Posts

In 2017, the Government Withdrew Three FISA Collection Requests Rather than Face an Amicus Review

/54 Comments/in /by

Last year’s Section 702 Reauthorization law included a bunch of technical fix language describing how appeals of FISA Court of Review decisions should work.

In this post on that technical language, I speculated that Congress may have added the language in response to a denial of a request by the FISCR, about the only thing that would have identified the need for such language.

As one piece of evidence to support that hypothesis, I noted that one of the times the FISC consulted with an amicus (probably Amy Jeffress), it did not make the topic or the result public.

There’s one other reason to think there must have been a significant denial: The report, in the 2015 FISC report, that an amicus curiae had been appointed four times.

During the reporting period, on four occasions individuals were appointed to serve as amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i). The names of the three individuals appointed to serve as amicus curiae are as follows:  Preston Burton, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II  (with Freedom Works), and Amy Jeffress. All four appointments in 2015 were made pursuant to § 1803(i)(2)(B). Five findings were made that an amicus curiae appointment was not appropriate under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A) (however, in three of those five instances, the court appointed an amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(B) in the same matter).

We know of three of those in 2015: Ken Cuccinelli serving as amicus for FreedomWorks’ challenge to the restarted dragnet in June 2015, Preston Burton serving as amicus for the determination of what to do with existing Section 215 data, and Amy Jeffress for the review of the Section 702 certifications in 2015. (We also know of the consultation with Mark Zwillinger in 2016 and Rosemary Collyer’s refusal to abide by USA Freedom Act’s intent on amici on this year’s reauthorization.) I’m not aware of another, fourth consultation that has been made public, but according to this there was one more. I say Jeffress was almost certainly the amicus used in that case because she was one of the people chosen to be a formal amicus in November 2015, meaning she would have been called on twice. If it was Jeffress, then it likely happened in the last months of the year.

I raise that background because of a detail in the FISC report released yesterday, showing its approvals for 2017. It revealed that FISC told the government on three occasions it might appoint an amicus. On all three occasions, the government withdrew the request rather than undergo a FISC review with even a limited adversary.

During the reporting period, no individual was appointed to serve as amicus curiae by the FISA courts. No findings were made in 2017, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A), that an amicus curiae appointment was not appropriate. There were three matters in which the Court advised the government that it was considering appointment of an amicus curiae to address a novel or significant question of law raised in proposed applications, but the government ultimately did not proceed with the proposed applications at issue, or modified the final applications such that they did not present a novel or significant question of law, thereby obviating a requirement for consideration as to the appropriateness of appointment of amicus. These matters are reflected in the table above as, respectively, a modification to a proposed order, an application denied in full, and an application denied in part. This is the first report including information about such occurrences. A similarly small number of such events occurred during prior reporting periods but were not discussed in the reports for those years.

In one case, the government withdrew an entire application after learning the FISC might appoint an amicus to review the proposed technique. In two others, the final order in one or another way did not include the requested practice.

These three instances are not the first time the government has withdrawn a request after learning FISC would invite adversarial review. While the court doesn’t reveal how many or in what years, it does say that a “similarly small number of such events occurred during prior reporting periods.” Given that there have been just two other reporting periods (the report for part of 2015 and the report covering all of 2016), the language seems to suggest it happened in both years.

That the government has been withdrawing requests rather than submitting them to the scrutiny of an amicus suggests several things.

First, it may be withdrawing such applications out of reluctance to share details of such techniques even with a cleared amicus, not even one of the three who served as very senior DOJ officials in the past. If that’s right, that would reflect some pretty exotic requests, because some of the available amici (most notably former Assistant Attorney General David Kris) have seen all that DOJ was approving with NatSec collection.

Second, remember that for at least one practice (the collection of location information), the government has admitted to opting to using criminal process rather than FISA where more lenient precedents exist in particular jurisdictions. That might happen, for example, if a target could be targeted in a state that didn’t require a warrant for some kinds of location data whereas FISC does.

Starting in 2017, the government would have the ability to share raw EO 12333 with the FBI, which might provide another alternative means to collect the desired data.

All of which is to say these withdrawals don’t necessarily mean the government gave up. Rather, past history has shown that the government often finds another way to get information denied by the FISC, and that may have happened with these three requests.

Finally, remember that as part of 702 reauthorization last year, Ron Wyden warned that reauthorization should include language preventing the government from demanding that companies provide technical assistance (which obviously includes, but is probably not limited to, bypassing or weakening encryption) as part of 702 directives. The threat the government might do so under 702 is particularly acute, because unlike with individual orders (which is what the withdrawn requests here are), the FISC doesn’t review the directives submitted under 702. Some of these withdrawn requests — which may number as many as nine — may reflect such onerous technical requests.

Importantly, one reason the government might withdraw such requests is to avoid any denials that would serve as FISC precedent for individualized  and 702 requests. That is, if the government believed the court might deny an individual request, it might withdraw it and preserve its ability to make the very same demand in a 702 context, where the FISC doesn’t get to review the techniques use.

Whatever the case, the government has clearly been bumping up against the limits of what it believes FISC will approve in individualized requests. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been surpassing those limits via one or another technical or legal means.

[Photo: National Security Agency, Ft. Meade, MD via Wikimedia]

Technical Fixes in HJC Bill Suggest SCOTUS May Have Reviewed a (2015 ?) FISA Application

/3 Comments/in /by

HJC has released a new version of the bill they’re cynically calling USA Liberty. The most significant change in the bill is that it makes the warrant requirement for criminal backdoor queries that will never be used an actual probable cause warrant, with the judge having discretion to reject the warrant.

But that’ll never be used. If a warrant requirement falls in the woods but no one ever uses it does it make a sound?

I’m more interested in a series of changes that were introduced as technical amendments that make seemingly notable changes to the way the FISC and FISCR work.

The changes are:

In 50 USC 1803 and 50 USC 1822 eliminating the requirement that the FISA Court of Review immediately explain its reason for denying an application before sending it to the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice shall publicly designate three judges, one of whom shall be publicly designated as the presiding judge, from the United States district courts or courts of appeals who together shall comprise a court of review which shall have jurisdiction to review the denial of any application made under this chapter. If such court determines that the application was properly denied, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.

Letting the FISA Court of Review, in addition to the FISC, ensure compliance with orders.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to reduce or contravene the inherent authority of the court established under subsection (a) [a court established under this section] to determine or enforce compliance with an order or a rule of such court or with a procedure approved by such court.

In 50 USC 1805 (traditional FISA), 50 USC 1842(d) and 50 USC 1843(e) (pen registers), and 50 USC 1861(c) (215 orders) stating that a denial of a FISC order under 50 USC 1804 may be reviewed under 50 USC 1803 (that is, by FISCR).

Now, I suppose these (especially the language permitting FISCR reviews) count as technical fixes, ensuring that the review process, which we know has been used on at least three occasions, actually works.

But the only reason anyone would notice these technical fixes — especially how something moves from FISCR to SCOTUS — is if some request had been denied (or modified, given the language permitting the FISCR to ensure compliance with an order) at both the FISA court and the FISA Court of Review, or if FISCR tried (and got challenged) to enforce minimization procedures imposed at that level.

There’s one other reason to think there must have been a significant denial: The report, in the 2015 FISC report, that an amicus curiae had been appointed four times.

During the reporting period, on four occasions individuals were appointed to serve as amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i). The names of the three individuals appointed to serve as amicus curiae are as follows:  Preston Burton, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II  (with Freedom Works), and Amy Jeffress. All four appointments in 2015 were made pursuant to § 1803(i)(2)(B). Five findings were made that an amicus curiae appointment was not appropriate under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A) (however, in three of those five instances, the court appointed an amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(B) in the same matter).

We know of three of those in 2015: Ken Cuccinelli serving as amicus for FreedomWorks’ challenge to the restarted dragnet in June 2015, Preston Burton serving as amicus for the determination of what to do with existing Section 215 data, and Amy Jeffress for the review of the Section 702 certifications in 2015. (We also know of the consultation with Mark Zwillinger in 2016 and Rosemary Collyer’s refusal to abide by USA Freedom Act’s intent on amici on this year’s reauthorization.) I’m not aware of another, fourth consultation that has been made public, but according to this there was one more. I say Jeffress was almost certainly the amicus used in that case because she was one of the people chosen to be a formal amicus in November 2015, meaning she would have been called on twice. If it was Jeffress, then it likely happened in the last months of the year.

Obviously, we have no idea what this hidden consultation is. The scan of all of Yahoo’s email accounts was in 2015, but it has always been reported as “spring” and weeks before Alex Stamos left Yahoo, so that seems sure to have happened before June 8 and therefore without a post-USA Freedom Act amicus. Moreover, it seems very likely that this fourth amicus consultation involved a denial, because the government is supposed to release any significant decision. So I’m guessing that Jeffress proved persuasive in one case we don’t get to know about.

Update: In this bill I briefly called the bill USS Liberty but thought better of doing so.

The Government Uses FISCR Fast Track to Put Down Judges’ Rebellion, Expand Content Collection

/6 Comments/in /by

Since it was first proposed, I’ve been warning (not once but twice!) about the FISCR Fast Track, a part of the USA Freedom Act that would permit the government to immediately ask the FISA Court of Review to review a FISC decision. The idea was sold as a way to get a more senior court to review dodgy FISC decisions. But as I noted, it was also an easy way for the government to use the secretive FISC system to get a circuit level decision that might preempt traditional court decisions they didn’t like (I feared they might use FISCR to invalidate the Second Circuit decision finding the phone dragnet to be unlawful, for example).

Sure enough, that’s how it got used in its first incarnation — not just to confirm that the FISC can operate by different rules than criminal courts, but also to put down a judges rebellion.

As I noted back in 2014, the FISC has long permitted the government to collect Post Cut Through Dialed Digits using FISA pen registers, though it requires the government to minimize anything counted as content after collection. PCTDD are the numbers you dial after connecting a phone call — perhaps to get a particular extension, enter a password, or transfer money. The FBI is not supposed to do this at the criminal level, but can do so under FISA provided it doesn’t use the “content” (like the banking numbers) afterwards. FISC reviewed that issue in 2006 and 2009 (after magistrates in the criminal context deemed PCTDD to be content that was impermissible).

At least year’s semiannual FISC judges’ conference, some judges raised concerns about the FISC practice, deciding they needed to get further briefing on the practice. So when approving a standing Pen Register, the FISC told the government it needed further briefing on the issue.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.39.13 PM

The government didn’t deal with it for three months until just as they were submitting their next application. At that point, there was not enough time to brief the issue at the FISC level, which gave then presiding judge Thomas Hogan the opportunity to approve the PRTT renewal and kick the PCTDD issue to the FISCR, with an amicus.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.43.08 PM

This minimized the adversarial input, but put the question where it could carry the weight of a circuit court.

Importantly, when Hogan kicked the issue upstairs, he did not specify that this legal issue applies only to phone PRTTs.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.45.02 PM

At the FISCR, Mark Zwillinger got appointed as an amicus. He saw the same problem as I did. While the treatment of phone PCTDD is bad but, if properly minimized, not horrible, it becomes horrible once you extend it to the Internet.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.59.12 PM

The FISCR didn’t much care. They found the collection of content using a PRTT, then promising not to use it except to protect national security (and a few other exceptions to the rule that the government has to ask FISC permission to use this stuff) was cool.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.47.34 PM

Along the way, the FISCR laid out several other precedents that will have really dangerous implications. One is that content to a provider may not be content.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 5.55.29 PM

This is probably the issue that made the bulk PRTT dragnet illegal in the first place (and created problems when the government resumed it in 2010). Now, the problem of collecting content in packets is eliminated!

Along with this, the FISCR extended the definition of “incidental” to apply to a higher standard of evidence.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 6.07.50 PM

Thus, it becomes permissible to collect using a standard that doesn’t require probable cause something that does, so long as it is “minimized,” which doesn’t always mean it isn’t used.

Finally, FISCR certified the redefinition of “minimization” that FISC has long adopted (and which is crucial in some other programs). Collecting content, but then not using it (except for exceptions that are far too broad), is all good.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 6.01.41 PM

In other words, FISCR not only approved the narrow application of using calling card data but not bank data and passwords (except to protect national security). But they also approved a bunch of other things that the government is going to turn around and use to resume certain programs that were long ago found problematic.

I don’t even hate to say this anymore. I told privacy people this (including someone involved in this issue personally). I was told I was being unduly worried. This is, frankly, even worse than I expected (and of course it has been released publicly so the FBI can start chipping away at criminal protections too).

Yet another time my concerns have been not only borne out, but proven to be insufficiently cynical.

Yahoo’s Lawyer’s Take on the Yahoo Trove

/1 Comment/in /by

Even back in 2009, when Russ Feingold made it clear that Yahoo had no access to the data it needed to aggressively challenge the Protect American Act orders it received, I realized what a tough legal fight it was to litigate blind. That has only been made more clear by the document trove released last week.

Which is why Mark Zwillinger’s comments about the trove are so interesting.

First, ZwillGen points out that the challenge to the PAA directives may not have helped Yahoo avoid complying, but it did win an important victory allowing providers to challenge surveillance orders.

[I]n this fight, the government argued that Yahoo had no standing to challenge a directive on the basis of the Fourth Amendment rights of its users. See Government’s Ex Parte Brief at pages 53-56.Although the government was forced to change its position after it lost this issue at both the FISC and the FISCR — and such standing was expressly legislated into the FAA – had the government gotten its way, surveillance orders under § 702 would have been unchallengeable by any party until the fruits of the surveillance were sought to be used against a defendant in a criminal case. That would have given the executive branch even greater discretion to conduct widespread surveillance with little potential for judicial review. Even though Yahoo lost the overall challenge, winning on the standing point was crucial, and by itself made the fight personally worthwhile.

ZwillGen next notes that the big numbers reported in the press — the $250K fines for non-compliance — actually don’t capture the full extent of the fines the government was seeking. It notes that the fines would have added up to $400 million in the second month of non-compliance (it took longer than that to obtain a final decision from the FISCR).

Simple math indicates that Yahoo was facing fines of over $25 million dollars for the 1st month of noncompliance, and fines of over $400 million in the second month if the court went along with the government’s proposal. And practically speaking, coercive civil fines means that the government would seek increased fines, with no ceiling, until Yahoo complied. 

Finally — going directly to the points Feingold made 5 years ago — Yahoo had no access to the most important materials in the case, the classified appendix showing all the procedures tied to the dragnet.

The ex parte, classified appendix was just that: a treasure trove of documents, significantly longer than the joint appendix, which Yahoo had never seen before August 22, 2014. Yahoo was denied the opportunity to see any of the documents in the classified, ex parteappendix—even in summary form. Those documents bear a look today. They include certifications underlying the § 702 directives, procedures governing communications metadata analysis, a declaration from the Director of National Intelligence, numerous minimization procedures regarding the FBI’s use of process, and, perhaps most importantly, a FISC decision from January 15, 2008regarding the procedures for the DNI/AG Certification at issue, which Yahoo had never seen. It examines those procedures under a “clearly erroneous” standard of review – which is one of the most deferential standards used by the judiciary. Yahoo did not have these documents at the time, nor the opportunity to conduct any discovery. It could not fully challenge statements the government made, such as the representation to FISCR “assur[ing the Court] it does not maintain a database of incidentally collected information from non-targeted United States persons, and there is no evidence to the contrary.” Nor could Yahoo use the January 15, 2008 decision to demonstrate how potential flaws in the targeting process translated into real world effects.

This blind litigation is, of course, still the position defense attorneys challenging FISA orders for their clients are in.

Yahoo actually made a pretty decent argument 6 years ago, pointing to incidental collection, collection of Americans’ records overseas (something curtailed, at least in name, under FISA Amendments Act), and dodgy analysis underlying the targeting decisions handed off to Yahoo. But they weren’t permitted the actual documentation they needed to make that case. Which left the government to claim — falsely — that the government was not conducting back door searches on incidentally collected data.

For years, ex parte proceedings have allowed the government to lie to courts and avoid real adversarial challenges to their spying. And not much is changing about that anytime soon.