which states that it is within the power of the government to collect records that are relevant to terrorist investigations. However, pressure from the privacy board has caused key governing figures to question the constitutionality of this surveillance program, specifically in regards to phone monitoring.

Last Friday, President Obama announced his plan to change the system of the mass collection of phone records, shifting it from the hands of the government to a private company such as AT&T or Verizon. Along with a possible shift in power, Obama suggested a requirement of approval from the courts in order to obtain records. While the President did explain these future reforms, he maintained the idea that the government should have access to phone records if needed. Not everyone is satisfied with these changes and some would like to see an end put to the phone surveillance program completely.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have obtained the 238 page report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which has not yet been released. The report calls to shut down the mass collection of phone records previously exposed by Edward Snowden. The Privacy and Liberties board in charge of protecting the privacy rights of the citizenry, admits that the program has not prevented any terrorist attacks and instead, has infringed upon the privacy of American citizens. The board further opposes the protection of the program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants the government the power to use phone records in order to obtain relevant information. The privacy board argues that it is not possible to obtain only relevant information when using a tool that allows unlimited access to phone content.

The board further states that the NSA phone program is questionable in regards to both the first and fourth amendments. They turned to the 1979 ruling of the Supreme Court, stating that the police do not need a warrant to search through phone numbers or call durations. However, the board points to the fact that the surveillance being done today is on a mass scale, and is not comparable to the specific cases investigated by police.

Whether the NSA phone program will come to a complete end in the near future is not known at this time. It can be seen that there is current pressure being put on the government, in order, to make the program less intrusive on private citizens. I agree that the program must be altered, as it can be considered harmful to freedom of speech. The conversations that we have over the phone are of our own choice, which should be respected by the government. On the other hand, I do agree that if the security of our nation is being threatened based on a phone call, it is within the best interest of the public for the government to intervene. It seems that the best solution would be for the government to focus on the threatening situations at hand rather than eavesdropping on where my friends and I are meeting for lunch.

[Time] [Nationaljournal] [Theguardian] [Politico]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn13)

Featured image courtesy of [EFF via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

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 [Dan Moyle 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 Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

2013 was the year that brought us the NSA spying scandal, thanks to Edward Snowden. 2014 may be the year that brings us answers about what the NSA was doing, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit that if successful, would require the NSA to disclose the details of their spying program, under the parameters of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The two sides of the argument are anything but clear. The ACLU is filing in regards to Act 12333, signed in 1981, which allows surveillance of foreign targets. The ACLU is claiming that the actions taken by the NSA go beyond what is allowed by the Act 12333. This is just the latest in multiple ACLU lawsuits agains the NSA and other related government agencies and departments. Other lawsuits have included arguments that the NSA spying in unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments, or that it goes beyond what is allowed by the Patriot Act.

The government has obviously not lain out a public defense yet, but there has been speculation about how this lawsuit will fare. One of the ways that the government might address the controversy is to emphasize a long history of the third party doctrine. The third party doctrine was born out of a few different Supreme Court cases, originally Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller. In the Miller case regarding government access of a citizen’s bank account, the Supreme Court stated,

The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.

Essentially, this means that our right to privacy does not guarantee our privacy from warrantless searches if the information has been provided to third-parties on a voluntary basis.  This third party doctrine was obviously much different before our constant use of technology. Now, almost everything we do online can fall under the third party doctrine–meaning that almost everything we do is hypothetically fair game for the NSA. Another way in which the government could defend their actions could be a Patriot Act based argument.

Of course, we don’t know if these arguments, or something completely different, will be how the Government defends their actions in court, or even if it will make it that far. A spokesman for the Justice Department has stated that the government plans to respond to the lawsuit in court. Given the amount of similar lawsuits by the ACLU that have been rejected and are now up for appeal, this could very well lead to a very public Supreme Court battle that will decide the future of government oversight through electronic means.

[The Atlantic]

—

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 [National Security Agency via Wikipedia]

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 ACLU Files New NSA Suit appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we are very interested in the changing world of law. So as the wild ride that was 2013 comes to an end, I thought it would be fun to count down the biggest changes, innovations, and crazy moments in the world of law and politics this year.

8. George Zimmerman Trial 

What happened: On July 14, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. This verdict was understandably met with widespread shock. Some people were angry, some were vindicated, but everyone had an opinion.

Protests like this happened all over the country. Courtesy of Werth Media via Flickr.

Why it matters: Anyone who regularly reads my pieces knows that I’m a big fan of talking. I think, maybe misguidedly, that open dialogue is a great thing and solves 80 percent of problems. And if you’re looking for strong dialogue in 2013, look no further than the debate that occurred immediately after the Zimmerman acquittal. We saw conversations about the implications of stand your ground laws, gun control, and institutionalized racism. Now my hopeless naiveté won’t go so far as to say that these conversations were productive. But they happened, they’ve been introduced, and my dearest hope is that next year I’ll be able to say that we’ve made progress out of the tragedy that was Trayvon Martin’s death.

7. Jeff Bezos Buys the Washington Post 

What happened: Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, bought The Washington Post this summer in a $250 million deal. Now this might seem a little off topic — what does the purchase of a newspaper have to do with law and politics?

Why it matters: The world is changing. Media is changing, and we know this because a multi-billionaire who made his fortune from an internet sales company just bought one of the most influential papers in the country. That’s big because it means our media is getting smarter, it’s gaining control, and the internet is increasingly becoming a one-stop-shop for all we need. Plus, if Amazon follows through on its promises, we might get our newspaper delivered by drones, which would be pretty cool.

I’m mostly really excited about this drone delivery idea, guys.

6. Pope Francis Begins His Papacy

What happened: On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis became the head of the Catholic Church.

Why it matters: He immediately enacted some pretty serious changes. He downgraded the extravagant Vatican facilities. He has been advocating for more inclusive Church policies. He stated, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” He has said that the the Catholic Church needs to stop being so obsessed with social issues. The Pope changing his views on this could push some big changes for American politics. Don’t get me wrong, he is still a Catholic Pope and he is still a conservative man. But he works with the poor and he seems to be a man of the 21st century, and I have to give him props for that.

High Five, Pope Francis.

5. The Manti Te’o Girlfriend Hoax

What happened: This is probably an odd one to put so high on my list, but it was a very, very weird story. A Notre Dame linebacker, who now plays for the San Diego Chargers, told a story about his girlfriend, a Stanford University student named Lennay Kekua who had died of Leukemia. In January 2013, it was discovered that Lennay Kekua never existed. Her relationship with Te’o was purely online. The culprit behind the hoax turned out to be a man named Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, who may have fallen in love with Te’o while pretending to be his fictional girlfriend.

This refers to the online part, not the falling in love part. That part’s slightly less weird.

Why it matters: We’re at the point where a convincing and moving relationship can be forged 100 percent online. I know I’m a millennial who does everything online, but maybe I’m a bad one, because I simply can’t fathom that. I think this marks a big change in our world. Five years ago, if a professional athlete revealed that he had an online relationship with a woman he had never met, it would be completely ridiculous. Now, it was ridiculed, and commentators were surprised, but people understood how it could happen. Online presences can supersede our real lives now, and that’s scary.

4. Dems Detonate “Nuclear Option”

What happened: After a series of failed judicial nominees, Senate Democrats took drastic action. They changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees can move to the confirmation process with a simple majority of Senators, rather than a super majority of 60.

Why it matters: This will fundamentally change the way in which federal judicial nominees are confirmed. It may also permanently change the courts. If Presidents no longer need to pick moderates who can garner a 60-vote confirmation, the courts will get more liberal during a Democratic presidency, or more conservative during a Republican presidency.

3. NSA Spying Scandal

What happened: Although this event started in 2012, it got really big in 2013. Edward Snowden’s release of the extent of NSA monitoring shocked the American public. Snowden has since fled the United States.

The American reaction.

Why it matters: The intersection of politics, law, and technology continues to weave a tangled web, and the NSA scandal was the greatest proof of that phenomenon. We are being watched, and there’s nothing that we can do about it. Comparisons to Big Brother and 1984 were made, but that’s the truth, and people realized that this year. There’s a different level of trust in the government now.

2. The Affordable Care Act Mess

What happened: The rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the biggest mess I’ve seen in a long time. From the government shutdown that preceded it, to the internet issues, to the logistical problems, it was kind of a hot mess.

See another hot mess for context.

Why it matters: The ACA is still in place. It’s not perfect. It has problems. But it’s still a law and despite the Republicans’ best efforts, it will continue. That was an important lesson for everyone to learn this year. We will have hot mess laws and these laws will create problems;  however, they will remain the law. We can fix or repeal them, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist, and we can’t pretend that we can will them away.

1. Gay Rights

What happened: 2013 was a huge year for gay rights. In June, the Supreme Court handed down big successes for federal and state gay marriage rights. Gay marriage became legal in Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii and Illinois.

Why it matters: Obviously there’s still a long way to go, but any slow, small steps down the right path are good. Notably conservative states — Utah and New Mexico — even got in on the action, albeit through court-mandated measures.

So here’s to 2013. It was wild, it was weird, and it was revolutionary. I don’t know about you all, but I’m excited to see what 2014 brings.

—

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 [Sally Mahoney 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 The Most Influential News Events of 2013 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.

You may think that technological advances ensure a more secure future but think again, as technology evolves, ability to organize cyber attacks evolves in tandem.

This is most notably seen in the Visa & Mastercard Heist  in which people hacked both Visa and Mastercard, stealing 45 million dollars remotely in only hours.This cyber attacked happened around the world, all by the hands of computer criminals manipulating financial information. In turn, this information was used to loot the automated teller machines in major cities such as New York.

But as horrible as this may be, technology offers the ability to ensure security and privacy (If only phone providers could get behind the idea).

It may have not happened to you personally, but over the fiscal year of 2012, over 1.6 million smart phones were stolen. 

District attorney, George Gascón of San Francisco wants to fix this. In fact, phone manufacturers want to solve this problem as well. Unfortunately, cellular providers do not.

Gascón hopes to fix this rampant problem by implementing a kill switch into smart phones. This would be accomplished through a “kill switch” that would terminate smart phones if they were reported as stolen. Gascón is suspicious of the wireless carriers’ motives for rejecting the kill switch, claiming “there were email conversations between Samsung and the kill-switch developer, saying that the carriers were concerned about losing business”.

 Currently, many smart phones enable the option to wipe the memory of the phone if a perpetrator attempts to enter the phone. Unfortunately, without the backing of major cellular providers, these phones are still operable.This brings up the question—should cellular providers offer the option of a kill switch.

Yeah, why not? As technology becomes more penetrable, counter tactics must be implemented to secure the consumers regardless of economic motive. This leads to the follow up question—why don’t cellular companies implement the kill switch?

Although, there has not been an official reason, its pretty obvious why– its a terminate button. What business model would intentional provide consumers an option to terminate their service?  Providers say they will look into it but I wouldn’t get too excited. Either way, I wouldn’t expect a kill switch unless you work for the NSA.

In fact, the kill switch option may generate more revenue for some companies who take the initial step.

Bottom line, as privacy becomes persistently limited, cellular providers eventually should change their policies to appease the consumers.

[Huffingtonpost] [NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Stahlkocher via Wikipedia]

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 Don’t Kill the “Kill Switch” appeared first on Law Street.

SPECIAL REPORT from The F Word! PEN America liked me so much on Tuesday that they invited me to cover another event last night. So all you Law Street readers get to listen to the melodious sound of my voice an extra time this week. Lucky you.

Anyway! Together with independent researchers at the FDR Group, PEN published a report this week titled Chilling Effects, which found that writers in the U.S. are self-censoring in response to reports of widespread NSA surveillance. Thanks for scaring the crap out of all of us, Edward Snowden!

According to the report, 85% of surveyed writers are actively worrying about government surveillance, and are watching what they say as a result. Twenty-eight percent have reigned in or eliminated their use of social media, 24% have purposely avoided discussing certain topics via phone or email, and 16% have avoided writing or speaking about sensitive subjects. PEN writers report taking surveillance for granted—they simply assume they’re being monitored—and they’re choosing their words wisely so as to avoid harm.

Thanks PEN America!

Folks, this is what censorship looks like.

And it’s real. As a follow-up to Chilling Effects’ publication, PEN hosted a panel discussion last night in conjunction with the ACLU and the Fordham University School of Law. It was, to put it mildly, chilling.

The panel consisted of four men, all of whom had varying levels of expertise on the NSA and government surveillance. They each addressed the audience with separate, 15-minute presentations. If you want to hear them speak for themselves, you can view the live feed here.

Join us live! http://t.co/6fuvleyjLc #WTHarm pic.twitter.com/ATjoqF3uhg

— PENamerican (@PENamerican) November 15, 2013

But really, who needs to watch an hour and a half video when you’ve got me to recap it for you?

The panelists gave us an incredible look into the world of surveillance, from a historical overview of the NSA’s beginnings, right down to their personal experiences with harassment and persecution. According to James Bamford—the only guy who wore a business suit—the NSA got its start in a Manhattan townhouse back in the 1920s. As a top-secret government agency created to assist the World War I effort, this pre-NSA got a copy of every telegram that went in or out of the country.

That’s a lot of paper.

Fast forward to present day and the NSA isn’t just courting the phone or telegram companies—they’ve got software providers in their back pocket. Not to mention, the technological realities of cloud computing and social media mean the NSA doesn’t really have to ask. As fellow panelist and tech-guru Bruce Schneier remarked last night, “We are all leaving digital footprints throughout our lives,” and they’re anyone’s to follow.

Bruce Schneier – aging hippie extraordinaire. Courtesy of Terry Robinson via Flickr.

So what really happens when the NSA follows our tracks? Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean-American playwright and novelist, knows firsthand—he lived in Chile during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Dorfman went into exile abroad shortly after Pinochet took office, but was allowed to return in 1983, before the regime’s fall. His poignant description of the Chile he came back to illustrated the fears he had for the future of the U.S.

“People had learned to suspect everyone and everything,” he said, describing friends who had once been open and outspoken as having transformed into guarded strangers. “Chile had become synonymous with silence.”

Indeed, when Dorfman had to dictate a dissenting op-ed over the phone, he was plagued with fear. He described experiencing a panic attack, worrying that the Chilean secret police would arrest and harm his family after eavesdropping on his conversation.

Ariel Dorfman — total bad ass. Courtesy of Robin Kirk via Flickr.

Thankfully, those fears never came true, but American journalist Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been so lucky.  Greenwald is the (in)famous reporter who broke the Edward Snowden leaks, and he spoke on the panel via Skype—an irony he made note of, as the video-calling software is owned by Microsoft, one of the NSA’s most loyal information suppliers.

But there were no other options. A resident of Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald can’t return to the U.S. for fear of being arrested for his NSA coverage. In fact, he’s not travelling at all—and for good reason. This past August, Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours by officials at Heathrow Airport in London. They ultimately let him go, but confiscated his electronics first, claiming to be concerned that he was involved in terrorism and espionage.

Essentially, Greenwald and Dorfman are living proof of the fact that government surveillance is scary as shit. And that’s not just because of dystopian what-if scenarios, where all of us paranoiacs predict a turn towards the terror of Pinochet’s Chile.

It’s because, as Greenwald put it, if you want to challenge the powers that be, “the ability to communicate in private is an absolute prerequisite of that.” Without it, we’re incapable of engaging in dissent.

“The minute you know you’re being watched, the less free you become,” Greenwald said.

He’s right, and the crowd agreed. One audience member, J.L. White, stood up to suggest that we seriously consider impeaching President Obama. And after exacerbating the war in Afghanistan, using drones to kill American citizens, and pumping up the NSA’s surveillance efforts, no one in the room disagreed with her.

“What Bush did, Obama put on steroids,” said Bamford, validating White’s point.

But it’s not a hopeless situation. Dorfman expressed optimism, even as he sees alarming parallels between the Obama administration and Pinochet’s.

“They’re going to screw it up,” he said, reminding us that despite all of the surveillance, the government has still been wrong about important events. No one saw the Arab Spring coming, or the Boston Marathon bombing. At the end of the day, our wardens are laughably incompetent.

And while they blunder about, trying to consolidate all the minutiae of our digital lives into something useful, there are tons of people fighting back.

Ben Doernberg is one of them. Another Brooklyn resident, Ben quit his full-time job to organize for Restore the Fourth, a national coalition of grassroots activists agitating against government surveillance. I approached him after the panel, as he stood near the exit, recruiting people to join him in the good fight.

“I just want people to not fall into the trap of just learning more is all you have to do,” he said of the night’s event. “You have to actually do something.”

Will we? It’s hard to tell. With writers self-censoring, journalists and whistleblowers living in exile, and civilians cowering under the fear of terrorism, it’s easy to see how the surveillance state could continue growing.

But Ariel Dorfman, always looking on the bright side, sees hope.

“Fear is contagious, but so is courage,” he said, urging everyone in the room to take a stand.

So what will you do? Tell us in the comments! (Just remember, the government’s watching.)

—

Featured image courtesy of [Truthout.org via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YOU’RE BEING WATCHED RIGHT NOW: Here’s What To Do About It appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.

For most Americans, large chunks of our lives play out online. We have numerous social media sites, we check our bank accounts through “secured” websites, and we use email for almost all we do—work, social plans, and everything in between. It’s sad, but I can say without a doubt that there have been days where I have interacted with people over email more than in person. And every day, we’re reminded that our Internet lives are lulled into a false sense of security. Yet we still make our email password the name of our dog combined with the year we were born, and assume digital theft will never happen to us.

In 2004, Texas-based Ladar Levison created Lavabit, a highly encrypted email host that aimed to fix these Internet security problems for anyone who wanted it. Characterizing Lavabit as highly encrypted is actually a gross understatement—Lavabit encryption was viewed as uncrackable for even government intelligence agencies. There were free and paid versions of Lavabit’s email services. As of August 2013, Lavabit counted about 410,000 users.

One of these users was the now infamous Edward Snowden; his Lavabit email address was discovered this July. The Federal Government almost immediately obtained a search warrant commanding that Lavabit allow the government access to its system.

Because of the way this request was phrased—the government wanted access to the entire Lavabit system, not just Snowden’s account—Levison refused to cooperate. Levison was first instructed to hand over the “SSL” keys to his site (essentially a way to allow the government to view all the information contained in Lavabit accounts). Levison first responded to this order by handing over the SSL keys on paper in tiny font, rendering them almost unusable.  Finally he handed over the SSL keys digitally—he will pay a $10,000 fine for that delay—but shut down the site.

No one is completely sure exactly why Levison suspended the site, given that he is now under gag order. He has said that he is banned from sharing some information even with his lawyer. He has also said that he could be arrested for closing down Lavabit instead of just releasing the SSL keys. He is currently filing an appeal with the United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His appeal is based on the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure. He has also claimed that the government cannot ask a company to do something that will go directly against the purpose of their business. His lawyers likened it to “commanding the City of Richmond to give the police a key to every house within the city limits. To comply with the government’s subpoena would have either required Lavabit to perpetrate a fraud on its customer base or shut it own entirely.”

Lavabit did actually go back online very briefly for 72 hours starting the evening of October 14^th so that users could download any emails they needed that remained on the site. As of yet, there are no plans for Lavabit to reopen.

This shutdown offers ramifications for any other sites that offer completely encrypted email services. Silent Circle, one of Lavabit’s competitors, shut down its silent email software right after Lavabit went dark.

Levison’s appeal will be interesting to watch. In a modern world that is inundated with fast, online, communication, privacy is always at issue. Online identity should be a concern for everyone. Can companies create services that allow us to hide those online communications from Big Brother? The results of Levison’s appeal will answer that question, for better or for worse.

[Forbes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [IGregma 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 The New Frontier of Privacy: Lavabit’s Encrypted Email No More appeared first on Law Street.

The state department announced that 19 embassies and consulates will be closed through Saturday due to a threat of a terrorist attack.  Many of the embassies were already planning on being closed for part of the week in observance of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, however intelligence suggests this threat is very serious.

Politicians from both parties have expressed their concern regarding this threat and on Sunday many of them appeared on television shows to shed further light on the situation.  Senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) reported that an attack is being planned by an al-Qaeda affiliate on the Arab Peninsula, which is considered to be one of the most dangerous groups within the terrorist organization.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R- South Carolina) supports the Obama administration’s decision to temporarily close down the embassies stating the president has learned from what happened in Benghazi.  Additionally, the intelligence regarding the attack was recovered by a controversial NSA surveillance program that was recently leaked by Edward Snowden.

[Reuters]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Orlygur Hnefill 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 19 Embassies Close Amid Terror Threat appeared first on Law Street.

Edward Snowden finally left Sheremetyevo Airport, where he had been located for nearly 40 days, now that he has been granted asylum in Russia for one year.  After leaking revealing documents about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs, Snowden fled the United States and made it to Russia before the U.S. revoked his passport. Snowden sees his grant of asylum as a victory for the law, which he believes the U.S. had been disrespecting since the leak occurred. Snowden left the airport with Wikileaks reporter Sarah Harrison, whom he has been with since his arrival.

Russia’s recent actions have created diplomatic problems with the United States government, as they have actively tried to get Snowden to return for a proper trial.  According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the Obama administration was “extremely disappointed” with Russia’s decision, continually urging for Snowden’s extradition since his arrival in Russia.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [thierry ehrmann 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 Snowden Granted Asylum 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.