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:

Donald Trump Thought Being President Would be Easier

In an exclusive interview with Reuters, the president revealed what he thinks about his first 100 days in office. To sum it up, he said that he thought it would be easier than this to be the President of the United States. He seemed to miss his old job, and said that he would like to be able to drive a car again. He also admitted to feeling a little restricted by the massive security apparatus that surrounds a president. “You’re really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can’t go anywhere.” Recently, Trump also warned that “There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.” Now a lot of people are appalled–how could anyone not know that being POTUS is arguably the hardest job in the world?

Greatest superpower the world has ever known, and this is who we gave it to https://t.co/kUHVrA2KCF

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) April 28, 2017

In fairness, the rest of us thought impeaching Trump would be easier than it is.

— Dave Pell (@davepell) April 28, 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: April 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

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 Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked away in one of Tokyo’s busiest districts is an uncommon structure in a city dominated by Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples: the powder blue domes and minaret of Japan’s largest mosque, Tokyo Camii. Japan, a nation of Shintoism–an ancient folk religion–and Buddhism, is home to roughly 15,000 Muslims and 50 or so mosques. Leaked police files from 2010 revealed an extensive, country-wide surveillance program that affected 89 percent of Japan’s Muslims, or 12,677 individuals. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal by 17 Japanese Muslims who were affected by the blanket policing program.

Japan’s policing of its Muslim community first came to light in 2010, when the leaked documents showed that police departments kept tabs on the vast majority of Japanese Muslims. Police recorded their names, a physical description, and personal relationships. Each profile also contained a section titled “suspicions.” Additionally, police around the country surveilled mosques, halal restaurants, and “Islam-related” organizations. A group of 17 Japanese Muslims took legal action after they found out the extent of the Japanese police’s grip on their lives. The first case was brought to the Tokyo District Court in 2014. The plaintiffs argued that the surveillance program infringed on their constitutional rights to privacy, equal treatment, and religious freedom.

The court initially ruled in favor of the government. But as a concession, and as a consequence of the leaked documents from 2010, the court offered the plaintiffs the equivalent of $880,000. And on May 31, Japan’s highest court shot down the plaintiffs’ second appeal, but agreed on the financial compensation. To Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who blew the cover off of America’s extensive surveillance program, Japan’s zealous supervision of its Muslims is born of fear.

“People of the Islamic faith are more likely to be targeted,” he said from Moscow, Russia, where he has lived since fleeing the U.S. in 2013. He spoke via a video feed at a symposium on government surveillance in Tokyo on June 4. He added: “Simply because people are afraid.” Snowden mentioned that in Japan, a place that is hardly ever mentioned as a target of terrorists, the origin of that fear should be scrutinized. After all, the country–one of the world’s safest–last saw a terrorist attack in 1995. In the spring of that year, Aum Shinrikyo, a fanatical doomsday cult, released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system. 13 people died, and dozens more were injured.

So as the West and the Middle East are working out the best ways to repel very real terrorist threats, Japan is applying blanket surveillance techniques on nearly all of its Muslims. Junko Hayashi, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, worries how this will affect the next generation of Japanese Muslims. “It’s a really, really difficult thing to deal with, especially for the kids growing up here,” Hayashi said. “The police have been dealing with them as future terrorists.”

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 Japan Keeps a Watchful Eye on Its Nearly 15,000 Muslims 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.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson just announced that by the end of March 2016, the majority of Metropolitan Police officers will be supplied with 20,000 body cameras in an effort to help officers gather evidence to fight crime and boost public confidence. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said, “For too long our equipment has lagged behind the technology almost everyone has in their pockets to capture events as they unfold.” But while this now-international trend toward implementing body cams can help to uphold the law in theory, there are still concerns about whether this technology can really do its job in practice.

Mayor Boris Johnson confirms plans to roll out 20,000 police body cameras across the Met: https://t.co/JTlW1tKUpj pic.twitter.com/2W32Hznv4K

— MOPAC (@MOPACLdn) June 3, 2015

This development will make London the most body camera heavy city in the world, further advancing Britain’s status as one of the most surveilled states. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimates that there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, or one camera for every eleven people in the United Kingdom.

For the past year, police officers in London have undergone trials of the body cameras and have reported positive results. The trial has allowed officers to generate about 6,000 video clips per month, which are uploaded daily and referenced when the footage is considered necessary for evidence. These trials, set to end later this summer, suggest that the implementation of body cameras can increase the number of guilty pleas and reduce complaints, speeding up the justice system. London police have come under scrutiny for controversial stop-and-search laws, which disproportionately target minority groups. London officials hope that body cameras will help to improve public trust and increase officer accountability in these scenarios.

While body cameras may be useful for monitoring daily operations of police officers, some civil rights groups are concerned that the technology will prove to be an intrusive surveillance tool that can be easily exploited. There is also concern about who has access to the footage and if it will be publicly accessible. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has plans to lead a citywide public engagement training to explain how the cameras work and when Londoners might encounter them. The London Policing Ethics Panel intends to produce the United Kingdom’s first report regarding the ethics of officers’ use of the cameras, which will be published in the fall.

Cities across the United States are also providing their officers with cameras. The company Taser, a maker of body cams, reported a 50 percent increase in sales in the first three months of 2015. While continued proliferation of body cameras seems forthcoming, critiques of the cameras’ use are also widespread. Most footage caught on camera is not considered public record, which has proved problematic–police departments can easily erase destructive footage. In some cases, officers forget to turn on their body or dashboard cameras, since neither device is constantly recording, but needs to be manually switched on. Some police officers’ cameras have conveniently malfunctioned at the time of an encounter, leaving victims of police brutality without evidence of their claims. Had the Ferguson, Missouri police department mandated the use of police officer body cameras or used dashboard cameras in patrol cars, the mystery surrounding what truly happened leading up to and during the fatal Michael Brown shooting of 2014 would have been absolved.

Necessary changes must be made to officer accountability in the wake of years of unrest. London is taking a huge step forward in what may become a revolution in police liability and encouraging a positive shift in public discourse about law enforcement. Video clips should be accessible by the public. Police officers should be held individually accountable for the use of their cameras, by disciplining those who routinely forget to turn on their body cams. Police departments, prosecutors, and every other chain of command throughout the justice system should work toward preserving footage to protect the rights of the abused, even if—and especially when—police officers are in the wrong. While implementation of body cameras is the first move going forward–and London should be applauded for its efforts–effective, ethical execution of their use is the most important step.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post London Moves Forward with Police Body Cams: Will the U.S. Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was under terror surveillance in Boston was shot and killed by a police officer and an FBI agent earlier this afternoon. This man was a part of a broader terrorism investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists. This man was identified as Usaama Rahim by a spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

The justification for the officials’ actions resulting in this man’s death focuses on their perceptions that Rahim was a threat to public safety, since he allegedly wielded a large, black knife at the time of the incident. According to CNN, Rahim was asked numerous times to drop his weapon but because he refused to do so both the police officer and FBI agent opened fire.

Police Commissioner William Evans claimed that “he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life.”

This statement begs the question, both to Evans and to police departments everywhere, what type of situation justifies any police officers actions’ that result in the death of a man who hasn’t been proven guilty? This man was under terror surveillance, but considering the United States’ disputable track record on finding evidence regarding terrorist efforts, these actions could still be unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code is normally used to guide the actions of police officers in assessing whether or not resorting to deadly force is the appropriate response in dangerous circumstances. According to the code, officers should only use force when the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in the arrest may harm other people. Deadly force is considered acceptable when it is believed to be the only solution to resolving a dangerous situation that could harm innocent bystanders.

In this particular shooting, killing Rahim could be justified by the police because he was wielding a large, black knife, forcing the officers to open fire. But is waving a knife, with no hostages and no bystanders in the immediate vicinity, a valid enough rationale to take someone’s life? Commissioner Evans claimed that Rahim came “within the proximity” for the officers to use deadly force. But what distance is considered within the proximity to kill? These are all questions that demand answers.

In addition to these questionable circumstances, Rahim was a suspected Islamic extremist under terror surveillance. The FBI agent who participated in the shooting was surely aware of this fact, but the same cannot be said for the Boston police officer. Rahim’s identity as a Muslim cannot be ignored when evaluating the police officer and FBI agent’s justifications for their actions. The lethal combination of Rahim’s Muslim faith and questionable terrorist ties could easily work in the police department’s favor. At the time of his death, Rahim had not been convicted of any terrorist actions, so his death at the hands of Boston and federal officials should not be considered constitutional.

Racial or ethnic profiling may have been a factor in this shooting as well. It is also noteworthy that this case occurred just over two years after the Boston Bombing, which has had a lasting (and justified) impact on perceptions of terrorist attacks throughout the U.S. Although news sources have not yet revealed why Rahim was under surveillance, a mere suspicion that he was involved with terrorist activity does not legitimize his death.

One of the most prevalent issues in holding the police officer and FBI agent accountable in this situation is the complex relationship between the police department and judicial court system. In the 1930 Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, a sheriff faced a lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. His defense was that he had used deadly force “to defend himself.” The court ruled in his favor. This case set precedent for lax rulings in favor of police officers, despite the officer’s controversial actions.

This storyline coincides with other court cases of police officers claiming self defense after having killed a subject of an arrest, such as Tamir Rice and Michael Brown. All of these incidents speak to the larger problem of police officers abusing their position of authority and power at the expense of civilians.

Police departments need to undergo reformation, especially regarding their veracious use of deadly force. Regardless of whether or not Rahim was guilty of the things he was suspected of doing, there were presumably ways to detain him without taking his life. Whether it be using a gun, rough rides, or chokeholds, police departments must develop new tactics that put deadly force at the bottom of the totem pole, thereby protecting citizens instead of victimizing them.

Emily Dalgo also contributed to this story.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Police Shooting of Usaama Rahim: Protection or Victimization? 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.

Scientology has long had an odd relationship with American celebrities. Some famous adherents include Kirstie Alley, Elisabeth Moss, Greta Van Sustern, John Travolta, and Tom Cruise. The Church of Scientology is also well known for using its substantial coffers to defend itself through litigation. It is within this context that HBO recently announced that it would be creating a documentary about the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers. The company, probably wisely, is lawyering up before the release.

The book on which the documentary is based is called “Going Clear” and is written by Lawrence Wright. It focuses on the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and the current leader, a man named David Miscavige, with particular emphasis on Scientology’s relationship to Hollywood and American celebrities–specifically John Travolta and Tom Cruise, as they are arguably two of the most famous celebrities in the religion.

The book makes some broad accusations, including abuse allegations against the church. The Church of Scientology, of course, flatly denies those claims. When the book was released, spokeswoman Karin Pouw released a statement said that:

The stories of alleged physical abuse are lies concocted by a small group of self-corroborating confessed liars. The hard evidence clearly shows that no such conduct ever occurred and that in fact there is evidence that shows it did NOT occur.

HBO claims that it has probably 160 different lawyers looking into the film–it needs to make sure that it is airtight before airing, because the company doesn’t particularly want to owe the Church of Scientology any money.

Media companies and media personalities have in the past tussled with the Church of Scientology, and not just in the courtroom. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, did a controversial episode entitled “Trapped in the Closet” in 2005 that made fun of the religion. The episode also makes fun of Cruise and Travolta (particularly rumors about their respective sexual orientations) and calls the religion a cult, which is pretty tame as far as South Park episodes go.

The Scientologists reacted very, very poorly. The religious sect started basically stalking and surveilling Stone and Parker, attempting to find something incriminating. Marty Rathburn, who used to be involved with the Church of Scientology, explained the kinds of things they would do to Stone and Parker, saying:

Phone records. Bank records. Personal letters that expose some kind of vulnerability. They’ll read stuff into the kind of alcohol you’re drinking and how much. Prescriptions. They’ll figure out your diet. They can find out a lot about you through your trash.

Back to “Going Clear” and its corresponding documentary. The Church of Scientology has already managed to mess with it a bit. The book was never released in the United Kingdom because the publishers were afraid that it would lead to a lawsuit. However, HBO truly has every intention of moving forward with the movie plan–160 lawyers and all.

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 HBO Battles Scientology Over New Documentary 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.

Twitter is suing the the United States Department of Justice for violating its First Amendment rights, the company announced on Tuesday. The social media service is arguing that it has the right to disclose to the public how often the government requests data from it for national security purposes.

Currently, the government requests information for such investigations from tech companies like Twitter in the form of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Security Act court orders. The government does let these companies disclose how many times it requests information, but not down to the exact number. Instead they can report ranges of the requests they’ve received in “bands” of 1,000. For example, a firm can report that it has received between 0 and 999 government information requests, without being any more specific.

Twitter’s complaint is that these restrictions inhibit its freedom of speech. It argues that it should be allowed to disclose to its users a more precise number of government information requests. In particular, if it hasn’t received any requests in a certain category, Twitter wants to say publicly that the number is zero.

Ben Lee, a Twitter Vice President, said in a blog post on Tuesday:

It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received.

Twitter tried to accomplish the same thing earlier this year without going to court, by sending a sample transparency report in April to the DOJ, asking which information it could or couldn’t publish. Unfortunately, that attempt wasn’t fruitful. “After many months of discussions, we were unable to convince them to allow us to publish even a redacted version of the report,” Tuesday’s blog post also disclosed.

The current restrictions stem from a January settlement between the DOJ and Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, and LinkedIn. At that time, the companies were were looking for permission to publish any number at all related to national security requests. That settlement allowed these companies and “similarly situated companies” (that includes Twitter) to use the bands of 1,000 rule to report the number of government requests. Twitter hints in its formal complaint that the number of requests it receives is relatively small, and argues that it  should be allowed to reflect “limited scope” of government surveillance on its accounts in its transparency reports.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed the vast extent of government surveillance online, tech companies have tried to show their users that they care about privacy. Apple and Google made news last month when they announced that their new generation of mobile operating systems would encrypt user data with the user’s passcode, making it impossible for either the company or the government to access private information without the passcode. Even if the government requests it, the company can’t reach it.

Unlike on most social media platforms, anything the average Twitter user tweets is publicly visible. So, intuitively, the government doesn’t need to request from Twitter too much information; it’s there for the picking. That seems to be what Twitter is hinting at when it says that it would like to be allowed to report that it has received zero national security requests. That being said, it would be nice to know what other information the government is asking to have – information that supposedly isn’t public. Twitter comes off in this story as the noble tech company trying to stay accountable to its 271 million active users. The company can stay even truer to the value of transparency by letting its users know what non-public information the government wants, and this suit will decide whether they get to do just that.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tech Company That Has Your Back: Twitter Sues the DOJ appeared first on Law Street.

When New Orleans Superintendent of Police Ronal Serpas took office four years ago, he was faced with high crime rates, a depressingly low department approval rate, and a long history of police corruption and brutality. While lowering crime rates and rebuilding trust take time, his solution to corruption allegations and brutality has been relatively simple — require patrol officers to wear body cameras.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has been through several scandals, but none as severe as the Danziger Bridge incident, in which police officers shot, killed, and maimed innocent, unarmed citizens then tried to cover it up. The incident took place just six days after Hurricane Katrina and took the lives of a mentally impaired man as well as a 19 year old. It also spurred a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in a long-awaited consent decree, which imposed sweeping reforms on the NOPD.

One product of the consent decree is the requirement of patrol officers to wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust and ensure transparency and accountability in the future. Hailing this as the next step in American policing, Serpas has high hopes that the cameras will be well worth the $1.45 million investment. He believes that they are the best way to eliminate the “he-said-she-said” problem once and for all.

The 420 cameras purchased by the NOPD are required to be used by patrol officers whenever they are attending a “business-related event,” including traffic stops and responding to calls. The officers are encouraged to consult their videos before preparing a report and must attend a three-hour training session to learn how to use the devices.

The New Orleans Police Department is not alone in its use of body cameras; more and more police departments across the nation are beginning to require officers to wear cameras on duty. Police Foundation Executive Fellow Chief Tony Farrar recently completed a year-long study evaluating the effect that body cameras have on police use-of-force. He found the cameras to be associated with “dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.”

These cameras are especially appealing to troubled police departments such as the NOPD, currently facing federal scrutiny. Although Superintendent Serpas claims the cameras are a “win-win” for all parties involved due to the creation of an irrefutable record of what happened, there is the fear that the videos may just be for the benefit for the police.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, cautions against the practice of letting officers watch their own videos before writing reports. He argues that if an officer is planning to lie, the videos serve as a “good guide” to what he can get away with.

Another issue is the matter of who gets to view the videos and whether or not they are a matter of public record. While Serpas told NPR that he will hire whatever additional staff is necessary to handle public requests for the videos, he concedes that public record laws have “exceptions to releasing information, and there are directions about which information to release.”

A police department monopoly of the videos does little to curb the problem of false or misleading reports. If the public does not have access to the videos then, short of legal action, they still have little more than blind faith to ensure that officers are being truthful when they state that something was or was not recorded on the tapes.

Conspiracy theories aside, the NOPD seems to genuinely want the public to be aware of the cameras, going as far as having officers demonstrate the technology to random citizens. The point behind installing the cameras is to foster public trust, something that the department can only do by proving to the community that they have turned a new leaf.

The cameras fit over the officers’ ears and therefore allow the viewer to see everything that the police officer sees. This is naturally meant to inspire trust by deterring officers from filing false reports – what is the point of lying if you know that what you have done is caught on film? – but ironically enough it seems that the cameras may be doing more to curb the behavior of the people being filmed rather than the officers themselves.

For example, Lt. Travis St. Pierre told NPR that “they always have this one individual that they would go on calls and service for that likes to be disruptive, curse at the police, fight with the police, and when they got out and turned the camera on and informed her she was being recorded, she immediately said, ‘Ah. OK,’ and was not a problem at all. We’re seeing a lot of that kind of stuff.”

More polite citizens aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but stifling complaints or disagreements is not necessarily good either. As the NOPD’s bleak track record has shown, the police are not always right and they do not always act with citizens’ best interests in mind. Being able to freely voice your opinions and complaints — no matter how disruptive they may be — is just as important as officers not falsifying reports. As the use of cameras continues to expand in New Orleans and several other jurisdictions, it will be interesting to see how effective it is, and who actually benefits from the tactic.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras appeared first on Law Street.

This week we saw the shocking, leaked video of Solange Knowles physically attacking brother in-law Jay Z while her sister, Beyoncé, looked on. I’ll admit that it’s natural to be entertained by celebrities misbehaving, but putting that element aside, where does surveillance and security end and privacy begin? Elevator cameras are installed for security purposes, but this is a prime example of how surveillance can be misused. We see cameras on buildings, inside elevators, and just about everywhere we go without questioning how that footage is being used, or perhaps misused. The common use of surveillance technology will continue to increase if left unchecked — especially in the law enforcement.

This increased acceptance of security surveillance has contributed to law enforcement taking new measures to monitor us all on a grander scale and for longer periods of time.  New surveillance technologies have emerged that allow local law enforcement to use special aircraft equipped with powerful cameras to capture and record real-time images over large amounts of space. Not only will these cameras record a broader area, they will also have the capability to record for longer lengths of time as compared to traditional camera-equipped helicopters.

These digital technologies are capable of motion detection and zoom of movement. This means no matter how far away a person is, his or her movement can be detected and observed more closely with the zoom capabilities. Persistent Surveillance Systems is one of the companies assisting local law enforcement with their missions to decrease crime and bring criminals to justice through the use of surveillance technology.

The Ohio-based company touts itself as a full-service, wide-area surveillance provider with experience in border control, law enforcement operations, and event security. Persistent Surveillance Systems even reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and convinced it to use the technology to monitor the streets of Compton, with one big selling point being that this method is less expensive than using the police helicopters. LA County provides just one, though by no means is it the only, example of where this monitoring is employed.

It is unclear how successful Los Angeles’ use of this type of surveillance technology is  in an attempt to quell crime because no data has yet been released. What is clear, however, is that this technology is so expansive it isn’t limited to targeting criminals. The footage also includes law-abiding citizens carrying on the regular functions of their day. Some may argue that being constantly recorded isn’t troubling because they have nothing to hide, but where does the trade off of privacy for security end?

With little to no regulation of this technology and the dependence on private companies to provide this surveillance service, the possibility of misuse increases. There are many more questions than answers, but we must be aware of the possibilities and consequences of being constantly watched. We all have the right to privacy. How far are we willing to use our technological capabilities to impede that?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You and Beyonce Have Something in Common: Constant Surveillance 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.

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.

In a highly anticipated statement, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) pilloried claims by secure email provider, Lavabit LLC, that the FBI violated the law when it ordered the surveillance tool known as a pen/trap device to be placed on the latter’s servers.

Lavabit came under pressure in July of this year to hand over the keys to their security system after the FBI began investigating one of their customers; that customer was Edward Snowden.

When Lavabit refused, claiming that to do so would enable government agents to monitor the communication “metadata” of not just Snowden but all of their customers, the presiding District Court of Eastern Virginia served the company with a court order once again requiring the company to furnish the keys.

The company’s Texas-based founder, Ladar Levison, moved to quash the order. The court denied that motion.

From there, Levison only began to lose more footing. On Aug. 2nd, he finally delivered the keys to the FBI– the only problem being that the paper’s 4-point font rendered them illegible.

Levison was charged with civil contempt days later. The sanctions for the charge were $5,000 for each day he failed to deliver them. Then, in a move that garnered much media attention, Levison disobeyed a court gag-order and shut down his business. The message on the homepage url that is still live reads, “I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit.”

On Oct. 10th, he filed an appeal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. The justice department’s latest brief is a reply to that appeal. In the brief,  they state that an electronic business, like other businesses, cannot defy lawful warrants by simply “locking its front gate.” Moreover, “marketing a business as “secure” does not give one license to ignore a district court of the United States.”

But if the Appeals Court should feel otherwise, the DOJ hedged their bets. Because Lavabit did not move to quash the initial grand jury subpoena, but only the court warrant. They argued that Lavabit has forfeited any arguments to contest the contempt charge.

In light of the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, the case mirrors what many today feel is a battle between privacy and the far reaches of the government.

The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ to Lavabit’s Levison: ‘Too Bad, So Sad’ 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.

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.