The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
More Spying and More Lying
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Late last week, President Donald Trump told CBS News that domestic surveillance of American citizens should the “No. 1” topic of inquiry until we can find out “what the hell is going on” with it. Also late last week, the National Security Agency — the federal government’s 60,000-person-strong domestic spying agency — announced that it would voluntarily hold back on its more aggressive uses of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That section permits the NSA to capture communications between foreigners and Americans without a warrant from any court, even though the NSA has its own secret court that has granted well over 99 percent of applications for spying brought to it.

Yet the NSA has convinced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that when it captures the communications of a foreigner and an American and those communications refer to a third person who is an American, Section 702 extends the authority for warrantless spying to that third person, as well. And it extends to any person whom the third person is talking about — and so forth, out to the sixth level of communication.

If you do the math, this NSA-concocted, Section 702-generated, secret FISA court-approved logic permits warrantless spying on nearly everyone in the United States. So why did the NSA announce that it will pull back on the way it utilizes Section 702 as the basis for its mass spying?

Here is the back story.

FISA was written in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, which involved illegal domestic spying. The purpose of FISA was to insert the judiciary between the NSA and its targets so as to ensure that there would be a consistent legal basis for the spying. What was that basis?

The Supreme Court has long characterized domestic spying as surveillance, and it has characterized surveillance as either a “search” or a “seizure” of communications. The Fourth Amendment requires judicially issued warrants for all government searches and seizures, and it mandates that those search warrants be based on probable cause of wrongdoing on the part of the person whom the government wishes to surveil and that the warrants themselves specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

Yet government lawyers, who have no opposition standing next to them when they appear in the FISA court, have convinced the court that the constitutional requirement of probable cause only applies to the government when it is engaging in law enforcement, not when it seeks intelligence data. So when the NSA asks the FISA court for authority to conduct surveillance, the FISA court complies, and it does so with warrants that do not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. These warrants typically authorize spying by ZIP codes or area codes or street addresses or telecommunications companies’ customer lists.

ORDER IT NOW

What the NSA does not tell the FISA court is that its requests for approvals are a sham. That’s because the NSA relies on vague language in a 35-year-old executive order, known as EO 12333, as authority to conduct mass surveillance. That’s surveillance of everyone — and it does capture the content of every telephone conversation, as well as every keystroke on every computer and all fiber-optic data generated everywhere within, coming to and going from the United States.

This is not only profoundly unlawful but also profoundly deceptive. It is unlawful because it violates the Fourth Amendment. It is deceptive because Congress and the courts and the American people, perhaps even the president, think that the FISA court has been serving as a buffer for the voracious appetite of the NSA. In reality, the NSA, while dispatching lawyers to make sophisticated arguments to the FISA court, has gone behind the court’s back by spying on everyone all the time.

In a memo from a now-former NSA director to his agents and vendors, leaked to the public, he advised capturing all data from everyone all the time. This produces information overload, as there is more data than can be analyzed; each year, it produces the equivalent of 27 times the contents of the Library of Congress. Therefore, safety — as well as liberty — is compromised.

The recent mass killings in Boston, San Bernardino and Orlando were all preceded by text messages and cellphone conversations between the killers and their confederates. The NSA had the digital versions of those texts and conversations, but it had not analyzed them until after the killings — because it has and has had too much data to analyze in a critical and timely manner.

So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it — hence its softening public tone.

The genius of the Fourth Amendment is that it serves as a two-edged sword. By requiring probable cause before judges can issue warrants to agents for surveillance, the amendment both protects the privacy of those uninvolved in wrongdoing by leaving them alone and compels federal agents to focus their appetite for intelligence and their need for evidence on only those they legitimately feel may have done wrong.

In the meantime, Trump knows that he has been the victim of overzealous and unlawful surveillance, and we can expect during the debate over renewal of Section 702 that he will have a more sober and constitutional view of all this than his predecessors have; and that may bring about more freedom and more safety.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The NSA’s sudden magnanimity walks and talks like the usual window dressing.

    What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn’t care enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/more-spying-and-more-lying/#comment-1861010
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Eagle Eye says:

    Does anyone seriously think that senior NSA officials do NOT personally ENRICH themselves through stock market manipulation in anticipation of earnings reports, mergers etc. based on illegal NSA intercepts?

    Does anyone think that at least NO NSA officer EVER uses illegally intercepted information to blackmail others or otherwise to secure a secret advantage in dealing with others?

    Does anyone think that Hillary’s and the FBI’s access to grossly illegal NSA intercepts was NOT a key factor in the 2016 presidential and Congressional elections?

    Read More
  3. Svigor says:

    Here is the back story.

    The backstory is that Trump has the power to fire them all, easily and without much in the way of red tape. And that he can’t be relied upon not to do so.

    So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it — hence its softening public tone.

    Oh, and Trump can veto any renewal bill. Too bad he won’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Does the president really have veto power over congressional renewal or is congress the final decision?
  4. Svigor says:

    What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn’t care enough.

    There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using it won’t be prone to the abuse of “probable cause.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    ... movement toward encryption
     
    Think of a colleague, a personal enemy, a business partner, a spouse etc.

    Imagine you have access to their communications logs - a long list of times and other details of each email, text, USPS letter, phone call, wire transfer etc. to or from the subject, including the name of every person with whom she communicated, but NOT including the content of the message.

    What conclusions could you draw from the following (with HT to Electronic Frontiers Foundation):

    (1) Your business partner called a bankruptcy lawyer last Thursday and spoke for 27 minutes. You do not know what was discussed because the communication was encrypted.

    (2) Your spouse made several hours-long phone calls, wired money to a sibling in Brazil on five occasions in 2 days, and contacted an airline. You do not know any details because the communications were encrypted.

    (3) The senior dean of admissions at Princeton exchanged 17 encrypted emails with an individual in Saudi Arabia, and two days later received two bank transfers from another individual in Saudi Arabia to her numbered bank account in Moldova. You do not know the content of the emails, nor the amount of the wire transfers, because the communications were encrypted.

  5. Something I would like to see, but never have is a simple audit of search warrants.
    How many of them actually discover the specific item they are issued for?
    Which judges issue those that don’t?
    If they issue warrants that discover less than 50% of cited items, that surely would be grounds for impeachment.

    Read More
  6. Eagle Eye says:
    @Svigor

    What will happen with this privacy thingy is that people with stuff to hide (legitimate or not) will get their hands on strong encryption and the hoi polloi just doesn’t care enough.
     
    There needs to be a public movement toward encryption, so that everyone uses it. Then using it won't be prone to the abuse of "probable cause."

    … movement toward encryption

    Think of a colleague, a personal enemy, a business partner, a spouse etc.

    Imagine you have access to their communications logs – a long list of times and other details of each email, text, USPS letter, phone call, wire transfer etc. to or from the subject, including the name of every person with whom she communicated, but NOT including the content of the message.

    What conclusions could you draw from the following (with HT to Electronic Frontiers Foundation):

    (1) Your business partner called a bankruptcy lawyer last Thursday and spoke for 27 minutes. You do not know what was discussed because the communication was encrypted.

    (2) Your spouse made several hours-long phone calls, wired money to a sibling in Brazil on five occasions in 2 days, and contacted an airline. You do not know any details because the communications were encrypted.

    (3) The senior dean of admissions at Princeton exchanged 17 encrypted emails with an individual in Saudi Arabia, and two days later received two bank transfers from another individual in Saudi Arabia to her numbered bank account in Moldova. You do not know the content of the emails, nor the amount of the wire transfers, because the communications were encrypted.

    Read More
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor

    Here is the back story.
     
    The backstory is that Trump has the power to fire them all, easily and without much in the way of red tape. And that he can't be relied upon not to do so.

    So, why did the NSA announce that it is pulling back from its customary uses of Section 702? To give the false impression to members of Congress that it follows the law. Section 702, the great subterfuge, expires at the end of this year, and the NSA, which has spied on Donald Trump since before he was president, fears the debate that will accompany the efforts to renew it — hence its softening public tone.
     
    Oh, and Trump can veto any renewal bill. Too bad he won't.

    Does the president really have veto power over congressional renewal or is congress the final decision?

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored