more on Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program -CNET News.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cindy Cohn <cindy () eff org>
Date: May 18, 2006 4:01:00 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: declan () well com, Kurt Opsahl <kurt () eff org>, Rebecca Jeschke  
<rebecca () eff org>, Kevin Bankston <bankston () eff org>, Lee Tien  
<tien () eff org>
Subject: Re: [IP] Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program -CNET  
News.com

Hi Dave,

As you might expect, we at EFF disagree strongly with the implication  
of Declan's CNET News.com article that the existence of a  
"certification" by the Attorney General authorizing surveillance by  
the telcos is a magic bullet that will automatically kill the EFF  
case against AT&T. The possible certifications are an issue in the  
case, of course, but there are strong arguments on our side that  
Declan failed to mention, likely because he didn't ask any of us.

Most prominently:

1) All of the certification provisions are strictly time-delimited.  
None of the possibly applicable provisions allow surveillance longer  
than a few days before the DOJ has to go to the FISA court for  
authorization; and

2) All of the certification provisions envision a specific target of  
the surveillance -- they do not provide authority for the sort of  
wholesale ongoing turning over of customer communications and call  
data that we assert is happening here.

We'll be providing thorough legal briefing to the Court about these  
and other arguments between now and our next court hearing on June  
23. The briefs will be up on the EFF website (http://www.eff.org/ 
legal/cases/att/) as soon as they are filed, and we suggest that  
folks read them and decide for themselves.

And of course it's still not clear that there were any certifications  
at all.  The USA Today article seems to indicate that there are none  
and AT&T and the government have both steadfastly refused to answer  
that critical threshold question.

Cindy



On May 18, 2006, at 10:49 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Suzanne Johnson <sjohnson () pobox com>
> Date: May 18, 2006 1:36:58 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Fwd: Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program -CNET News.com
>
> > Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program
> >
> > http://news.com.com/Legal+loophole+emerges+in+NSA+spy+program/ 
> > 2100-1028_3-6073600.html
> >
> > ~~
> >
> > Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program
> >
> > By Declan McCullagh
> > CNET News.com
> >
> > Story last modified Thu May 18 05:27:58 PDT 2006
> >
> > SAN FRANCISCO--An AT&T attorney indicated in federal court on  
> > Wednesday that the Bush administration may have provided legal  
> > authorization for the telecommunications company to open its  
> > network to the National Security Agency.
> > Federal law may "authorize and in some cases require  
> > telecommunications companies to furnish information" to the  
> > executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was associate White  
> > House counsel when President Bush authorized the NSA surveillance  
> > program in late 2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin law  
> > firm in Washington, D.C.
> >
> > Far from being complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson  
> > said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander."
> >
> > AT&T may be referring to an obscure section of federal law, 18  
> > U.S.C. 2511, which permits a telecommunications company to provide  
> > "information" and "facilities" to the federal government as long  
> > as the attorney general authorizes it. The authorization must come  
> > in the form of "certification in writing by...the Attorney General  
> > of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by  
> > law."
> >
> > Information that is not yet public "would be exculpatory and would  
> > show AT&T's conduct in the best possible light," Berenson said.  
> > But he did not acknowledge any details about the company's alleged  
> > participation in the NSA's surveillance program, which has ignited  
> > an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill and led to this class-action  
> > lawsuit being filed in January by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
> >
> > Some legal experts say that AT&T may be off the hook if former  
> > Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in office at the time the  
> > NSA program began, provided a letter of certification. (Other  
> > officials, including the deputy attorney general and state  
> > attorneys general, also are authorized to write these letters.)
> >
> > "If the certification exists, AT&T is in pretty good shape," said  
> > Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy  
> > Information Center and co-author of a book on information privacy  
> > law.
> >
> > EFF's lawsuit alleges that the telecommunications company let the  
> > NSA engage in wholesale monitoring of Americans' communications in  
> > violation of privacy laws. Confidential documents that EFF  
> > unearthed during the course of the suit -- kept under seal and  
> > still not public -- allege that AT&T gave the government full  
> > access to its networks in a way that let millions of e-mail  
> > messages, Web browsing sessions and phone calls be intercepted.
> >
> > AT&T's ace in the hole?
> >
> > If a letter of certification exists, AT&T could have an ace in the  
> > hole. A second section of federal law says that a "good faith"  
> > reliance on a letter of certification "is a complete defense to  
> > any civil or criminal" lawsuit.
> >
> > During the hearing Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Vaughn  
> > Walker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carl Nichols also hinted  
> > that such a letter exists. Nichols said that there are undisclosed  
> > "facts that AT&T might want to present in its defense."
> >
> > AT&T's legal defense?
> >
> > An obscure section of federal law says that AT&T may have legally  
> > participated in the NSA surveillance program -- if, that is, it  
> > received a "certification" from the attorney general.
> >
> > That section says: "Notwithstanding any other law, providers of  
> > wire or electronic communication service... are authorized to  
> > provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to  
> > persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic  
> > communications... if such provider... has been provided with... a  
> > certification in writing by... the Attorney General of the United  
> > States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all  
> > statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified  
> > assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during  
> > which the provision... is authorized... No provider of wire or  
> > electronic communication... shall disclose the existence of any  
> > interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the  
> > interception or surveillance..."
> >
> > But, Nichols added, those facts relate to classified information  
> > that are "state secrets" and would jeopardize national security if  
> > they were disclosed. A hearing on the Bush administration's  
> > request to dismiss the case on national security grounds has been  
> > scheduled for June 23.
> >
> > For its part, AT&T has remained silent about the extent of its  
> > alleged participation in the NSA surveillance scheme, which  
> > initially was thought to apply only to international calls but now  
> > may encompass records of domestic phone calls and more. Verizon  
> > and BellSouth, for instance, took steps to distance themselves  
> > from a USA Today report that said their call databases were opened  
> > to the NSA. But AT&T wouldn't comment.
> >
> > Marc Bien, a spokesman for AT&T, told CNET News.com on Wednesday:  
> > "Without commenting on or confirming the existence of the program,  
> > we can say that when the government asks for our help in  
> > protecting national security, and the request is within the law,  
> > we will provide that assistance."
> >
> > The next tussle in this lawsuit is likely to center on how far the  
> > "state secrets" concept can extend. Is AT&T able to divulge the  
> > text of any certification letter, without saying exactly what  
> > information it turned over as a result? Must the mere existence of  
> > a certification letter remain secret?
> >
> > Injecting additional complexity is 18 U.S.C. 2511's prohibition on  
> > disclosure. It says that telecommunication companies may not  
> > "disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the  
> > device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance"-- 
> > except if required by law. Unlawful disclosures are subject to fines.
> >
> > EFF claims that the existence of a letter of certification should  
> > not be classified. Cindy Cohn, an EFF attorney, told the judge on  
> > Wednesday that it is "not a state secret because the statute has a  
> > whole process" governing it.
> >
> > "If you have a certification, let's see it," EFF attorney Lee Tien  
> > said in an interview after the hearing.
> >
> > For his part, Berenson, the former attorney for President Bush  
> > who's now representing AT&T, complained about allegations that his  
> > client is violating the law. It's unfortunate that EFF "chose to  
> > use words like 'criminal tendency' and 'crimes,'" Berenson said.  
> > AT&T "is one of the great companies of the United States. To  
> > attach those kinds of labels is reckless at best."
> >
> > Berenson's biography says he worked for Bush on the "war on  
> > terrorism" and the USA Patriot Act. Since leaving the White House,  
> > Berenson has written letters to Congress (click here for PDF)  
> > calling for renewal of the Patriot Act and has co-founded a group  
> > called Citizens for the Common Defence that advocates a "robust"  
> > view of presidential authority. It filed, for instance, an amicus  
> > brief (click here for PDF) before the Supreme Court in the Hamdi  
> > case arguing that a U.S. citizen could be detained indefinitely  
> > without trial because of the war on terror.
> >
> > Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc.
> >
> > ~~
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as Cindy () eff org
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/

--
********************************************************
Cindy Cohn                              ---- Cindy () eff org
Legal Director                  ---- www.eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 436-9333 x108
(415) 436-9993 (fax)




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/