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.

Barring an extraordinary act of bipartisanship from Congress, several controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire today at midnight. Congress now has little time and only a few remaining options to preserve aspects of the law that administration officials deem important to preventing terrorism. However, critics of the law argue that these provisions are a mark of significant infringement upon civil liberties and may not even help law enforcement in the first place.

The three components of the Patriot Act that are set to expire are the “lone-wolf” amendment, the authority to place roving wiretaps, and the controversial Section 215. The “lone-wolf” amendment–which is actually part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but is set to expire along with the Patriot Act provisions–allows the government to monitor the activities of individuals who are suspected of international terrorism, but have no known connection to terrorist organizations. It is important to note that this amendment is explicitly directed toward people who are not U.S. citizens. The so-called roving wiretap section of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to transfer wiretap orders to different phones and devices being used by the same person. Wiretaps must first be approved by a court, but are no longer limited to individual devices if terrorism is suspected. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to access business records in terrorism cases, but is better known as the legal justification for the collection of millions of Americans’ phone records.

When the Patriot Act initially became law in 2001, it received overwhelming support in Congress. The bill, which incorporated components of another piece of legislation proposed earlier that month, was introduced on October 23 and passed both houses of Congress the very next day. In the House the vote was 357 to 66 and in the Senate it was 98 to 1. Since then, the sun-setting provisions of the bill have been reauthorized on three separate occasions, but in light of the revelations leaked by Edward Snowden in Summer of 2013, this year’s authorization has proven much more challenging for Congress.

In response to growing concern about the NSA’s bulk data collection programs, the House recently passed the USA Freedom Act, a compromise that seeks to maintain the tools available to law enforcement agencies while also providing additional safeguards for civil liberties. The bill would effectively end the collection of phone call metadata by the government, leaving it to the phone companies to compile and then provide to law enforcement provided that they have a warrant. Although the government would be able to access the same data, the new bill would put a clear process in place where a warrant is required to access only the information requested. While this new bill would mark a significant step in reforming data collection under Section 215, it would extend the Patriot Act, leaving the other controversial provisions in place. Additionally, the USA Freedom Act, would increase the maximum prison sentence for providing “material support” to terrorist organizations from 15 years to 20. Human Rights Watch and other opponents of the bill argue that the “material support penalty” is already too broadly used and expanding it will only increase the potential for abuse.

While the new USA Freedom Act passed the House with a wide margin and the support of several privacy and civil liberties organizations, it faces a major hurdle in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing criticism for his handling of the Patriot Act renewal process. He first encouraged Republican legislators to support the Patriot Act and the associated NSA data collection program, calling for an outright extension of the law; however multiple attempts to do so have failed.

The Senate must now decide if it wants to allow the Patriot Act provisions to expire on Sunday night, or reach some sort of compromise on the USA Freedom Act, a potential embarrassment for McConnell. The Senate is set to convene Sunday night before the provisions expire in an attempt to make a last-minute deal, yet the House will likely remain on their Memorial Day recess until Monday. If the provisions expire, re-instituting the law enforcement capabilities would require an additional piece of legislation and not simply a re-authorization vote, something that could prove to be very challenging politically.

A wide range of opponents to the NSA’s bulk data collection program has recently emerged. The program took a major blow earlier this month when a federal appeals court ruled that the bulk collection of phone records violates the Patriot Act itself. Last week, Republican Senator Rand Paul protested the program in a so-called filibuster that lasted over ten hours. Paul called for further debate on the controversial provisions in the Patriot Act and demanded an end to bulk data collection. Paul, along with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, is calling for a debate and open amendment process for the USA Freedom Act in the Senate, which both hope to add stronger protections for civil liberties. However, the addition of such protections may make the bill unpalatable for representatives in the House. A desire to reform the NSA program now exists in all three branches of government and may now be sweeping the internet. As many as 10,000 websites have joined the movement to “blackout Congress,” which will redirect computers with Congressional IP addresses to a page showing semi-nude pictures of people who claim, “NSA spying makes us feel violated.”

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 Will NSA Data Collection End Tonight? appeared first on Law Street.

The latest development in the saga over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) bulk data collection just occurred, as an appeals court ruled that the NSA’s actions were illegal. This is big, as this ruling may pave the way for changes in the surveillance programs conducted on the American people by the NSA.

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) led a case against the NSA’s bulk data collecting procedures that developed in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. As soon as this information was brought to light, many Americans reacted with outrage, demanding an explanation and justification from the government. Immediately, the NSA and the Obama Administration cited the Patriot Act as a defense–the broad piece of legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The intention of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism and prevent an attack like 9/11 from ever occurring again on American soil. While the Patriot Act originally passed with incredibly strong support–only Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it–it has since come under intense criticism for its breadth and implications.

One particularly broad section of the Patriot Act was used to justify the NSA bulk collection of phone records. There’s a provision in it that permits the collection of “business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.” However, the Appeals Court ruled that this provision simply does not allow a bulk collection of any and all phone records, which is pretty much what the NSA was doing.

Interestingly enough, the appeals court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of the NSA’s data collection. Rather the court stated that the provision of the Patriot Act being used to defend it simply did not apply. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by existing law.

The case was also sent back to a lower court for review in light of this decision; however, this ruling, no matter how specific and limited, does create an interesting conundrum in the halls of Congress. The much-maligned Patriot Act is currently up for debate. The provision that the government was relying upon to justify NSA spying will actually expire on June 1 if no action to reauthorize or extend it is taken by Congress. By stating that the provision of the Patriot Act used to justify this spying is not applicable, the judges have put another task on Congress’ to do list if they want the NSA data collection program to continue. The move to shift the responsibility to Congress’ lap wasn’t particularly subtle either. The three judge panel even stated:

We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.

While this ruling by no means ensures any sort of end to the NSA’s heavily criticized phone data collection program, it certainly is a blow to the administrations that touted its legality under the Patriot Act, and a blow to the Patriot Act itself. Given the Congress’ lack of productivity and rampant disagreement there’s no way to tell what ramifications this ruling will have.

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’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal 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.

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.