Secret Court Ruling Explains Government's Legal Justification for Warrantless Collection of Phone Data
Provided by HG.org
Since the revelation by former government contractor, Edward Snowden, that the federal government had been spying on US citizens for years, the opinions of both the public and a number of elected officials have shown strong disapproval for this conduct.
In response to demands for answers as to how the government can justify such programs, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday offered its most extensive public explanation for why it has allowed the government to keep records of all Americans’ phone calls, releasing a previously classified opinion in which it said the program was constitutional and did not violate Americans’ privacy rights.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's 29-page opinion, Judge Claire V. Eagan, a federal judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma, declared that the program was lawful. As a result, she continued, any decision regarding the phone data collection was a political question to be decided through the voting process, not in a court of law.
The opinion also noted that no telecommunications company had invoked its legal right to object to turning over its customers’ calling records to the government.
The opinion, dated Aug. 29, was the first written since the program came to light. While other judges had routinely reauthorized the program every 90 days with only brief reiteration of the court’s legal analysis, according to an official familiar with the still-classified rulings, Judge Eagan wrote the lengthier memorandum apparently for the purpose of public release.
The opinion suggests that the warrantless phone data collection programs are not prohibited by the US Constitutional Fourth Amendment right to due process because it does not involve eavesdropping on the content of calls. The opinion also suggests that the government has legal authority to collect all calling records from phone companies under a provision of the Patriot Act that allows it to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation; and that members of Congress had an opportunity to learn how the Patriot Act was secretly being interpreted before lawmakers reauthorized the law.
The American Civil Liberties Union, called the opinion “completely unpersuasive,” criticizing it for failing to mention a landmark privacy case decided by the Supreme Court last year and portraying its statutory analysis as “equally weak.”
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's 29-page opinion, Judge Claire V. Eagan, a federal judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma, declared that the program was lawful. As a result, she continued, any decision regarding the phone data collection was a political question to be decided through the voting process, not in a court of law.
The opinion also noted that no telecommunications company had invoked its legal right to object to turning over its customers’ calling records to the government.
The opinion, dated Aug. 29, was the first written since the program came to light. While other judges had routinely reauthorized the program every 90 days with only brief reiteration of the court’s legal analysis, according to an official familiar with the still-classified rulings, Judge Eagan wrote the lengthier memorandum apparently for the purpose of public release.
The opinion suggests that the warrantless phone data collection programs are not prohibited by the US Constitutional Fourth Amendment right to due process because it does not involve eavesdropping on the content of calls. The opinion also suggests that the government has legal authority to collect all calling records from phone companies under a provision of the Patriot Act that allows it to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation; and that members of Congress had an opportunity to learn how the Patriot Act was secretly being interpreted before lawmakers reauthorized the law.
The American Civil Liberties Union, called the opinion “completely unpersuasive,” criticizing it for failing to mention a landmark privacy case decided by the Supreme Court last year and portraying its statutory analysis as “equally weak.”
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
