{"id":2170,"date":"2014-01-06T09:13:41","date_gmt":"2014-01-06T14:13:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com\/blog\/?p=2170"},"modified":"2023-10-19T07:11:33","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T11:11:33","slug":"nsa-phone-surveillance-program-gets-green-signal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com/blog\/nsa-phone-surveillance-program-gets-green-signal\/","title":{"rendered":"NSA\u2019s warrantless phone surveillance program gets green light"},"content":{"rendered":"

The recent ruling by the federal court has deepened the ongoing debate about the efficacy of warrantless surveillance by the government. Under the hammer is the National Security Agency\u2019s (NSA) phone surveillance program, in which the organization collected enormous logs of phone calls maintained under a common database. A verdict that upheld the program conflicts with another judge\u2019s decision, passed just 11 days earlier. This judge ruled that phone spying is unlawful and a violation of constitutional rights.<\/p>\n

New ruling favors warrantless surveillance<\/h3>\n
\"Phone

Image by: Josh Larios<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

On December 27, 2013, Judge William H. Pauley III ruled<\/a> that NSA\u2019s bulk telephone metadata collection is legal and \u201crepresents the Government’s counter-punch: connecting fragmented and fleeting communications to re-construct and eliminate al-Qaeda’s terror network.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile robust discussions are underway across the nation, in Congress, and at the White House, the question for this Court is whether the Government\u2019s bulky telephony metadata program is lawful. This Court finds it is,\u201d the ruling said.<\/p>\n

Pauley believed that the phone surveillance program<\/a> was a reasonable and vital tool in preventing major terrorist attacks like the one on September 11, 2001. He wrote that following the attacks, this vast collection of call detail records launched \u201ca wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data.\u201d He also concluded that this kind of spying was less intrusive than the personal data that people voluntarily submit to transnational corporations, who in turn exploit the information for profit.<\/p>\n

The previous verdict deems bulk metadata program \u201cOrwellian\u201d<\/h3>\n

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon\u2019s December 16, 2013 ruling in Washington, D.C was the exact opposite of Pauley\u2019s. The case was filed by a conservative activist and lawyer who said that the program violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search. The judge opined that such a massive collection and analysis of data \u201calmost certainly does violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Calling the bulk phone surveillance program unconstitutional, he wrote that there was no evidence suggesting \u201cthat a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics.\u201d<\/p>\n

Leon labeled the mass spying as \u201calmost Orwellian\u201d and disagreed with the defenders\u2019 arguments that a Supreme Court ruling in 1979 that allowed investigators to look at the phone logs of a robbery suspect also gave them the right to collect the phone records of almost all Americans.<\/p>\n

Decision to be countered in a higher court<\/h3>\n

NSA\u2019s mass surveillance programs have been under fire after shocking revelations made by the agency\u2019s ex-contractor, Edward Snowden. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the suit in New York in the wake of the revelations, is unhappy with Pauley\u2019s decision. The ACLU\u00a0appealed<\/a> in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 2.<\/p>\n

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer representing the group, says<\/a>, \u201cWe are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government\u2019s surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections.\u201d<\/p>\n

The presidential review group, which consists of a panel of five intelligence and legal experts, recommended a mid-way point last month, taking both the judgments into consideration. The panel says that the data should remain in the hands of the telecom companies or a private party, and \u201ca court order should be necessary each time analysts want to access the information<\/a> of any individual for queries and data mining.\u201d<\/p>\n

The panel report lists out 46 reforms, and adds that \u201cFree nations must protect themselves, and nations that protect themselves must remain free.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Like this topic? Check out our related products:<\/h3>\n