NSA data sweeps are illegal and should be stopped, report says

An independent congressional review board took a hard line on NSA data-collection programs in a report released Thursday.

|
Carolyn Kaster/AP
Attorney General Eric Holder speaks to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont (r.) before President Obama gives an address about National Security Agency surveillance Friday in Washington. The Justice Department has backed NSA data-collection activities.

Mass collection of Americans’ phone call records by the National Security Agency is illegal and should be abandoned, according to a detailed legal and operational review of the program by an independent congressional review board.

In its first major act, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, set up as an independent agency in 2007 but only recently fully operational, released a 238-page report on the NSA program Thursday.

The board examined the legal foundation for the NSA metadata program that collects billions of records on the time, call duration, and phone numbers called. The practice, it found, was a clear threat to US civil liberties and of “limited value” with no significant impact on curbing terrorist plots.

The legal foundation for the program, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, was weak and “does not provide an adequate basis to support this program,” the board reported. Moreover, even in the dozen cases examined by the board where the metadata linked contacts to a terrorism suspect, most benefits were modest and “limited to corroborating information that was obtained independently by the FBI,” the board report found.

“Cessation of the program would eliminate the privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with bulk collection without unduly hampering the government’s efforts, while ensuring that any governmental requests for telephone calling records are tailored to the needs of specific investigations,” the report concluded.

The findings go further than the conclusions of a separate review panel appointed by President Obama, which released its report last month, or the president himself in a speech Friday. Both determined the program could be continued with thi8rd parties holding the data separately from the NSA and subject to tighter search restrictions.

But just modifying the program was not enough, the board concluded.

“The connections revealed by the extensive database of telephone records gathered under the program will necessarily include relationships established among individuals and groups for political, religious, and other expressive purposes,’’ the report said. “Compelled disclosure to the government of information revealing these associations can have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

But the board’s finding on the program's legality was a split decision. Two of the oversight board's five members dissented, saying the program could continue if further protections for civil liberties were adopted.

The two dissenters were Justice Department employees under President George W. Bush, Rachel Brand and Elisebeth Collins Cook. The three who called for a halt to NSA program include: a Federal Trade Commission official during the Clinton administration, Chairman David Medine; a retired federal appeals court judge appointed by President Carter, Patricia Wald; and a policy expert with the think tank Center for Democracy & Technology, James Dempsey.

That split seemed destined to foment further debate in Congress.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R) of Michigan, chairman of the House intelligence committee, was critical of the report.

“In 38 times over the past seven years, 17 federal judges have examined this issue and found the telephone metadata program to be legal, concluding this program complies with both the statutory text and with the US Constitution,” Bloomberg reported. “I don’t believe the Board should go outside its expertise to opine on the effectiveness of counterterrorism programs.”

But civil libertarians were heartened.

There is “now a clear and growing consensus among the experts charged with reviewing the bulk collection program: the intrusion on Americans' privacy and the risk of abuse outweigh any minimal benefits," says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center. "First the president's own hand-picked review board, and now the executive branch's privacy watchdog committee, have concluded the program goes too far.”

A number of federal surveillance court judges as well as the Justice Department have concluded that the program is legal. Two federal judges have split on the question in recent rulings over the constitutionality of the phone data collection.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to NSA data sweeps are illegal and should be stopped, report says
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0123/NSA-data-sweeps-are-illegal-and-should-be-stopped-report-says
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe