U.S. judge rules phone surveillance program is likely unlawful

WASHINGTON Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:44pm EST

1 of 4. A National Security Agency (NSA) data gathering facility is seen in Bluffdale, about 25 miles (40 km) south of Salt Lake City, Utah, December 16, 2013. Jim Urquhart/

Credit: Reuters

Related Topics

Photo

Under the Iron Dome

Sirens sound as rockets land deep inside Israel.  Slideshow 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government's gathering of Americans' phone records is likely unlawful, a judge ruled on Monday, raising "serious doubts" about the value of the National Security Agency's so-called metadata counterterrorism program.

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2002, wrote in a 68-page ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling in a case brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, described in court documents as the father of a cryptologist technician for the NSA who was killed in Afghanistan in 2011. The judge ordered the government to stop collecting data about the two plaintiffs, who were Verizon Communications Inc customers. Verizon declined comment.

"We believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found," Department of Justice spokesman Andrew Ames said in a statement.

Leon suspended enforcement of his injunction against the program "in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues" pending an expected appeal by the government. A U.S. official said an appeal was likely.

Leon expressed skepticism of the program's value, writing that the government could not cite a single instance in which the bulk data actually stopped an imminent attack.

"I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism," he wrote.

That is important, he added, because for the program to be constitutional, the government must show its effectiveness outweighs privacy interests.

LEAKS

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the massive phone record collection to U.S. and British media in June. Documents provided by Snowden showed that a U.S. surveillance court had secretly approved the collection of millions of raw daily phone records in America, such as the length of calls and the numbers that are dialed.

In its defense, the NSA says the data collected are key to spotting possible terrorism plots and do not include the recording of actual phone conversations. Judge Leon wrote, however, that the program likely violated Americans' right to be free of unreasonable searches.

Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency, said the metadata made a contribution to weaving the "tapestry of intelligence" and that judges "are not really in a good position to judge the merits of intelligence collection programs."

An Obama administration official said that on 35 occasions in the past, 15 separate judges assigned to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court had declared bulk communications of telephone metadata lawful.

Judge Leon has issued headline-making rulings before. In 2011 he blocked cigarette-warning labels that showed graphic images such as a man with a hole in his throat, saying they were unlawful compelled speech, and this year he ruled that the Federal Reserve ignored the intent of Congress in a case about debit card swipe fees.

Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group in Washington, said the ruling "means that the NSA bulk collection program is skating on thin constitutional ice."

In defending the data collection, U.S. Justice Department lawyers have relied in part on a 1979 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that said people have little privacy interest when it comes to records held by a third party such as a phone company.

Leon wrote that the latest circumstances were different.

"The government, in its understandable zeal to protect our homeland, has crafted a counterterrorism program with respect to telephone metadata that strikes the balance based in large part on a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent, the relevance of which has been eclipsed by technological advances and a cell phone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable," he wrote.

Glenn Greenwald, a former columnist for The Guardian who wrote about the metadata collection program based on documents leaked to him by Snowden, praised the court ruling.

"This is a huge vindication for Edward Snowden and our reporting. Snowden came forward precisely because he knew that the NSA was secretly violating the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens, and a federal court ruled today that this is exactly what has been happening," Greenwald said in an email.

A committee of experts appointed by the Obama Administration to review NSA activities is expected to recommend that the spy agency give up collection of masses of metadata and instead require telephone companies to hold onto it so it can be searched. But intelligence officials and the phone companies themselves are said to oppose such a plan.

(This version of the story is refiled to insert title and first name of judge in second paragraph)

(Additional reporting by Alina Selyukh; Editing by Grant McCool)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (16)
ronryegadfly wrote:
The US government created many of these issues with terrorism through the decisions it has made in the past. Now it wants to deal with the issue by imposing upon and curtailing OUR freedoms- because of what the government has done. The courts are telling them and the people they are supposed to represent are telling them that they’ve gone too far. Does our government think it can do whatever it likes without having to answer to anyone? Power corrupts.

Dec 16, 2013 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TanMan1217 wrote:
None of reuters reporting is including the actual ruling. Here it is: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf

Dec 16, 2013 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Good for you judge Leon, quick question, ‘is anyone being held accountable for this”? and will anybody be able to do anything about it? I like the last part which said there is no real proof that this really stopped Al Qaeda attacks.
This whole thing is so uncontrollable, makes watergate look like a walk in the park.I wonder when the next whistle blower comes out of his/her closet what more revelations will follow.

Dec 16, 2013 3:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.