Documents Show FISA Court Refusing To Grant FBI's Requests To Scoop Up Communications Along With Phone Metadata

from the rubber-stamp-runs-dry dept

A handful of FOIA documents [PDF] obtained by EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) are shedding some new light on the FISA court and its relationship with the FBI. The good news is that the court is not quite the rubber stamp it’s often been portrayed as. Even though a vast majority of requests are improved, there appears to be a significant amount of modification happening behind the scenes.

The documents reveal that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) told the FBI several times between 2005 and 2007 that using some incidental information it collected while monitoring communications in an investigation — specifically, numbers people punch into their phones after they’ve placed a call — would require an explicit authorization from the court, even in an emergency.

The FBI wanted to trap these digits using its pen register orders, which are only supposed to provide numbers called and received. This additional information had been considered “content,” as these post-cut-through digits could reveal details such as credit card info or social security numbers.

The FBI’s collection of content — along with the call metadata it was actually authorized to receive — appears to have continued until a FISA judge finally asked it what it was doing with this “incidentally collected” content. The DOJ, of course, argued that is was entitled to this information.

In May 2006, the government told the court that it had the authority to collect that sensitive information, and would “in some cases … specifically seek authority for secondary orders requiring a service provider to provide all dialing, routing, addressing or signaling information transmitted by a target telephone, which, in light of technological constraints, may include content and non-content digits alike,” the report continues.

It also claimed that, although it specifically sought to collect this info with modified pen register orders, it was only accessed for a limited number of reasons: national security, emergencies, exigent circumstances, etc. The FISA court doesn’t appear to have believed the FBI’s claims that it was seeking this information just to use it only in the rarest of circumstances.

The court “had made modifications to the government’s proposed pen register orders,” reads the biannual report to Congress obtained by EPIC. “Although the [FISA Court] has authorized the government to record and decode all post-cut-through digits dialed by the targeted telephone, it has struck the language specifically authorizing the government to make affirmative investigative use of possible content” unless permission is specifically granted by the court.

This pushback wasn’t just limited to the nation’s most secret court. The FBI also met resistance at local levels when trying to scoop up content with its metadata.

In July 2006, a magistrate judge in Texas denied an application for a pen register because filtering technology would not eliminate the additional content information.

This lower-level refusal was addressed by the FISA court, which asked the FBI how it expected this magistrate’s refusal to affect its FISA court requests. The FBI replied it no longer had to worry about it as revisions to the US Patriot Act had given it permission to collect it all — even stuff the agency treated as content when crafting its altered pen register requests.

This failed to move the court. It also failed to alter the FBI’s tactics. The FBI continued to submit requests for post-cut-through content and the court, quite frequently, continued to strip this part of the agency’s request from its approved orders. After several years, this became standard operating procedure for the FISA court, which instituted a blanket refusal on FBI requests for post-cut-through content, even for “emergency” reasons. This resistance is likely what prompted the FBI to turn something it wasn’t being allowed to obtain into formal agency policy by 2011.

The new documents shed some new, somewhat surprising, light on the inner workings of the mostly-opaque FISA court, showing that it is not always inclined to give the government what it wants. It also shows the government doesn’t seem to handle rejection very well, having to be told “no” repeatedly before the message sinks in.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Documents Show FISA Court Refusing To Grant FBI's Requests To Scoop Up Communications Along With Phone Metadata”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
13 Comments
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

"Even though a vast majority of requests are improved..."

I’m going to assume you meant Even though a vast majority of requests are approved…

Though now you’re giving me fantasies that the FISC is actually narrowing the parameters of FBI requested searches, rather than Call records of every 515 area code number that called this pizzeria on July 23rd to call records of these five pizzeria-calling suspects on July 23rd between 7pm and Midnight.

That would be an improvement.

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Easier to parallel construct than get permission

“…having to be told “no” repeatedly before the message sinks in.”

Oh, I’m very sure the message sank in all right; but that doesn’t mean the government gave up or learned to respect our Constitutional rights. Most likely they simply stopped asking permission and started using parallel construction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: No means don't bother asking

Judges that have something to hide shouldn’t be judges. If they don’t even have the integrity to be honest with their own family why should we trust them to have the integrity to be honest with the American people in how they judge? and putting themselves in such a position where they can be blackmailed out of properly doing their job itself is a betrayal to the American people. Possible treason (or at least just as bad).

Before becoming such a judge consider this first. Do you have something to hide? If blackmailed will it affect your judgement?

Because things like this have supposedly happened before (ie: Hoover).

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: That requires a story.

It’s like asking why food stamps are managed by the Department of Agriculture. (A story for another time.)

The big NSA super-listening data-collection array was only supposed to spy on foreign nationals.

And then it was them plus friends of foreign nationals.

And then their friends…

Also any domestic communication that happens to pop out to a foreign server and back.

And probably half a dozen other contingencies to make sure your data is included.

Then it was decided that the FBI, DEA and local precincts can request data too because function creep.

And we civilians are all the enemy.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...