Secret court extends NSA surveillance rules with no changes

Posted on by

A U.S. secret court has extended the authorization of the National Security Agency to continue surveillance of phone records in its current form, after a reform bill ran into difficulties in the Senate.

Besides stopping the NSA from collecting bulk phone records of Americans from phone companies, the USA Freedom Act aimed to restrict access of the NSA to these records by requiring the use of targeted selection terms.

It also has a provision for the appointment of a special advocate tasked with promoting privacy interests in closed proceedings in the secret court.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has reauthorized the NSA program for another 90 days at a request from the government, according to a statement Monday by the offices of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The order expires on Feb. 27 next year.

In the wake of revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the government was collecting bulk phone metadata of Americans from Verizon, President Barack Obama announced reforms to the program earlier this year, including a plan to stop NSA from collecting and holding the data from operators in bulk.

Obama instructed that other than in an emergency, phone metadata could only be queried after a judicial finding that there was a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the selection term was linked to an approved international terrorist organization. He also directed that the query results must be limited to associated metadata within two hops, or connections, from the selection term instead of the earlier three. The two changes to the program have been made since February this year, according to officials.

For the plan that the phone records data should stay with telephone companies, Obama said the necessary legislation would be required. Last month, the USA Freedom Act ran into difficulties in the Senate, and could not be moved towards a final vote. The setback could delay any NSA reform until next year.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, the sponsor of the bill and a Democrat from Vermont, last week said Obama could end the NSAs dragnet collection of phone records once and for all by not asking for reauthorization of the program by the FISC.

Doing so would not be a substitute for comprehensive surveillance reform legislationbut it would be an important first step, Leahy said in a statement.

Obama had in November urged the Senate to pass the USA Freedom Act and officials in the administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, also backed it.

See the rest here:

Secret court extends NSA surveillance rules with no changes

Posted in NSA

US court extends NSA surveillance rules in current form

Posted on by

A U.S. secret court has extended the authorization of the National Security Agency to continue surveillance of phone records in its current form, after a reform bill ran into difficulties in the Senate.

Besides stopping the NSA from collecting bulk phone records of Americans from phone companies, the USA Freedom Act aimed to restrict access of the NSA to these records by requiring the use of targeted selection terms.

It also has a provision for the appointment of a special advocate tasked with promoting privacy interests in closed proceedings in the secret court.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has reauthorized the NSA program for another 90 days at a request from the government, according to a statement Monday by the offices of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The order expires on Feb. 27 next year.

In the wake of revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the government was collecting bulk phone metadata of Americans from Verizon, President Barack Obama announced reforms to the program earlier this year, including a plan to stop NSA from collecting and holding the data from operators in bulk.

Obama instructed that other than in an emergency, phone metadata could only be queried after a judicial finding that there was a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the selection term was linked to an approved international terrorist organization. He also directed that the query results must be limited to associated metadata within two hops, or connections, from the selection term instead of the earlier three. The two changes to the program have been made since February this year, according to officials.

For the plan that the phone records data should stay with telephone companies, Obama said the necessary legislation would be required. Last month, the USA Freedom Act ran into difficulties in the Senate, and could not be moved towards a final vote. The setback could delay any NSA reform until next year.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, the sponsor of the bill and a Democrat from Vermont, last week said Obama could end the NSA's dragnet collection of phone records once and for all by not asking for reauthorization of the program by the FISC.

"Doing so would not be a substitute for comprehensive surveillance reform legislation -- but it would be an important first step," Leahy said in a statement.

Obama had in November urged the Senate to pass the USA Freedom Act and officials in the administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, also backed it.

Read the original:

US court extends NSA surveillance rules in current form

Posted in NSA

Volokh Conspiracy: Ninth Circuit hears NSA program challenge

Posted on by

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit held oral argument in Smith v. Obama, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the Section 215 telephony metadata program. You can watch a video of the argument here. The panel consisted of Judges Hawkins, McKeown, and Tallman. This was the third argument by a federal circuit involving a challenge to the telephony metadata program. The others are the Second Circuit and the DC Circuit, neither of which has handed down a ruling yet.

To win the case before the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff needs to win on three basic questions: 1) did the plaintiff have standing; 2) did a search occur; and 3) was the search constitutionally unreasonable. There was significant questioning on standing and a lot on what is a search, but very little on reasonableness. On the whole, I think that emphasis is probably a good sign for the government. With that said, Im not sure which way the case will come out. Judge Tallman seemed pretty likely to vote for the government on either or both of the first two questions. I had less sense where Judges Hawkins and McKeown might come out.

I want to focus on an interesting question that Judge McKeown asked Thomas Byron, counsel for the government defendant: When applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, how do we know what society expects when it comes to a big surveillance program like Section 215s program? Byron gave what I think is the correct doctrinal answer: Smith v. Maryland tells us as a matter of law that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register data from their phones, and there is nothing in Smith that suggests that scale or aggregation can make any difference. Although thats a good doctrinal answer, I think theres a historical explanation that is more satisfying. I cover the historical explanation in this forthcoming article, starting at page 11, and I thought I would give a basic outline here.

As I explain in the article, the original design of Justice Harlans two-part Katz test was to summarize the two basic requirements of establishing Fourth Amendment rights: first, that the intrusion was into the kinds of spaces that the Fourth Amendment protects, like homes or cars or (in Katz) telephone booths; and second, that the person had not openly exposed his protected space to outside observation. The first part was labeled the objective test, as it rested on whether the space invaded was the kind of space that merited Fourth Amendment protection in a general sense; and the second test was labeled the subjective test, as it hinged on whether the person took steps to hide the space from outside observation, manifesting an intent to keep it private in those specific circumstances.

The rule that you cant have any Fourth Amendment protection in what you share with a third-party was originally part of the subjective test. By revealing your information to a third party, the thinking ran, you no longer manifested an intent to keep your information private and gave up your rights in that information. The government therefore could get it from the third party without implicating your rights. Although that was the original design of Harlans test, later opinions of the Court misunderstood this point. Later decisions, including Smith v. Maryland, simply assumed that the test labeled subjective was an inquiry into what a person actually expected to happen. Smith had to fit the traditional rule that a person has no Fourth Amendment rights in what they disclose to third-parties somewhere, however, so the rule ended up being squeezed artificially into the reasonable expectation of privacy test instead. The result has confused law students for decades: We get the strange-seeming announcement that theres no reasonable expectation of privacy in circumstances when a lot of people probably think it feels pretty reasonable to them.

Why does all this matter? I think it matters because it shows that Judge McKeowns question is based on the Smith courts accidental rephrasing of the third-party rule. Understanding the accident explains why the question that seems really difficult at first blush ends up having a simple answer. The reason the government does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a telephone user when collecting metadata from the phone company should have nothing to do with what society expects. Instead, the reason is that if you knowingly disclose information to a third party, you are not manifesting your subjective expectation of privacy in that information and dont have any way to control it under the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. From that perspective, we dont need to know what society expects, or what privacy policies say, to apply the third-party doctrine. What society expects is irrelevant, as the doctrine was originally and properly rooted in the subjective test instead of the objective test.

To be clear, the doctrinally correct result Byron offered brings you to the same result in the end. If you say that Smith v. Maryland requires lower courts to say that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register information as a matter of law, you get to the same result that no search has occurred. But I hope its at least a little bit illuminating to see how we got here, and in particular to see why applying Smith does not call for courts to make first-principles inquiries into societal expectations.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

View original post here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Ninth Circuit hears NSA program challenge

How long do you

Posted on by

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

Taxpayers are on the hook for at least $307,000 -- and perhaps much more -- to cover legal expenses in Gov. Rick Scott's repeated failed efforts to convince courts that a onetime campaign pledge to drug-test welfare recipients is constitutional.

A federal appeals court last week ruled that the state's mandatory, suspicion-less drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

It was the fourth court decision against the state since the law -- something Scott campaigned on during his first bid for office the year before -- went into effect in mid-2011. A federal judge put the law on hold less than four months after it passed, siding with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a single father and Navy veteran.

Thus far, the state has racked up $307,883.62 in legal fees and costs in the case, according to Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Michelle Glady. That does not include potentially hefty charges for legal fees from the ACLU.

Scott has not yet said whether he will appeal the unanimous ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor could seek an "en banc" review by the full appeals court or take the issue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican legislative leaders said Monday they support Scott on the drug-testing issue.

"I think it's appropriate to defend the law that was passed by a bipartisan majority of members of the House," House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, said. The law was approved 78-38 in the House and 26-11 in the Senate, with support from two House Democrats and no Senate Democrats.

Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, "supports the policy and the governor's defense of the law, which was passed by a democratically elected legislature," Gardiner spokeswoman Katie Betta said.

But ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon, who blamed the governor and the Legislature for the cost to taxpayers, blasted Scott for refusing to back down.

See the original post:

How long do you

Second Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments On Gun Lawsuit

Posted on by

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in the case of Shew vs. Malloy, a legal challenge to the key provisions of Connecticut's post-Newtown gun control legislation.

The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of state gun owners, firearms dealers, and gun rights groups, seeks to overturn the assault weapons ban and the 10-round ammunition magazine limit that were enacted in 2013 as part of the legislature's response to the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-graders and six educators using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and high capacity ammunition magazines, both of which are illegal under the new law.

The law, which was described at the time of passage as the "toughest in the nation," was upheld in federal court in Connecticut last January. U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in the decision that "while the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision. They argue in their complaint that the law is unconstitutionally vague, discriminatory, and infringes upon Second Amendment rights.

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are commonly used in both shooting sports and self-defense, and thus subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argue.

In a brief filed with the appeals court, the state countered that the law only bans "a small subset of firearms and large-capacity magazines that are disproportionately selected by criminals for use in gun crime."

The law's broadened definition of an assault weapon and new limit on magazine size, the state argues, is related to "an important governmental interest in ending gun violence and death."

The state argued that the law "leaves more than one thousand alternative firearms and magazines for law-abiding citizens to acquire and possess for self-defense." Weapons like the AR-15, they argued, "have no utility for legitimate self-defense and are not actually used for such purposes in practice."

The plaintiffs argue that the law is discriminatory because off-duty police and military personnel are exempt from the assault weapons ban and high-capacity ammunition magazine limit.

The definition of an assault weapon under the act is so vague that it leaves gun owners "without knowledge of what is prohibited," plaintiffs argue.

Continued here:

Second Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments On Gun Lawsuit

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats – Video

Posted on by


Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats
The Supreme Court is considering a case that might radically redefine what is considered a threat when made through digital media, with possible First Amendment ramifications. To talk about...

By: Jenn Reappropriate

Read the rest here:

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats - Video

Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?

Posted on by

The case of a Pennsylvania teacher fired because of blog posts that criticized her own students has taken an interesting turn, as her lawyers claim viral Internet and television interest in the story protect her First Amendment rights.

The teacher, Philadelphias National Constitution Center is the first and only nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to the most powerful vision of freedom ever expressed: the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Daily, the Centers blog, offers smart commentary and conversation about constitutional issues in the news, drawing insights from Americas history and a variety of expert contributors., caused a quite a stir back in 2011 and became a national media figure. Munroe lost her job at a suburban Philadelphia public high school after writing a series of blog posts that called her students jerks, rat like and whiny, among other things.

Monroes attorneys filed a civil suit against the Central Bucks school district in 2012, seeking $5 million in damages. In late July 2014, a federal district court judge in Philadelphia ruled against Munroe. But her attorneys have appealed.

Third District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe only decided one of two questions presented in the lawsuit. Rufe said Munroes statements werent protected by the First Amendment under a test established in two Supreme Court cases, so she didnt need to decide if the statements directly caused her termination.

In 1968 in a Supreme Court decision calledPickering v. Board of Educationand a later decision from 2006,Garcetti v. Ceballos, a balancing test was set by the Court about public employee statements and the First Amendment.

Commonly known as the Pickering test, a plaintiff such as Munroe must prove that her First Amendment interests as a public employee, and also as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern outweigh her public employers need to promote efficient public services.

Judge Rufe found that in this case, Munroes speech, in both effect and tone, was sufficiently disruptive so as to diminish any legitimate interest in its expression, and thus her [First Amendment] expression was not protected.

Rufe stated that, although Munroe may have occasionally written as a private citizen on matters of public concern, she chose to do so in an opprobrious tone that was likely to generate a strong reaction from anyone connected with the school who read it.

Read the rest here:

Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?

Calling All Student Journalists

Posted on by

People across the country are using their First Amendment freedoms to respond to the results of the grand juries in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. They are speaking out to draw attention to issues including race, police brutality and the workings of our justice system. Whats happening in your town?Are you covering local events and protests for your school newspaper or magazine?

If so, please email your story to DigitalClassroom@newseum.org! We will consider sharing it on our blog and for possible inclusion in our Digital Classroom Civil Rights Media Map. The deadline is Fri. Dec. 12 at 11:00 EST.

To learn more about the protests, and how they relate to the First Amendment, be sure to read the following Newseum-produced story and blog post. We will look for stories that also discuss how the First Amendment has played a role in the actions in your town.

Be sure to include your name, grade, name of newspaper, publication date, and the name and email address of your faculty advisor to the newspaper.

We want to have the chance to share your story so Newseum blog readers across the nation-and around the world-can learn more about how students are reporting on this volatile issue. We look forward to reading your story!

Go here to read the rest:

Calling All Student Journalists

Supreme Court weighs free speech, threats online

Posted on by

Facebook and Twitter news feeds are often clogged with opinions written in a bout of rage from old high school acquaintances or distant family members. However, those posts of outrage may not fall under free speech laws depending on the language used in messages.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether rants posted on social media such as Facebook can be considered threats or if they are protected by free speech.

The case stems from a Pennsylvania man, currently serving a 44-month sentence in prison, who posted statements on his Facebook page directed at his estranged wife, FBI agents and a kindergarten class.

The comments made by Anthony Elonis were violent and included death threats directed at his wife. Even after a court issued an order to keep Elonis away from his wife, he threatened her again and went on to threaten a kindergarten class, which earned him a visit from the FBI. Following the visit from a female FBI agent, Elonis went on to threaten her as well.

Elonis claims his postings, which were written in the form of rap lyrics, were a way to vent his frustration, first at his wife and later at the FBI agent who questioned him.

The first amendment issue has to do with the fact hes tying to tie it to creative speech rap lyrics and saying that makes it protected under the first amendment, said Dirk Deam, senior lecturer in political science.

Deam said the fact it is online really does not matter in this case. It is more about the way he presented the speech.

In most respects, its not the medium [of spoken word or online] that controls, its the character of the speech, Deam said about whether the form of speech is relevant to the case or not.

For ISU students who use multiple forms of social media, Captain Carrie Jacobs, patrol commander for the ISU Police Department, has some advice.

Jacobs said the ISU PD receives reports a couple times a week about threats and harassment online. She said they frequently receive these types of reports from a third party.

Read more:

Supreme Court weighs free speech, threats online

Round-up: Nyland earns quick support, First Amendment dispute at Everett school

Posted on by

December 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Nyland earns quick support across Seattle school system: In four months, interim Seattle superintendent Larry Nyland hasmanaged to earn support from many of the districts key players.The Seattle School Board will vote Wednesday on whether to extend his contact for two more years.

Seven biggest districts pledge to offer computer science (AP): The White House announced Monday that the seven largest school districts in the country are committing to make computer science a standard offering at high schools or middle schools. The College Board also announced a new course calledAP Computer Science Principles will debut in the fall of 2016.

First Amendment dispute over religious expression at Everett school (KUOW): A student at Cascade High School in Everett has filed a federal lawsuit against Everett Public Schools after he was suspended multiple times for passing out religious literature and preaching to other students. The student claims his First Amendment right to free speech was violated; the district said his actions were a significant disruption.

More headlines:

| More in News | Topics: round-up

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

View original post here:

Round-up: Nyland earns quick support, First Amendment dispute at Everett school

Coin Brief Podcast #25: Cryptocurrency Bill, BitLicense Comments, USMS Bitcoin Auction, & More – Video

Posted on by


Coin Brief Podcast #25: Cryptocurrency Bill, BitLicense Comments, USMS Bitcoin Auction, More
Visit us at http://coinbrief.net/ and follow us on social media! Twitter: https://twitter.com/CoinBrief Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coinbrief Sean Win...

By: Coin Brief

Original post:

Coin Brief Podcast #25: Cryptocurrency Bill, BitLicense Comments, USMS Bitcoin Auction, & More - Video

2015 to be the year of biometrics, wearables, cryptocurrency and streaming

Posted on by

Coming to the end of 2014, it's time to start looking to what the year ahead may have to offer. After gazing into its crystal ball, Juniper Research has compiled a list of what it expects to be the biggest technology trends of 2015. Topping the list is a focus on security. Juniper Research predicts that there will be greater interest in encryption and tokenization, as cloud storage providers battle to regain customer trust.

The launch of Apple Pay will help to drive an increased interest in biometrics to help with security, but 2015 is also predicted to be the year that wearables really take off. Now that Apple has entered the arena, there should be a greater focus on aesthetics and smaller players will increase in popularity. Tied in with both security and wearables is a predicted jump in the use of NFC -- for payments, authentication, health and more.

Juniper Research's white paper suggests that 2015 will see a marked shift to the consumption of media through streaming services. This is thanks in part to mobile data bundles, and it is predicted that the digital download market "will begin its collapse". There has already been something of a movement towards streaming rather than downloading, so this prediction is not entirely surprising. The same is true of the suggestion that cryptocurrency payments -- such as Bitcoin -- will increase in popularity, again tied to wearables, security and NFC. Perhaps what 2015 is really going to be about is the interoperability of devices and services.

The much-talked about drone is likely to continue to hit the headlines. More than just a system of surveillance, these devices are likely to be widely adopted as delivery systems and used more in filming thanks to a huge drop in prices.

A prediction that will please many is one that suggests that budget smartphones, tablets and phablets will really take off in 2015. We've seen the battle at the top end of the market, and now attention turns to the other end of the scale. This is going to develop into a buyers' market, so we should see some great development in the realm of the budget device. Rounding off Juniper Research's visions for next year are predictions that indoor location awareness will increase in importance, as will web integration and deep-linking of apps.

Photo credit: Vjom / Shutterstock

View original post here:

2015 to be the year of biometrics, wearables, cryptocurrency and streaming

Productivity and Leadership in Decentralized Networks – Let’s Talk Bitcoin Episode 166 – Video

Posted on by


Productivity and Leadership in Decentralized Networks - Let #39;s Talk Bitcoin Episode 166
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-166-productivity-and-leadership-in-decentralized-networks.

By: Let #39;s Talk Bitcoin!

Continue reading here:

Productivity and Leadership in Decentralized Networks - Let's Talk Bitcoin Episode 166 - Video