From: Washington Post
A federal court in California has ruled
that a surveillance tool widely used by the FBI to obtain information
on Americans without court oversight is unconstitutional because the gag
order that accompanies it violates the First Amendment.
The
ruling by Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California
would bar the issuance of national security letters — a form of
administrative subpoena — on constitutional grounds.
The ruling on the 1986 statute has been stayed while the government weighs an appeal.
NSLs
allow the FBI to ask Internet companies and other electronic
communication service providers to turn over subscriber information on
American customers and to demand that the providers keep the fact of the
letter secret — including from the target.
To issue an NSL, a
supervisor need only certify that the records sought are relevant to an
authorized national security investigation. No warrant is required. FBI
officials have said that such flexibility, granted in the aftermath of
the 2001 terrorist attacks, is crucial to preventing future attacks.
But
the letters have been controversial. The Justice Department inspector
general found several years ago that the FBI abused its authority to
issue NSLs, often failing to justify the need for the surveillance.
Although the bureau has said that it fixed the problems, questions surround the use of the gag order and the law’s lack of clarity about what type of information may be obtained under what legal standard.
“NSLs
are unique in their invasiveness and lack of judicial oversight,” said
Matt Zimmerman, a senior staff attorney with Electronic Frontier
Foundation, which filed suit on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications
company.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the department is reviewing the judge’s order. He declined further comment.
The
FBI was issuing an average of 50,000 letters a year after the 2001
attacks. In 2011, according to the Justice Department, it made 16,500
requests for data on 7,200 Americans.
In her ruling, Illston
conceded that there might be situations where disclosing the receipt of
an NSL could jeopardize an investigation. But where no such risk exists,
she said, “thousands of recipients of NSLs” are nonetheless gagged,
“rendering the statute impermissibly overbroad.” MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment