The Section 215 Phone Dragnet Is Just a Fraction of the Dragnet

/4 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been harping on the Review Group (and Leahy-Sensenbrenner’s) recommendation to end bulk collection with National Security Letters. I’ve also noted the Review Group’s nod to EO 12333 in its use of the phrase “or under any other authority” when recommending limits to Section 702.

So I wanted to draw attention to this language from Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the Review Group, in which Chris Coons asks Richard Clarke what other authorities the Review Group had considered. Clarke notes that the phone dragnet provides a small fraction of the data collected.

COONS: The review, if I might, Mr. Clarke, my last question, it looks at two authorities, Section 702 and Section 215. And these are both sections about which there’s been a lot of public debate and discussion.

But the review group also recommends greater government disclosure about these and other surveillance authorities it possesses. But the report, appropriately and understandably, does not itself disclose any additional programs.

What review, if any, did the group make of undisclosed programs or could you at least comment about whether lessons learned from such review is, in fact, reflected in the report?

CLARKE: Well, there was a great deal of metadata collected by the national security letter program. And we do speak to that in the recommendations.

There was also a great deal of communications-related information collected under the executive order 12333.

Public attention is focused on 215, but 215 produces a small percentage of the overall data that’s collected.

That’s consistent with what this post shows — that the US based metadata collection is just a small fraction of a large collection of metadata, and the 12333 collected data is at least partly duplicative of (but not subject to the same protections as) the Section 215 dragnet (and NSLs are subject to even less protection).

But I’m glad to see someone like Clarke echoing the warnings I’ve been giving.

image_print
4 replies
  2. bloodypitchfork says:

    @Saul Tannenbaum: Yeah, well as long as the NSA is covered by the National Security Act, a supboena doesn’t mean diddley squat. HOWEVER….

    There’s a few people around this country with enough balls to raise their middle finger to Alexander while shutting off his electricity, water and gas. I’d pay $1k to see Alexander’s face when he get’s a load of what these Washington state Senators just did…

    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/washington-state-bill-proposes-criminalizing-help-to-nsa-turning-off-resources-to-yakima-facility/#.UtgiOr7TmUk

    Go Washington!! Fuck Alexander.

    Now let’s see if Utah get’s the hint. Alexander would have a heart attack. OF which, I believe there would be a thunderous CHEER from sea to shining sea!

  3. bloodypitchfork says:

    One thing I don’t understand. Is how these States let NSA build their facilities in their states. Frankly, I’m going to find out which Senators let this insidious monster invade their state. And then post it on their opponents web site come election time. I believe, now that most of the planet understands the implications of NSA’s existence, voters would bury those incumbents that allowed this Orwellian pond scum agency within their borders.

  4. bloodypitchfork says:

    ps..quote:”Public attention is focused on 215, but 215 produces a small percentage of the overall data that’s collected.”unquote

    No dickwad, it isn’t. Public attention is focused on Miley Cyrus’ ass. Meanwhile, those who think you are a fucking moron, are focused on CLOSING DOWN THE NSA. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Comments are closed.