DOCSLIB.ORG

Jewel V. National Security Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jewel V. National Security Agency Case4:08-cv-04373-JSW Document285 Filed09/29/14 Page1 of 56 1 JOYCE R. BRANDA Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 JOSEPH H. HUNT 3 Director, Federal Programs Branch 4 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Branch Director 5 JAMES J. GILLIGAN 6 Special Litigation Counsel 7 MARCIA BERMAN Senior Trial Counsel 8 RODNEY PATTON 9 Trial Attorney 10 JULIA BERMAN Trial Attorney 11 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 12 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102 Washington, D.C. 20001 13 Phone: (202) 514-3358; Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: [email protected] 14 Attorneys for the Government Defendants 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 OAKLAND DIVISION _______________________________________ 18 ) ) 19 CAROLYN JEWEL, et al., ) Case No. 4:08-cv-4373-JSW ) 20 ) GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 21 ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION 22 v. ) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ 23 ) FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al., ) 24 ) Date: October 31 and November 3, 2014 ) Time: 9:00 a.m. 25 Defendants. ) Courtroom 5, Second Floor ) Hon. Jeffrey S. White 26 _______________________________________ ) 27 28 Jewel v. NSA, No. 08-cv-4373-JSW: Gov’t Defs.’ Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. Judg. & Cross-Mot. for Partial Summ. Judg. on Pls.’ Fourth Amendment Claim Case4:08-cv-04373-JSW Document285 Filed09/29/14 Page2 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................4 A. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 ..............................................................................................................4 B. Operation of the Section 702 Program and Upstream Collection ............................6 C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ...................................................7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................11 I. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS PROCEDUARLLY IMPROPER........................................................................................................................11 II. NEITHER THE KLEIN AND MARCUS DECLARATIONS NOR THE MEDIA REPORTS CITED BY PLAINTIFFS CONSTITUTE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR STANDING OR FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS .....................13 A. The Klein Declaration Is Not Competent Evidence Because It Is Based on Hearsay and Speculation, Rather Than Personal Knowledge ................14 B. The Marcus Declaration Is Not Competent Evidence Because It Offers Improper Opinion Testimony Based on the Inadmissible Klein Declaration ...................................................................................................16 C. Even if the Klein and Marcus Declarations Were Not Based on Speculation and Hearsay, They Could Not Support Plaintiffs’ Current Standing or the Merits of Their Fourth Amendment Claim .....................18 D. The Unsubstantiated Media Reports on Which Plaintiffs Rely Constitute Inadmissible Hearsay, and Are Entitled to no Weight .........................19 III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THEIR STANDING. AND CANNOT DO SO WITHOUT RISK OF GRAVE DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY ..................................................................................................20 A. Plaintiffs Have Not Carried Their Evidentiary Burden of Establishing their Standing .................................................................................................................20 i Case4:08-cv-04373-JSW Document285 Filed09/29/14 Page3 of 56 B. Even if Plaintiffs Had Presented Admissible Evidence to Support Their Standing, the State Secrets Doctrine Would Still Require Entry of Judgment for the Government on the Standing Issue ........................................................................21 IV. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE DENIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND JUDGMENT SHOULD INSTREAD BE AWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT, ON THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM ..................................................23 A. Plaintiffs’ Claim of a Seizure at “Stage 1” Fails as a Matter of Fact and Law ....23 1. Plaintiffs have presented no admissible evidence that Upstream collection under Section 702 in fact involves the “Stage 1” seizure they allege ..................................................................................................24 2. Even if proven, the alleged “Stage 1” splitting of the Internet communications stream would not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure as a matter of law ......................................................25 3. No authority cited by Plaintiffs supports their seizure claim .....................29 B. Plaintiffs’ Claim That Alleged “Stage 3” Scanning Constitutes a Search of Communications Not Found To Contain Targeted Selectors Is Also Without Merit ....................................................................................................................31 C. The “Stage 1” Seizure and “Stage 3” Search Alleged by Plaintiffs Fall Within the Fourth Amendment’s “Special Needs” Doctrine and Are Reasonable Under the Totality of the Circumstances ............................................34 1. The challenged surveillance activities do not require the issuance of a warrant upon probable cause because the Government has a “special need” to collect foreign-intelligence information .....................34 2. The challenged “Stage 1” copying and “Stage 3” scanning of Plaintiffs’ unretained communications are reasonable because the interests of national security far outweigh the minimal intrusion on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment interests .................................38 D. Even if Plaintiffs Had Presented Evidence of a Seizure or Search, Not Justified Under the Special Needs Doctrine, Their Fourth Amendment Claim Still Could Not Be Litigated Without National-Security Information Protected by the State Secrets Privilege .....................................................................................................43 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................45 ii Case4:08-cv-04373-JSW Document285 Filed09/29/14 Page4 of 56 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Al-Haramain Islamic Found. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................44 In re Application of the United States of America for a Search Warrant for Contents of Electronic mail [etc.], 645 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009) ..........................29 Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) .....................................................................................................27, 29 Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) .............................................................................................................36 Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) .....................................................................................................40, 43 Bras v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 59 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................................13, 18 Cassidy v. Cherthoff, 471 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................37, 43 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...............................................................................................13, 20, 21 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) .............................................................................................................35 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) ............................................................................................... passim Courtney v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 899 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................14 DMC Closure Aversion Comm. v. Goia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121644 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014)...............................................19 De Boer v. Pennington, 206 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................25 In re Directives, 551 F.3d 1004 (FISC Ct. Rev. 2008) ......................................................................... passim iii Case4:08-cv-04373-JSW Document285 Filed09/29/14 Page5 of 56 Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Dep't of Justice, 2014 WL 3945646 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) ..................................................................22 Feezor v. Patterson, 896 F. Supp. 2d 895 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ..............................................................................13 Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) .............................................................................................................35 Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) .................................................................................................30, 31 Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) ...........................................................................................................35
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anti-Terrorism Authority Under the Laws of the United Kingdom and the United States
    Order Code RL33726 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Anti-Terrorism Authority Under the Laws of the United Kingdom and the United States September 7, 2006 Clare Feikert Foreign Law Specialist Law Library of Congress Charles Doyle Senior Specialist American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Anti-Terrorism Authority Under the Laws of the United Kingdom and the United States Summary This is a comparison of the laws of the United Kingdom and of the United States that govern criminal and intelligence investigations of terrorist activities. Both systems rely upon a series of statutory authorizations: in the case of the United States primarily the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; in the case of the United Kingdom, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the Police Act, the Intelligence Services Act. Among other differences, the U.S. procedures rely more heavily upon judicial involvement and supervision, while those of the UK employ other safeguards. The UK procedures afford greater latitude to arrest, detain and supervise suspected terrorists than those available in the United States. Contents Introduction ......................................................1 Police Stop and Search Powers .......................................3 Police Arrest Powers ...............................................5 Detention of Suspected Terrorists.....................................5 Control Orders....................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Lawful Interception of IP Traffic
    LawfulLawful InterceptionInterception ofof IPIP Traffic:Traffic: TheThe EuropeanEuropean ContextContext Jaya Baloo Draft 1 ContentsContents § Introduction to Lawful Interception § Interception of Internet services § Origins in The European Community § The European Interception Legislation in Brief § ETSI § The Dutch TIIT specifications § Interception Suppliers & Discussion of Techniques § Future Developments & Issues IntroductionIntroduction toto LawfulLawful InterceptionInterception § ETSI definition of (lawful) interception: § interception: action (based on the law), performed by an network operator/access provider/service provider (NWO/AP/SvP), of making available certain information and providing that information to a law enforcement monitoring facility. LI Law order Enforcement Network Operator, Agency (LEA) Access Provider or Service Provider Deliver requested Law Enforcement information Monitoring Facility LILIÕÕss RaisonRaison DDÕÕetreetre §§ WhyWhy intercept?intercept? § Terrorism § Pedophilia rings § Cyber stalking § Data theft ÐIndustrial espionage § Drug dealers on the internet §§ WhyWhy not?not? § Privacy § Security LegalLegal IssuesIssues inin LILI § Judge: "Am I not to hear the truth?" Objecting Counsel: "No, Your Lordship is to hear the evidence." § Some characteristics of evidence- relevance to LI § Admissible Ð can evidence be considered in courtÐ *differs per country § Authentic Ð explicitly link data to individuals § Accurate Ð reliability of surveillance process over content of intercept § Complete Ð tells a ÒcompleteÓ story of a particular circumstance § Convincing to juries Ð probative value, and subjective practical test of presentation AdmissibilityAdmissibility ofof SurveillanceSurveillance EvidenceEvidence § Virtual Locus Delecti § Hard to actually find criminals in delicto flagrante § How to handle expert evidence? Juries are not composed of network specialists. Legal not scientific decision making. § Case for treating Intercepted evidence as secondary and not primary evidence § Primary Ð is the best possible evidence Ð e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Mass Surveillance Mass Surveillance What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society? What are the possible mitigation strategies? Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications Study IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/LOT 9/C5/SC1 January 2015 PE 527.409 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project “Mass Surveillance Part 1 – Risks, Opportunities and Mitigation Strategies” was carried out by TECNALIA Research and Investigation in Spain. AUTHORS Arkaitz Gamino Garcia Concepción Cortes Velasco Eider Iturbe Zamalloa Erkuden Rios Velasco Iñaki Eguía Elejabarrieta Javier Herrera Lotero Jason Mansell (Linguistic Review) José Javier Larrañeta Ibañez Stefan Schuster (Editor) The authors acknowledge and would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this report: Prof. Nigel Smart, University of Bristol; Matteo E. Bonfanti PhD, Research Fellow in International Law and Security, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa; Prof. Fred Piper, University of London; Caspar Bowden, independent privacy researcher; Maria Pilar Torres Bruna, Head of Cybersecurity, Everis Aerospace, Defense and Security; Prof. Kenny Paterson, University of London; Agustín Martin and Luis Hernández Encinas, Tenured Scientists, Department of Information Processing and Cryptography (Cryptology and Information Security Group), CSIC; Alessandro Zanasi, Zanasi & Partners; Fernando Acero, Expert on Open Source Software; Luigi Coppolino,Università degli Studi di Napoli; Marcello Antonucci, EZNESS srl; Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Peter Kruse, Founder of CSIS Security Group A/S; Ryan Gallagher, investigative Reporter of The Intercept; Capitán Alberto Redondo, Guardia Civil; Prof. Bart Preneel, KU Leuven; Raoul Chiesa, Security Brokers SCpA, CyberDefcon Ltd.; Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • SURVEILLE NSA Paper Based on D2.8 Clean JA V5
    FP7 – SEC- 2011-284725 SURVEILLE Surveillance: Ethical issues, legal limitations, and efficiency Collaborative Project This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 284725 SURVEILLE Paper on Mass Surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States of America Extract from SURVEILLE Deliverable D2.8: Update of D2.7 on the basis of input of other partners. Assessment of surveillance technologies and techniques applied in a terrorism prevention scenario. Due date of deliverable: 31.07.2014 Actual submission date: 29.05.2014 Start date of project: 1.2.2012 Duration: 39 months SURVEILLE WorK PacKage number and lead: WP02 Prof. Tom Sorell Author: Michelle Cayford (TU Delft) SURVEILLE: Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Commission Services) Executive summary • SURVEILLE deliverable D2.8 continues the approach pioneered in SURVEILLE deliverable D2.6 for combining technical, legal and ethical assessments for the use of surveillance technology in realistic serious crime scenarios. The new scenario considered is terrorism prevention by means of Internet monitoring, emulating what is known about signals intelligence agencies’ methods of electronic mass surveillance. The technologies featured and assessed are: the use of a cable splitter off a fiber optic backbone; the use of ‘Phantom Viewer’ software; the use of social networking analysis and the use of ‘Finspy’ equipment installed on targeted computers.
    [Show full text]
  • Ts 101 331 V1.4.1 (2014-02)
    ETSI TS 101 331 V1.4.1 (2014-02) Technical Specification Lawful Interception (LI); Requirements of Law Enforcement Agencies 2 ETSI TS 101 331 V1.4.1 (2014-02) Reference RTS/LI-00112 Keywords security, lawful interception ETSI 650 Route des Lucioles F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret N° 348 623 562 00017 - NAF 742 C Association à but non lucratif enregistrée à la Sous-Préfecture de Grasse (06) N° 7803/88 Important notice Individual copies of the present document can be downloaded from: http://www.etsi.org The present document may be made available in more than one electronic version or in print. In any case of existing or perceived difference in contents between such versions, the reference version is the Portable Document Format (PDF). In case of dispute, the reference shall be the printing on ETSI printers of the PDF version kept on a specific network drive within ETSI Secretariat. Users of the present document should be aware that the document may be subject to revision or change of status. Information on the current status of this and other ETSI documents is available at http://portal.etsi.org/tb/status/status.asp If you find errors in the present document, please send your comment to one of the following services: http://portal.etsi.org/chaircor/ETSI_support.asp Copyright Notification No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media. © European Telecommunications Standards Institute 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Wireless Evolution •..••••.•.•...•....•.•..•.•••••••...••••••.•••.••••••.••.•.••.••••••• 4
    Department of Justice ,"'''''''''<11 Bureau of Investigation ,Operational Technology Division WIRELESS EVDLUTIDN IN THIS Iselil-it:: .. WIRELESS EVOLUTIDN I!I TECH BYTES • LONG TERM EVOLUTIQN ill CLDUD SERVICES • 4G TECHNOLOGY ill GESTURE-RECOGNITION • FCC ON BROADBAND • ACTIVITY-BASED NAVIGATION 'aw PUIi! I' -. q f. 8tH'-.1 Waa 8RI,. (!.EIi/RiW81 R.d-nl)) - 11 - I! .el " Ij MESSAGE FROM MANAGEMENT b7E he bou~~aries of technology are constantly expanding. develop technical tools to combat threats along the Southwest Recognizing the pathway of emerging technology is Border. a key element to maintaining relevance in a rapidly changing technological environment. While this The customer-centric approach calls for a high degree of T collaboration among engineers, subject matter experts (SMEs), proficiency is fundamentally important in developing strategies that preserve long-term capabilities in the face of emerging and the investigator to determine needs and requirements. technologies, equally important is delivering technical solutions To encourage innovation, the technologists gain a better to meet the operational needs of the law enforcement understanding of the operational and investigative needs customer in a dynamic 'threat' environment. How can technical and tailor the technology to fit the end user's challenges. law enforcement organizations maintain the steady-state Rather than developing solutions from scratch, the customer­ production of tools and expertise for technical collection, while centric approach leverages and modifies the technoloe:v to infusing ideas and agility into our organizations to improve our fit the customer's nFlFlrt~.1 ability to deliver timely, relevant, and cutting edge tools to law enforcement customers? Balancing these two fundamentals through an effective business strategy is both a challenge and an opportunity for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Case 1:15-cv-00662-TSE Document 143-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 14 Exhibit 1 Case 1:15-cv-00662-TSE Document 143-2 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 14 Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency et al. No. 15 Civ. 00662 (TSE) Transcript Citations Deposition of NSA Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Rebecca J. Richards The deposition questions fall into the three categories that Wikimedia identified in its opening brief, Pl. Br. 3–8, plus one additional category: Category 1: Direct evidence that Wikimedia has been surveilled.1 Category 2: The meanings and definitions of key terms the government has used to describe Upstream surveillance to the public. Category 3: Evidence concerning the scope and breadth of Upstream surveillance. Category 4: Evidence rebutting speculation and hypotheticals that the government’s outside expert intends to offer concerning Upstream surveillance. See Def. Mot. to Compel 11–14 (ECF No. 126-1). Depending on how the Court chooses to structure its in camera review—for instance, by prioritizing straightforward admissions about the surveillance, or based on the assistance and input of the Court’s own expert—Wikimedia will identify any subset(s) of questions that the Court may request. No. Category 1 Excerpted Questions: Citation to Questions and Direct Evidence That Wikimedia Has Been Surveilled Context 1. Does NSA now scan Wikimedia’s communications in the Tr. 328:15-17 course of Upstream surveillance? 2. In 2015, did NSA scan Wikimedia communications in the Tr. 329:3-5 course of upstream surveillance? 3. Does NSA now copy Wikimedia communications in the Tr.
    [Show full text]
  • Interception of Communications
    INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS Pursuant to Schedule 7 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 [February 2017] DRAFT Code of Practice © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/investigatory-powers-bill Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Interception of Communications DRAFT Code of Practice Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Definitions 6 What is interception? 6 What is a communications service provider? 6 What is secondary data? 7 What is meant by the content of a communication? 8 Postal Content 9 What are overseas-related communications? 9 3. Unlawful interception – criminal and civil offences 10 4. Warranted interception – general rules 12 Types of warrants 12 The intercepting authorities 13 Necessity and proportionality 14 Trade Unions 16 5. Targeted warrants 17 Subject-matter of targeted warrants 17 Targeted thematic warrants 19 Specificity of thematic warrants 20 Authorisation of thematic warrants 21 Modification of thematic warrants 21 Renewal of thematic warrants
    [Show full text]
  • The Growing Impact of Social Networking Trends on Lawful Interception
    WHITE PAPER The Growing Impact of Social Networking Trends on Lawful Interception www.ixiacom.com 915-6913-01 Rev. A, July 2014 2 Table of Contents How Bin Laden Evaded Lawful Interception ............................................... 4 A Fast-Changing Environment Opens New Doors to Terrorism and Crime .............................................................................. 4 Internet Traffic Rising Feverishly, with No End In Sight ........................... 5 LI Strategies and Goals Vary, but Requirements Remain Constant ........................................................................................ 5 Net Optics’ Comprehensive Range of Solutions for Lawful Interception .................................................................................... 6 3 This paper discusses the intensifying challenges faced by Law Enforcement Agencies and Service Providers as innovation and speed of adoption open new vulnerabilities to crime and terrorism. The paper explores new solutions and resources for these Service Providers in fulfilling government-mandated Lawful Interception requirements. Lawful Interception (LI) is the legal process by which a communications network operator or Service Provider (SP) gives authorized officials access to the communications of individuals or organizations. With security threats mushrooming in new directions, LI is more than ever a priority and major focus of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). Regulations such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), mandate that SPs place
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information
    6&,(17,),&∃1∋7(&+12/2∗,&∃/237,216∃66(660(17 672∃ ∋(9(/230(172)6859(,//∃1&( 7(&+12/2∗<∃1∋5,6.2)∃%86( 2)(&2120,&,1)250∃7,21 9ΡΟ 3ΥΗςΗΘΛΡΘΘΓ∃ΘΟ∴ςΛς 3ΥΗςΗΘΛΡΘΡΙΚΗΙΡΞΥςΞΓΛΗς ∃ΘΟ∴ςΛς∋ΣΥΡΗΦΛΡΘΘΓΚΞΠΘΥΛϑΚςΛΘΚΗ(ΞΥΡΣΗΘ8ΘΛΡΘΘΓΚΗ ΥΡΟΗΡΙΚΗ(ΞΥΡΣΗΘ3ΥΟΛΠΗΘ ∋ΡΦΞΠΗΘΓΗΥΨΛΟΣΡΞΥΟΗ3ΘΗΟ672∃ /Ξ[ΗΠΕΡΞΥϑ∋ΗΦΗΠΕΗΥ 3(9ΡΟ(1 QA-ST-OA-132-EN-N &ΟΡϑΞΛΘϑΓ 7ΛΟΗ 9ΡΟ3ΥπςΗΘΛΡΘΗΘΟ∴ςΗ 3ΥπςΗΘΛΡΘΓΗςΤΞ∆ΥΗπΞΓΗς ∃ΘΟ∴ςΗΣΥΡΗΦΩΛΡΘΓΗςΓΡΘΘπΗςΗΩ∋ΥΡΛΓΗΟ+ΡΠΠΗΓΘς Ο 8ΘΛΡΘ(ΞΥΡΣπΗΘΘΗΗΥ{ΟΗΓΞ3∆ΥΟΗΠΗΘ(ΞΥΡΣπΗΘ :ΡΥΝΣΟΘ5ΗΙ (3,9%672∃ 3ΞΕΟΛςΚΗΥ (ΞΥΡΣΗΘ 3ΥΟΛΠΗΘ ∋ΛΥΗΦΡΥΗ ∗ΗΘΗΥΟΙΡΥ5ΗςΗΥΦΚ ∋ΛΥΗΦΡΥΗ ∃ 7ΚΗ672∃3ΥΡϑΥ∆ΠΠΗ ∃ΞΚΡΥ 3Ηϑϑ∴%ΗΦΝΗΥΨΛςΛΛΘϑΥΗςΗ∆ΥΦΚΗΥ 8ΘΓΗΥΚΗςΞΣΗΥΨΛςΛΡΘΡΙ∋ΛΦΝ+ΡΟΓςΖΡΥΚ +ΗΓ ΡΙΩΚΗ672∃7ΗΠ (ΓΛΡΥ0Υ ∋ΛΦΝ+2/∋6:257+ +ΗΓΡΙ672∃8ΘΛ ∋Η 2ΦΡΕΥΗ 3(ΘΞΠΕΗΥ 3(9ΡΟ(1 7ΚΛςΓΡΦΞΠΗΘΛςΖΡΥΝΛΘϑ∋ΡΦΞΠΗΘΙΡΥΚΗ672∃3ΘΗΟ,ΩΛςΘΡΘΡΙΙΛΦΛΟΣΞΕΟΛΦΛΡΘΡΙ 672∃ 7ΚΛςΓΡΦΞΠΗΘΓΡΗςΘΡΘΗΦΗςςΥΛΟ∴ΥΗΣΥΗςΗΘΚΗΨΛΗΖςΡΙΚΗ(ΞΥΡΣΗΘ3ΥΟΛΠΗΘ &217(176 3ϑΗ ,ΘΥΡΓΞΦΛΡΘ 3∆Υ2ΘΗ 3ΥΗςΗΘΛΡΘΡΙΚΗΙΡΞΥςΞΓΛΗς 6ΞΓ∴2ΘΗ 7ΚΗςΩΗΡΙΚΗ∆ΥΛΘ&ΡΠΠΞΘΛΦ∆ΛΡΘς,ΘΗΟΟΛϑΗΘΦΗ &20,17ΡΙ ∆ΞΡΠΗΓΣΥΡΦΗςςΛΘϑΙΡΥΛΘΗΟΟΛϑΗΘΦΗΣΞΥΣΡςΗςΡΙΛΘΗΥΦΗΣΗΓ ΕΥΡΓΕΘΓΠΞΟΛΟΘϑΞϑΗΟΗ∆ςΗΓΡΥΦΡΠΠΡΘΦ∆ΥΥΛΗΥς∴ςΗΠςΘΓΛς ΣΣΟΛΦΕΛΟΛ∴Ρ&20,17ΥϑΗΛΘϑΘΓςΗΟΗΦΛΡΘΛΘΦΟΞΓΛΘϑςΣΗΗΦΚ ΥΗΦΡϑΘΛΛΡΘ 6ΞΓ∴7ΖΡ (ΘΦΥ∴ΣΛΡΘΘΓΦΥ∴ΣΡς∴ςΗΠςΛΘΗΟΗΦΩΥΡΘΛΦςΞΥΨΗΛΟΟΘΦΗ∆ςΞΥΨΗ∴ΡΙ ΚΗΗΦΚΘΡΟΡϑ∴ςςΗςςΠΗΘΛςςΞΗς 6ΞΓ∴7ΚΥΗΗ 7ΚΗΟΗϑ∆ΟΛ∴ΡΙΚΗΛΘΗΥΦΗΣΛΡΘΡΙΗΟΗΦΩΥΡΘΛΦΦΡΠΠΞΘΛΦ∆ΛΡΘς ΦΡΘΦΛςΗςΞΥΨΗ∴ΡΙΚΗΣΥΛΘΦΛΣΟΟΗϑ∆ΟΛςςΞΗςΘΓΛΘςΥΞΠΗΘςΞΘΓΗΥ ΛΘΗΥΘΛΡΘΟ(ΞΥΡΣΗΘΘΓΘΛΡΘΟΟΖ 6ΞΓ∴)ΡΞΥ 7ΚΗΣΗΥΦΗΣΛΡΘΡΙΗΦΡΘΡΠΛΦΥΛςΝςΥΛςΛΘϑΙΥΡΠΚΗΣΡΗΘΛΟ ΨΞΟΘΗΥΕΛΟΛ∴ΡΙΗΟΗΦΥΡΘΛΦΦΡΠΠΗΥΦΛ∆ΟΠΗΓΛΡΛΘΗΥΦΗΣΛΡΘ 3∆Υ7ΖΡ ∃ΘΟ∴ςΛς±∋ΣΥΡΗΦΛΡΘΘΓΚΞΠΘΥΛϑΚςΛΘΚΗ(ΞΥΡΣΗΘ8ΘΛΡΘΘΓΚΗ
    [Show full text]
  • Etsi Ts 133 106 V15.1.0 (2018-06)
    ETSI TS 133 106 V15.1.0 (2018-06) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+) (GSM); 3G security; Lawful interception requirements (3GPP TS 33.106 version 15.1.0 Release 15) 3GPP TS 33.106 version 15.1.0 Release 15 1 ETSI TS 133 106 V15.1.0 (2018-06) Reference RTS/TSGS-0333106vf10 Keywords GSM,LTE,SECURITY,UMTS ETSI 650 Route des Lucioles F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret N° 348 623 562 00017 - NAF 742 C Association à but non lucratif enregistrée à la Sous-Préfecture de Grasse (06) N° 7803/88 Important notice The present document can be downloaded from: http://www.etsi.org/standards-search The present document may be made available in electronic versions and/or in print. The content of any electronic and/or print versions of the present document shall not be modified without the prior written authorization of ETSI. In case of any existing or perceived difference in contents between such versions and/or in print, the only prevailing document is the print of the Portable Document Format (PDF) version kept on a specific network drive within ETSI Secretariat. Users of the present document should be aware that the document may be subject to revision or change of status. Information on the current status of this and other ETSI documents is available at https://portal.etsi.org/TB/ETSIDeliverableStatus.aspx If you find errors in the present document, please send your comment to one of the following services: https://portal.etsi.org/People/CommiteeSupportStaff.aspx Copyright Notification No part may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm except as authorized by written permission of ETSI.
    [Show full text]
  • TRACKING SURVEILLANCE Surveillance Creep Has Made the Leap Front and Centre As the World Responds to COVID-19
    SURVEILLANCE TRACKING SURVEILLANCE Surveillance creep has made the leap front and centre as the world responds to COVID-19. EWAN SUTHERLAND charts the shifts in technology, practice and norms he practice of surveillance began with the covert At the time of writing, governments of all persuasions interception of mail, with telegram and telephone are moving to utilise surveillance technologies to address interception being added centuries later. These the profound health and economic challenges wrought T activities were undertaken by the police and secret by the COVID-19 pandemic. police, later intelligence services, together with the post office, often without an explicit legal framework or checks SURVEILLING THE SURVEILLERS and balances, but constrained by limited resources. Although the public was rarely told directly about Over time these practices had to be reconciled with the surveillance techniques or the scale of their use, some growing recognition of privacy as a human right under information found its way into newspaper reports of national constitutions and international treaties, with trials and into crime and spy fiction and, later, the the European Union creating a right to data protection. cinema. Nowadays, universal and regional treaties exist Liberalisation of telecommunications markets demanded to protect human rights, including privacy, in countries the clarification of authorisation for wiretapping, and the with significant observance of the rule of law. But payment of costs and legal liabilities through legislation and surveillance technologies are also embedded in network licensing. equipment as “lawful interception” and available to The scope of surveillance was expanded with the countries with little, if any, regard for human rights.
    [Show full text]