DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BULK METADATA COLLECTION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Professor Laura K. Donohue* Georgetown Law INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. BULK COLLECTION RUNS CONTRARY TO FISA’S GENERAL APPROACH ....................................... 6 A. PRIOR DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1. NSA Programs ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Broader Context ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 B. PROTECTIONS BUILT INTO FISA ................................................................................................................................... 16 1. Entity Targeted Prior to Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 17 2. Probable Cause and Showing of Criminal Wrongdoing Prior to Collection .................................... 18 3. Minimization Procedures for Acquisition and Retention ........................................................................ 21 4. Establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review ................... 22 C. SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 23 1. Physical Search, Pen/Trap .................................................................................................................................... 23 2. Business Records, Tangible Goods, and Section 215 .................................................................................. 25 D. BROAD SURVEILLANCE IN PLACE OF PARTICULARIZATION ........................................................................................ 29 1. Wholesale Collection of Information ................................................................................................................ 29 2. No Prior Targeting ................................................................................................................................................... 30 3. No Higher Threshold for U.S. Persons ............................................................................................................... 30 E. ROLE OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT ALTERED ................................................................. 31 1. Reliance on NSA to Ascertain Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion ........................................................ 31 2. Issuance of Detailed Legal Reasoning and Creation of Precedent ....................................................... 40 3. Judicial Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 42 II. BULK COLLECTION VIOLATES FISA’S STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................................................ 48 A. “RELEVANT TO AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION” ...................................................................................................... 49 1. Relevance Standard .................................................................................................................................................. 50 2. Connection to “an Authorized Investigation” ............................................................................................... 52 B. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ............................................................................................................................................... 57 1. Not for Fishing Expeditions ................................................................................................................................... 59 2. Specificity ...................................................................................................................................................................... 60 3. Past Crimes ................................................................................................................................................................... 60 4. March 2009 FISC Opinion ...................................................................................................................................... 60 C. EVISCERATION OF PEN/TRAP PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................. 61 D. POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW ......................................................................... 62 III. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 64 A. THE PROBLEM WITH SMITH V. MARYLAND ................................................................................................................... 65 B. MORE INTRUSIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PRIVACY ......................................................................... 69 C. JUDICIAL TENSION: TRESPASS AND KATZ’S REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ............................................. 71 1. The Prohibition on General Warrants ............................................................................................................. 71 2. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test .......................................................................................................... 77 D. THE PROVERBIAL NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK ............................................................................................................. 82 IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................................................... 84 * Professor of Law, Georgetown Law. Special thanks to George Jameson and Allegra MacLeod for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This Article is forthcoming in the HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y (2014). See also Laura K. Donohue, Written Testimony, Continued Oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 2, 2013 (providing an earlier iteration of this Article). 1 INTRODUCTION On May 24, 2006, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved an FBI application for an order, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §1861, requiring Verizon to turn over all telephony metadata to the National Security Agency.1 The Court approved similar applications for all major U.S. telecommunication service providers. Over the next seven years, FISC issued orders renewing the bulk collection program thirty-four times.2 Almost all of the information obtained related to the activities of law-abiding persons who were not the subjects of any investigation.3 This program remained secret until mid-2013, when a combination of leaks by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency employee, and Freedom of Information Act litigation launched by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, forced key documents into the public domain.4 In response, the Obama Administration issued statements, fact sheets, redacted FISC opinions, and even a White Paper, acknowledging the existence of the program and arguing that it is both legal and Constitutional. According to these documents, the purpose of the telephony metadata program is to collect information related to counterterrorism and foreign intelligence.5 The data includes all communications routing information, including (but not limited to) session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, identity of the communications device, etc.), trunk identifier, and time and duration of the call.6 The metadata collected as part of this program does not include the substantive content of communications, nor does it include subscribers’ names, addresses, or financial information.7 1 In re Application of the Fed. Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Prod. of Tangible Things from [Telecommunications Providers] Relating to [REDACTED], Order, No. BR 0605 (FISA Ct. May 24, 2006), available at https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/docket_06- 05_1dec201_redacted.ex_-_ocr_0.pdf (released by court order as part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s FOIA litigation). Note that the specific telecommunications company from which such records were sought were redacted, as well as the remaining title; however, the government also released an NSA report that provided more detail on the title of the Order. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., NAT’L SEC. AGENCY/CENT. SEC. SERV., ST-06-0018, REPORT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT ORDER: TELEPHONY BUSINESS RECORDS (Sept. 5, 2006) (see page 94 of 1846 and 1862 Production, Mar. 5, 2009), available at http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_Feb%2012%202009%20Memorandum%20of%20US.p df. For purposes of a more precise citation, I draw from both sources. 2 Administration White Paper: Bulk Collection of Telephony Metadata under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act 2 (Aug. 9, 2013), available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/750211- administration-white-paper-section-215.html [hereinafter “Section 215 White
Recommended publications
  • Algernon Sidney on Public Right

    Algernon Sidney on Public Right

    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 3 1987 Algernon Sidney on Public Right Edward Dumbauld Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the European Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Edward Dumbauld, Algernon Sidney on Public Right, 10 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 317 (1988). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol10/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALGERNON SIDNEY ON PUBLIC RIGHT Hon. Edward Dumbauld* In response to criticisms that the Declaration of Independence lacked originality,' its author Thomas Jefferson explained that the political purpose and object of that document was: not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the sub- ject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet cop- ied from any particular and previous writing,' it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
  • The Proliferation of Dissenting Opinions.Indb

    The Proliferation of Dissenting Opinions.Indb

    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/123230 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Sarmiento Lamus, A.D. Title: The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law: A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and IACtHR Issue Date: 2020-07-08 The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op woensdag 8 juli 2020 klokke 16.15 uur door Andrés Dario Sarmiento Lamus geboren te Bogota, Colombia in 1985 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento Promotoren: Prof. dr. L.J. van den Herik Prof. dr. Y.A.A.S. Radi (Université Chatolique de Louivain) Promotiecommissie: Dr. J. Powderly Dr. G. Le Moli Prof. dr. E. Ferrer MacGregor (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México) Prof. dr. D. Kritsiotis (University of Nottingham, United Kingdom) Lay-out: AlphaZet prepress, Bodegraven Printwerk: Ipskamp Printing © 2020 A.D. Sarmiento Lamus Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets in deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
  • The Law As King and the King As Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? Eric M

    The Law As King and the King As Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? Eric M

    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1992 The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment?, 20 Hastings Const. L.Q. 7 (1992) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/449 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? By ERIC M. FREEDMAN* Table of Contents Introduction ................................................... 8 I. The Original Intents ................................. 15 II. The Historical Practice ............................... 22 A. The Federal Executive Branch ......................... 22 B. The Federal Judicial and Legislative Branches .......... 24 1. The Federal Judicial Branch ....................... 25 2. The Federal Legislative Branch ..................... 30 C. Federal Prosecution of State and Local Officials ......... 33 D. State-Level Practice ................................... 37 III. Theoretical Considerations ........................... 39 A. The Dual Nature of the Impeachment Clause .......... 41 B. The Rule of Law ...................................... 46 1. Civil Immunity .................................... 46 * Assistant Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law. J.D. 1979, B.A.
  • Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

    Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2014 Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1350 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2344774 37 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 757-900 (2014) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the National Security Law Commons BULK METADATA COLLECTION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PROFESSOR LAURA K. DONOHUE* INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 759 I. BULK COLLECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF FISA’S GENERAL APPROACH ............................................ 766 A. Prior Domestic Surveillance ......................... 767 1. NSA Programs ......................................... 770 a. Project MINARET ............................. 772 b. Operation SHAMROCK .................. 773 2. Broader Context ...................................... 776 B. Protections Built into FISA ........................... 782 1. Entity Targeted Prior to Acquisition .... 784 2. Probable Cause and Showing of Criminal Wrongdoing Prior to Collection ................................................. 786
  • Legal Records in English and American Courts by EDWARD DUMBAULD

    Legal Records in English and American Courts by EDWARD DUMBAULD

    Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/36/1/15/2745754/aarc_36_1_22272231n0660r51.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Legal Records in English and American Courts By EDWARD DUMBAULD Y DEFINITION, legal records are records generated during the course of, and in connection with,1 legal proceedings in judi- B cial tribunals. All public record repositories at the federal, state, and local level, and many private institutions as well, encoun- ter these documents. Archivists, manuscript curators, and histor- ians, however, lacking formal legal training and unfamiliar with the subtleties of procedural and substantive law, do not fully perceive the richness of this material. A discussion of the judicial environ- ment and of the documents which it generates should help the archi- vist more fully appreciate his role as keeper of the record of his society's pursuit of justice. Excluded from consideration here are the extensive data which can be gleaned from registered vital statis- The author, United States District Judge, Western District of Pennsylvania, has written several books on legal history. This article is revised from a paper he de- livered at the Southern Historical Association meeting in Houston, Texas, on Novem- ber 19, 1971. The views expressed here are the personal, not official, opinions of the author. l As is said in Seymour V. Connor, "Legal Materials as Sources of History," Ameri- can Archivist, 23 (i960): 158: "This paper is restricted to a discussion of records that were created by or involved in litigation of any kind." Thus newspaper accounts of trials or correspondence by litigants (such as letters to his daughter Theodosia written by Aaron Burr during his incarceration at Richmond [see Albert J.
  • John Marshall and the Law of Nations

    John Marshall and the Law of Nations

    [Vol. 104 JOHN MARSHALL AND THE LAW OF NATIONS Edward Dumbauld t "When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement," according to the opinion of Mr. Justice James Wilson 1 in an important case before the Supreme Court of the United States 2 in which John Marshall appeared as losing counsel. What was the "law of nations" or jus gentium which the infant American republic thus accepted as part of its own law? 3 It was a species of universal law, based on reason and bi.nding upon all man- kind, which eighteenth century jurists did not hesitate to recognize as valid. It embraced three principal .divisions,: the law merchant, the law maritime, and the body of law between states which is now called public international law.4 In that cosmopolitan era, though it might be forbidden to cite English precedents,5 it was not unusual for American lawyers to be familiar with Roman and civil-aw doctrines. Only narrowly did t A.B., Princeton University, 1926; LL.B., Harvard University, 1929; LL.M., Harvard University, 1930; Doctor of.Law, University of Leyden, The Netherlands, 1932. Member of the Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, and United States Supreme Court bars. 1. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199, 281 (1796). In the language of a modern English jurist, "they became bound by international law just in the same way as an individual is bound by municipal law-that is to say, as an inevitable result of birth into a society ruled by that law." SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS, CHAPTERS ON CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 14 (1929).
  • Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

    Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

    BULK METADATA COLLECTION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PROFESSOR LAURA K. DONOHUE* INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 759 I. BULK COLLECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF FISA’S GENERAL APPROACH ............................................ 766 A. Prior Domestic Surveillance ......................... 767 1. NSA Programs ......................................... 770 a. Project MINARET ............................. 772 b. Operation SHAMROCK .................. 773 2. Broader Context ...................................... 776 B. Protections Built into FISA ........................... 782 1. Entity Targeted Prior to Acquisition .... 784 2. Probable Cause and Showing of Criminal Wrongdoing Prior to Collection ................................................. 786 3. Minimization Procedures for Acquisition and Retention ..................... 791 4. Establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review ...................................... 792 C. Subsequent Amendment .............................. 793 1. Physical Search, Pen-Trap ..................... 794 * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Christine Ciambella was invaluable in obtaining research materials. My appreciation also extends to the members of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for their edits on the final Article. Special thanks to Hope Babcock, Bill Banks, Julie Cohen, George Jameson, Allegra MacLeod, Julie O’Sullivan, Milton Regan, Tanina Rostain, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Mike Seideman, for
  • Hereby Failing to Prepare Their Students for the Practice of Law

    Hereby Failing to Prepare Their Students for the Practice of Law

    ȱ HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY ȱ VOLUME 42, NUMBER 2 SPRING 2019 ARTICLES THE DEATH OF COMMON LAW J. Lyn Entrikin ........................................................................ 351 A COASEAN APPROACH TO COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS D. Bruce Johnsen ..................................................................... 489 THE CURE FOR AMERICA’S OPIOID CRISIS? END THE WAR ON DRUGS Christine Minhee & Steve Calandrillo. ................................... 547 ESSAY THE WORLD AFTER SEMINOLE ROCK AND AUER Paul J. Larkin, Jr. & Elizabeth H. Slattery .............................. 625 NOTE CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE, SEVERABILITY, AND A NEW ERIE MOMENT Ryan M. Folio .......................................................................... 649 THE TAXATION OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN AMERICA Grant M. Newman .................................................................. 681 HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY Editor-in-Chief RYAN PROCTOR Deputy Editor-in-Chief Articles Editors CHADWICK HARPER Managing Editors HAYLEY EVANS BRAD BARBER DANIEL JOHNSON WILL COURTNEY Executive Editors KEES THOMPSON ANNIKA BOONE GRAHAM CARNEY Deputy Managing Editors Assistant Articles Editors RYAN FOLIO NICOLE BAADE NICK AQUART CHANSLOR GALLENSTEIN CHASE BROWNDORF AARON HSU JORDAN GREENE HUGH DANILACK PARKER KNIGHT III KEVIN KOLJACK Articles Board VINCENT LI BEN FLESHMAN GRANT NEWMAN Notes Editors ANASTASIA FRANE DAVID RICHTER AARON GYDE JOSHUA HA SAM WILLIAMS BRANTON NESTOR JAMES MCGLONE JOHN MITZEL Events Manager Chief Financial Officer JOEY MONTGOMERY
  • JUDICIAL REVIEW and POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY by EDWARD DUMBAULD *

    JUDICIAL REVIEW and POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY by EDWARD DUMBAULD *

    JUDICIAL REVIEW AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY By EDWARD DUMBAULD * ASCERTAINMENT OF LAW BY ANALYSIS OF CONDUCT The law prevailing in a given society or community is scientifically ascertainable by objective scrutiny of conduct therein.' It is composed of those rules which are in fact accepted and observed as being obliga- tory or normative standards of behavior, appropriate for enforcement by public authority.2 Two complementary characteristics are essential: the rule must actually be in force in the community, and not a mere ideal or imagined precept; and it must be a rule prescribing what ought to be done, rather than a mere description of what is in fact done.' Insistence upon the first of these two requirements enables us to lay aside rules which judges and other officials piously profess but would never actually apply. It enables us also to formulate rules which they do in fact apply, consciously or unconsciously, but would never openly acknowledge.4 Like all human conduct, that which deals with the official promulgation of law is marked by certain fictions and conceal- ments dictated by propriety or vanity. A lawyer, like a psychiatrist, must be able to penetrate these deceptive appearances and, at least for purposes of his own analysis, state the rules of law in unconventional terms, however shocking or amusing such a version of social phenomena may appear.5 Insistence upon what is actually enforced rather than * A.B. Princeton University, 1926; LL.B. Harvard University, 1929, LL.M. Harvard University, 1930; Doctor of Law, University of Leyden, The Netherlands, 1932. Member of the Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, and United States Su- preme Court bars.