Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board – Which Congress Made An Independent Agency in 2007, But Which Just Became Operational – Says NSA Spying Is ILLEGAL AND UNNECESSARY

Major New Voice Slams NSA Spying

Many experts – including congress members – say that the NSA’s spying program is illegal.

Officials in the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government all say that the mass surveillance on Americans is unnecessary:

  • 3 Senators with top secret clearance “have reviewed this surveillance extensively and have seen no evidence that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records has provided any intelligence of value that could not have been gathered through less intrusive means”

A major new voice has just weighed in to agree: the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007, and which only recently became fully operational.

As the New York Times reports:

An independent federal privacy watchdog has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down. The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release by Thursday and obtained by The New York Times ….

In its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government’s once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country.

The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”

***

The report also … contains the first official acknowledgment that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court produced no judicial opinion detailing its legal rationale for the program until last August, even though it had been issuing orders to phone companies for the records and to the N.S.A. for how it could handle them since May 2006.

***

The privacy board was unanimous in recommending a series of immediate changes to the program.

***

In 2006, the Bush administration persuaded the surveillance court to begin authorizing the program based on the Patriot Act under a theory the Obama administration would later embrace.

But the privacy board’s report criticized that, saying that the legal theory was a “subversion” of the law’s intent, and that the program also violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

***

The report also scrutinizes in detail a handful of investigations in which the program was used, finding “no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd Blog

    Bills have been introduced in two states so far to forbid state agencies and utilities from supporting the NSA (no electricity or water, etc.) and one bill criminalizes helping them (The Queens of Stalingrad – 5).

  • http://suijurisforum.com/ noone special

    I don’t like how the NYT attempt to imply 2 committee members found the program legal. That is not the case.
    Read it here.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1008957/final-report.pdf

    Never forget who the apologists are.

    Rachel Brand

    Who didn’t want the board to proclaim the program illegal because,

    “It not only undermines national security by

    contributing to the unfortunate “cycles of timidity and aggression” that I mentioned earlier,

    but is also unfair, demoralizing, and potentially legally harmful to the individuals who carry

    out these programs.”

    and

    Elisebeth Collins Cook

    “Second, the Board has engaged in an extensive discussion of emerging concepts of

    Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, none of which I join.”

 

 

Twitter