DOCSLIB.ORG

Case 4:16-Cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 31

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case 4:16-Cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 31 Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 31 1 AARON MACKEY (SBN 286647) [email protected] 2 NATHAN D. CARDOZO (SBN 259097) [email protected] 3 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street 4 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 5 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) Case No. 16-cv-02041-HSG 12 ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND CROSS 13 ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY v. ) JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO 14 ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 ) OF JUSTICE, ) Date: November 8, 2018 16 ) Time: 2:00 pm Defendant. ) Courtroom: Courtroom 2, 17 ) Oakland Courthouse ) Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i. i PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MPSJ AND OPP TO DEFENDANT’S MPSJ Case No. 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 31 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 3 United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, Plaintiff Electronic Frontier 4 Foundation (“EFF”), will, and hereby does, cross move this Court for partial summary judgment. 5 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, EFF seeks a court order requiring the 7 government to release records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. EFF 8 respectfully asks that this Court issue an order requiring the government to process and release all 9 records improperly withheld from the public. This cross motion is based on this notice of motion, the 10 memorandum of points and authorities in support of this cross motion, and all papers and records on 11 file with the Clerk or which may be submitted prior to or at the time of the hearing, and any further 12 evidence which may be offered. 13 14 15 DATED: August 23, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 16 17 /s/ Aaron Mackey Aaron Mackey 18 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 19 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 20 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff 22 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 23 24 25 26 27 ii. i 28 PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MPSJ AND OPP TO DEFENDANT’S MPSJ Case No. 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... i 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ ii 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 1 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 5 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 2 6 I. EFF files this FOIA request seeking declassified FISC opinions that Congress required 7 to be released after passing the USA FREEDOM Act. ................................................................ 2 8 II. Section 402 of the USA FREEDOM Act unambiguously requires the declassification and disclosure of all “significant” FISC opinions. ........................................................................ 4 9 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 6 10 I. FOIA establishes a presumption of disclosure, and the government bears the burden 11 of demonstrating that withheld records are clearly exempt. ........................................................ 6 12 II. The Government has not met its burden to withhold the Six Opinions under FOIA because the records are either improperly classified or the Vaughn index provided 13 by the Government is inadequate. ................................................................................................. 7 14 A. USA FREEDOM requires the government to either declassify and release significant FISC opinions, like the Six Opinions, or to create a declassified 15 summary of those opinions. .................................................................................................... 8 16 1. The Six Opinions are “significant” and thus fall within the statute’s reach. ................ 9 17 2. USA FREEDOM applies to each and every significant FISC opinion, without regard to the date the opinions were issued, including the Six Opinions. ..... 10 18 3. USA FREEDOM presents no retroactivity concerns. ................................................. 11 19 B. Because USA FREEDOM Applies to the Six Opinions, the Government has failed 20 to satisfy its burden to withhold the records under FOIA. .................................................... 15 21 1. The Six Opinions cannot be withheld in full under Exemptions 1 or 3. ..................... 15 22 2. Alternatively, the Government’s Vaughn index is inadequate because it fails to provide as much information as possible about the withheld records. ....................... 17 23 C. By withholding the Six Opinions in full, the Government has failed to comply with 24 its obligation to segregate and release non-exempt information. ......................................... 20 25 D. In Camera Review of the Six Opinions is Necessary. .......................................................... 23 26 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 24 27 ii. i 28 i PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MPSJ AND OPP TO DEFENDANT’S MPSJ Case No. 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 Cases 3 [Caption Redacted], 2012 WL 9189263 (FISC Sept. 1, 2012) .......................................................................................... 3 4 ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 5 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 8 6 ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 7 59 F. Supp. 3d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .............................................................................................. 23 8 Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................... 23 9 Animal League Defense Fund v. FDA, 10 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................ 6 11 Assassination Archives and Research Center v. Dep’t of Justice, 43 F.3d 1542 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................... 8 12 13 Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control v. Dep’t of State, 818 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1992) ............................................................................................... 18 14 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 15 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................................................................... 7 16 Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) .............................................................................................................................. 6 17 Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 18 489 U.S. 749 (1989) .......................................................................................................................... 6 19 Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 20 492 U.S. 136 (1989) ...................................................................................................................... 6, 8 21 EFF v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 11-cv-0441-ABJ (D.D.C.) .......................................................................................................... 3 22 EFF v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 No. 11-cv-5221-YGR (N.D. Cal) ................................................................................... 2, 21, 22, 24 24 EFF v. Dep’t of Justice, 25 No. 12-cv-1441-ABJ (D.D.C.) .................................................................................................. 21, 22 26 EFF v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 14-cv-00760-RMC (D.D.C.) ...................................................................................................... 3 27 ii. i 28 ii PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MPSJ AND OPP TO DEFENDANT’S MPSJ Case No. 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Case 4:16-cv-02041-HSG Document 68 Filed 08/23/18 Page 5 of 31 EFF v. Dep’t of Justice, 1 No. 15-cv-03186-MEJ, 2016 WL 7406429 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) .......................................... 17 2 EPIC v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 296 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2017) ................................................................................................ 15 4 Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) .......................................................................................................................... 13 5 Feshbach v. SEC, 6 5 F. Supp. 2d 774 (N.D. Cal. 1997) .................................................................................................. 7 7 Fiduccia v. Dep’t of Justice, 8 185 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Membership Lists, Metadata, and Freedom of Association's Specificity Requirement
    Membership Lists, Metadata, and Freedom of Association's Specificity Requirement KATHERINE J. STRANDBURG* Over the past year, documents revealed by leaker Edward Snowden and declassified by the government have provided a detailed look at some aspects of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) surveillance of electronic communications and transactions. Attention has focused on the NSA's mass collection from major telecommunications carriers of so-called "telephony metadata," which includes dialing and dialed numbers, call time, duration, and the like.' The goal of comprehensive metadata collection is what I have elsewhere called "relational surveillance"2-to follow "chains of communications" between "telephone numbers associated with known or suspected terrorists and other telephone numbers" and then to "analyze those connections in a way that can help identify terrorist * Alfred B. Engelberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Professor Strandburg acknowledges the generous support of the Filomen D'Agostino and Max E. Greenberg Research Fund. 1 The term "metadata" has been widely adopted in discussing the NSA's data collection activities and so I will use it here. When one moves beyond call traffic data, however, the term's meaning in the data surveillance context is problematic, ill-defined and may obscure the need for careful analysis. As one illustration of these issues, consider NSA documents recently made public in connection with news reports of NSA monitoring of text messages, which refer, in language that would have made the Red Queen proud, to "content derived metadata." See James Ball, NSA DishfirePresentation on Text Message Collection-Key Extracts, THE GUARDIAN, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Practice, Remedies, and Oversight
    ___________________________ SUMMARY OF U.S. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE LAW, PRACTICE, REMEDIES, AND OVERSIGHT ASHLEY GORSKI AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION AUGUST 30, 2018 _________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT ............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. U.S. Surveillance Law and Practice ................................................................................... 2 A. Legal Framework ......................................................................................................... 3 1. Presidential Power to Conduct Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ....................... 3 2. The Expansion of U.S. Government Surveillance .................................................. 4 B. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ..................................................... 5 1. Traditional FISA: Individual Orders ..................................................................... 6 2. Bulk Searches Under Traditional FISA ................................................................. 7 C. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ........................................... 8 D. How The U.S. Government Uses Section 702 in Practice ......................................... 12 1. Data Collection: PRISM and Upstream Surveillance ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE May 23, 2015 RE: S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act of 2015 Dear Members of the Senate: Section 215 of the Patriot Act expanded the reach of the intelligence agencies in unprecedented ways and is the basis for collecting and retaining records on AMERICAN CIVIL millions of innocent Americans. The ACLU opposed Section 215 when it LIBERTIES UNION WASHINGTON was introduced, has fought it at each successive reauthorization, and urges LEGISLATIVE OFFICE Congress to let it sunset on June 1st. 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 TH FL WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 F/202.546.0738 This week, the Senate is scheduled to vote on S. 1123, the USA Freedom Act WWW.ACLU.ORG of 2015, which proposes modest reforms to Section 215, Section 214 (the pen MICHAEL W. MACLEOD-BALL register and trap and trace device provision, “PR/TT”), and national security ACTING DIRECTOR letter authorities. The bill also seeks to increase transparency over government NATIONAL OFFICE surveillance activities but could be construed to codify a new surveillance 125 BROAD STREET, 18 TH FL. regime of more limited, yet still massive scope. NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 Earlier this month, the Second Circuit unequivocally ruled that the OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 1 SUSAN N. HERMAN government’s bulk metadata program violated the law. In light of this PRESIDENT decision, it is clear that more robust surveillance reform is needed. Though an ANTHONY D. ROMERO improvement over the status quo in some respects, the USA Freedom Act EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR does not go far enough to rein in NSA abuses and contains several concerning ROBERT REMAR provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Intelligence Community (IC) – General Information
    Guide to Posted Documents Regarding Use of National Security Authorities – Updated as of January, 2020 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Intelligence Community (IC) – General Information .............................................................................. 1 IC Framework for Protecting Civil Liberties and Privacy and Enhancing Transparency ................................ 3 Reports on Use of National Security Authorities. ......................................................................................... 5 Section 702: - Overviews............................................................................................................................... 6 Section 702: Targeting and Minimization ..................................................................................................... 7 Section 702: Compliance, Oversight, and Other Documents ....................................................................... 8 FISA: Other Provisions ................................................................................................................................... 9 FISA: FISC and FISCR Opinions..................................................................................................................... 10 Executive Order 12333 ................................................................................................................................ 11 Presidential
    [Show full text]
  • IN the EUROPEAN COURT of HUMAN RIGHTS App No. 24960/15 10 HUMAN RIGHTS
    IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS App No. 24960/15 10 HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS – v – THE UNITED KINGDOM THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER Introduction 1. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) welcomes the opportunity to submit these written comments pursuant to leave granted on February 26, 2016, by the President of the First Section under Rule 44 §3 of the Rules of the Court. These submissions do not address the facts or merits of the applicants’ case. 2. EPIC is a public interest, non-profit research and educational organization based in Washington, D.C. 1 EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age. EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in U.S. courts, pursues open government cases, defends consumer privacy, coordinates non- profit participation in international policy discussions, and advocates before legislative and judicial organizations about emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC is a leading privacy and freedom of information organization in the US with special expertise in government surveillance related legal matters. 3. The matter before the Court in 10 Human Rights Organizations and Others v. the United Kingdom impacts the human rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression of people around the world, which is reflected also by the variety of the applicants’ affiliations. The matter before the Court is an issue of broad international importance because it involves arrangements to transfer personal data between the United States and European countries.
    [Show full text]
  • H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM ACT FACT SHEET
    H.R. 3361, The USA FREEDOM ACT FACT SHEET The USA FREEDOM Act reforms intelligence-gathering programs to enhance civil liberty protections while preserving traditional operational capabilities to protect national security. The Act prohibits the bulk collection of records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act; the FISA pen register, trap and trace statute; and the national security letter statutes. This goes further than the President’s plan in that it prohibits the bulk collection of all tangible things and not just telephone records. The Act preserves traditional operational capabilities. The government may continue to collect foreign intelligence information under each of these authorities. However, the government must now base the use of these authorities on a “specific selection term” defined to preclude indiscriminate, bulk record collection. The Act creates a new, narrowly-tailored authority for the collection of call detail records. This new authority leaves the records in the hands of the providers, is limited to only international terrorism investigations, and requires the government to obtain a court order on a case-by-case basis to request the records from the providers. The Act imposes limitations on the new call detail record authority. Production of call detail records cannot exceed 180 days unless the government seeks permission of the court to renew the order. The government is limited to only two “hops”—i.e., the call detail records associated with the initial seed and the call detail records associated with the records returned in the initial “hop.” The government is also required to promptly destroy records that do not contain foreign intelligence information.
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIAL REPORT ESPIONAGE November 12Th 2016 Shaken and Stirred
    SPECIAL REPORT ESPIONAGE November 12th 2016 Shaken and stirred 20161012_SR_ESPIONAGE_001.indd 1 27/10/2016 13:41 SPECIAL REPORT ESPIONAGE Shaken and stirred Intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled to come to terms with new technology and a new mission. They are not done yet, writes Edward Carr IN THE SPRING thaw of 1992 a KGB archivist called Vasili Mitrokhin CONTENTS walked into the British embassy in Riga. Stashed at the bottom ofhis bag, beneath some sausages, were copies of Soviet intelligence files that he 5 Technology had smuggled out of Russia. Before the year was out MI6, Britain’s for- Tinker, tailor, hacker, spy eign-intelligence service, had spirited away Mitrokhin, his family and six large cases packed with KGB records which he had kept hidden in a milk 7 Governance Standard operating churn and some old trunks under the floor ofhis dacha. procedure The pages of “The Mitrokhin Archive”, eventually published in 1999, are steeped in vodka and betrayal. They tell the stories of notorious 8 Edward Snowden spies like Kim Philby, a British intelligence officer who defected to Russia You’re US government in 1963. And they exposed agents like Melita Norwood, who had quietly property worked for the KGB for 40 years from her home in south-east London, then shot to fame as a great-gran- 10 China and Russia Happenstance and enemy ny. Her unrelenting Marxist refus- action al to shop at Britain’s capitalist su- permarkets earned her the 12 How to do better headline: “The Spy Who Came in The solace of the law from the Co-op”.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Government's Use of the Call Detail Records Program
    Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Report on the Government’s Use of the Call Detail Records Program Under the USA Freedom Act Working to ensure that efforts by the Executive Branch to protect the nation from terrorism appropriately safeguard privacy and civil liberties. February 2020 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board • PCLOB.gov • [email protected] TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN Board Members Adam I. Klein, Chairman Jane E. Nitze Edward W. Felten Travis LeBlanc Aditya Bamzai TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN Table of Contents (U) Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 I. (U) Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 II. (U) NSA’s Collection of CDRs under the USA Freedom Act ............................................ 13 III. (U) Operational Use of the USA Freedom Act CDR Program ............................................ 25 IV. (U) Legal Analysis ............................................................................................................... 33 V. (U) Analysis of Privacy Risks.............................................................................................. 53 VI. (U) Statement of Chairman Adam Klein ............................................................................. 59 VII. (U) Statement of Board Members Ed Felten and Travis LeBlanc ....................................... 68 VIII. (U) Statement
    [Show full text]
  • The Structural Constitution and the Challenge of Mass Surveillance
    Before Privacy, Power: The Structural Constitution and the Challenge of Mass Surveillance Deborah Pearlstein* INTRODUCTION The rich legal literature that has grown up to assess the constitutionality of bulk communications collection by the government has focused overwhelmingly—and understandably—on the challenge such programs pose to particular claims of individual right against the state. For scholars focused on the Fourth Amend- ment,1 bulk collection threatens the constitutional protection of the “privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts” by the government,2 and in particular implicates the prohibition against warrantless searches that violate an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”3 Less frequently, scholars have highlighted various First Amendment interests impli- cated by bulk data collection—the danger that government collection may chill individual associational and expressive activities,4 as well as the intellectual freedom to think and explore ideas and information without fear of state record keeping.5 While varying widely in its conclusions, this work generally begins by conceptualizing the potential constitutional harm such programs pose as arising in discrete areas of the doctrinal Bill of Rights. Yet attempting to describe what seems troubling about bulk collection in terms of individual rights alone has significant doctrinal and conceptual limits. In doctrinal terms, for instance, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has not yet identified any constitutionally cognizable harm when the government searches information that has been shared with a third party—even in an era when vast quantities of individuals’ most intimate data is possessed in electronic form by * Professor, Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. The author wishes to thank William C.
    [Show full text]
  • ICOTR Transparency Tracker
    Subject matter Date Document category (used in Posting description/title Link posted orig. year Subcategory charts) Section 702 Overview https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf 12/20/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 Fact Sheet: Guide to Posted Documents Regarding Use of National Security Authorities - Updated as of https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Updated- 12/12/2017 2017 FISA December 2017 Guide_to_Posted_Documents_December_2017_FINAL.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Updated-Guide-to-Section-702-Value-Examples--- Fact Sheet: Guide to Section 702 Value Examples - Updated 12/7/2017 2017 FISA FISA - Section 702 Dec-2017-FINAL.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/CLPT-USP-Dissemination-Paper---FINAL-clean- ODNI Report on Protecting U.S. Person Identities in Disseminations under FISA 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 11.17.17.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-1-NSA-CLPO-Dissemination-Report- Annex 1 - The National Security Agency’s (NSA) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA Disseminations 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 20171027.pdf Annex 2 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Report on Protecting USP Information in FISA https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-2---FBI-Report-on-Protecting-USP- 11/20/2017 2017 FISA Title I, Title III, and Section 702 Disseminations Information-in-FISA-Disseminations.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Annex-3---CIA-Report-on-Protecting-USP- Annex 3 -
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee Inquiry on Comprehensive Revision of Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979
    Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee Inquiry on Comprehensive Revision of Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 This submission is based entirely upon publicly available sources. The list of appendices at the back does not appear in order of mention. Appendices are accessible via control/click from the text. Some surveillance programs are not named but shown as eg. A-redact Contents Introduction..............................................................................................................4 Programs...................................................................................................................8 Operating bases in Australia...................................................................................8 National legislation on surveillance ............................................................................8 UKUSA and people ..................................................................................................9 Monitoring agencies in Australia which have an impact on human rights and privacy.....................................................................................................................11 Queries to our watchdogs ......................................................................................11 Emanation security ................................................................................................11 Legislative protections for citizens ...........................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Act Limits NSA Phone Surveillance
    Editor: Henry Reichman, California State University, East Bay Founding Editor: Judith F. Krug (1940–2009) Publisher: Barbara Jones Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association ISSN 1945-4546 July 2015 Vol. LXIV No. 4 www.ala.org/nif In a significant scaling back of national security policy formed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Senate on June 2 approved legislation curtailing the federal government’s sweeping surveillance of American phone records, and President Obama signed the measure hours later. The passage of the bill—achieved over the fierce opposition of the Senate major- ity leader—will allow the government to restart surveillance operations, but with new restrictions. The legislation signaled a cultural turning point for the nation, almost 14 years after the September 11 attacks heralded the construction of a powerful national security apparatus. Freedom The shift against the security state began with the revelations by Edward J. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, about the bulk collection of phone records. Act limits The backlash was aided by the growth of interconnected communication networks run by companies that have felt manhandled by government prying. The storage of those records now shifts to the phone companies, and the government must petition a special federal NSA phone court for permission to search them. Even with the congressional action, the government will continue to maintain robust surveillance surveillance power, an authority highlighted by Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Ken- tucky, whose opposition to the phone records program forced it to be shut down at 12:01 a.m. June 1.
    [Show full text]