<div dir="ltr"><img src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif">
<p id="print"><a>print</a></p>
<hr>
<div id="content">
<div id="article">
<h1 class="">U.S. phone companies never once challenged NSA data requests</h1>
<h3>By Brian Fung, <span class="">Updated: September 18, 2013</span></h3>
<div class="">
<p>None of the phone companies that handed over communications metadata
in bulk to the National Security Agency ever challenged the agency on
its data requests, a newly declassified government document shows.</p>
<p>In a formerly secret memo published by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court — the judicial body responsible for approving the
NSA's surveillance — Judge Claire Eagen reveals that "to date, no holder
of records who has received an Order to produce bulk telephony metadata
has challenged the legality of such an Order ... despite the explicit
statutory mechanism for doing so."</p>
<p>Section 215 of the Patriot Act has been interpreted by the NSA to
authorize the blanket seizure of millions of U.S. phone records. The law
allows court orders issued under Section 215 to be contested if the
recipient can prove that the data request is unreasonably broad.</p>
<p>Silicon Valley has been known to take advantage of a similar
mechanism in response to other types of data requests. In the 2000s,
Yahoo <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&">tried to resist a court order</a>
on Fourth Amendment grounds but failed, leading it to become, according
to the New York Times, one of the handful of companies participating in
the PRISM program. The legal action was kept secret because of the gag
order that accompanies NSA data requests.</p>
<p>Tech companies including Google and Microsoft are now suing the
government for permission to talk more openly about the FISA court
orders.</p>
<p>Unlike the tech firms, however, it now appears that the telephone
providers never once resisted the NSA. Speaking in Tokyo on Tuesday, a
top Verizon exec <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/verizon-exec-slams-google-microsoft-yahoo-for-nsa-lawsuit-grandstanding-7000020769/">dismissed</a> Google and Microsoft's suits as "grandstanding."</p>
<p>"The laws are not set by Verizon; they are set by the governments in
which we operate," said John Stratton, president of Verizon Enterprise
Solutions. "I think it's important for us to recognize that we
participate in debate, as citizens, but as a company I have obligations
that I am going to follow."</p>
<p>The newly released FISA document also appears to gloss over how
Congress was notified about the surveillance programs. It suggests that
members of Congress had ample opportunity to review the NSA's activities
before reauthorizing the relevant sections of the Patriot Act —
something the Obama administration also has repeated:</p>
<blockquote><p>In light of the importance of the national security
programs that were set to expire, the Executive Branch and relevant
congressional committees worked together to ensure that <em>each</em>
Member of Congress knew or had the opportunity to know how Section 215
was being implemented under this Court's Orders. Documentation and
personnel were also made available to afford each Member full knowledge
of the scope of the implementation of Section 215 and the underlying
legal interpretation.</p></blockquote>
<p>However, we also know that Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-16/politics/41417421_1_briefings-congress-surveillance-program">withheld a letter</a>
from fellow members that would have explained the programs in detail.
In its newly declassified document, the FISA court simply accepts that
lawmakers were suitably informed when many have publicly disagreed. Last
month, Rep. Justin Amash <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583562278349849&set=a.173968155975932.31945.173604349345646&type=1&theater">posted on Facebook</a>
that "the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did NOT, in
fact, make the 2011 document available to Representatives in Congress,
meaning that the large class of Representatives elected in 2010 did not
receive either of the now declassified documents detailing these
programs."</p>
</div>
</div>
</div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>