Court Says FBI Doesn't Have To Hand Over Its Rules For Surveilling Domestic Journalists

from the petitioners-immediately-placed-under-surveillance dept

A couple of years ago, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued the DOJ over its refusal to release its secret rules governing spying on the nation’s journalists. This was prompted by revelations the FBI had used National Security Letters to obtain information on AP and Fox News journalists. The DOJ then issued new rules on the do’s and don’ts of surveilling journalists, but once again (a) redacted them into uselessness and (b) granted the FBI an NSL exception, undercutting the entire point of the recrafted rules.

The OIG report — in which the Inspector General disputed the DOJ’s extensive redactions — still has yet to be released in a less-redacted form. Sadly, it now appears it will never be any less redacted than the unintelligible mess the DOJ handed over a few years ago. A federal judge has sided with the government, finding its investigative techniques and methods are too sensitive to be handed over to the public, much less journalists it may or may not have surveilled using NSLs. (h/t Trevor Timm, Mike Scarcella)

Underlying everything is the government’s barely-contested assertion that these rules contain information of national security interest. It’s a handy assertion because it means the DOJ doesn’t even have to explain why the redactions it made are relevant to its national security claims. From the opinion [PDF]:

Recognizing the Court’s “limited institutional expertise on intelligence matters,” the Court accords substantial weight to Hardy’s representation that “any greater specificity in the descriptions and justifications . . . could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the national security of the United States.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 46. In the area of national security, “it is conceivable that the mere explanation of why information must be withheld can convey valuable information to a foreign intelligence agency.”

This same argument appears later in the decision when dispensing of the plaintiff’s challenge to yet another FOIA exception deployed by the FBI:

[T]he Court finds Defendant has met its burden and properly withheld documents under Exemption 7(E) for all five categories of documents. Defendant described with particularity that the withheld documents all contained non-public information about the FBI’s investigative techniques and procedures. These pages not only identified NSLs as an investigative technique, but also described information such as the circumstances under which the techniques should be used, how to analyze the information gathered through these techniques, and the current focus of the FBI’s investigations. As in Hamdan, the Court concludes that the declarations, which state that further detail would “reveal[] the very information it seeks to protect,” are sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s burden.

The court’s also uninterested in double-checking the DOJ’s secrecy assertions. As always, the court has the option to review contested documents behind closed doors (and away from plaintiffs) to see if the government’s claims of national security/investigative concerns are valid. The court here declined to exercise this privilege.

The Court finds that in camera review is unnecessary here as Defendant already provided sufficiently detailed factual information in support of its exemptions in the Hardy Declarations and Vaughn Index.

The FBI is still free to use NSLs to obtain information — including call records — about journalists. The DOJ may have reined in other options, but NSLs have always been the FBI’s go-to form when it’s stymied by the FISA court, magistrate judges, or internal guidelines. Nothing about that will change. As for what’s actually changed at the DOJ as a result of this public outing of journalist surveillance, the public apparently can’t be trusted with that information.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

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 “Court Says FBI Doesn't Have To Hand Over Its Rules For Surveilling Domestic Journalists”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

good ol’ Police State’ triumphs again! what the hell is the point of having courts that are supposed to act in fair ways, to ensure that both sides are treated equally if only the government is ever handed a ‘win’? given the way courts act today, disregarding the public and their interests on all but the most unusual of occasions, is there really any point in having them? the government and security forces get whatever they want at just about every single hearing!!

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Re: Re: Journalist = Terrorist

No sir, they get called conspiracy theorists. And while the “Conspiracy theorists” were screaming what would become of the USA “Patriot” Act and where it would go, others were laughing making tinfoil jokes saying that could never happen here.

The joke is on them. Too bad it’s not exactly a funny one.

freedomfan (profile) says:

The court seems to be saying, essentially, it’s okay to gather phone records and otherwise surveil citizens without a warrant (NSLs) by claiming "national security". When asked to detail how it choses to use this surveillance authority, it says, "We can tell you because… national security." Just as bad, the court decides that it won’t review whether or not the national security claim is legitimate. Allowing the government to avoid scrutiny by using "national security" as a win button at every level of challenge is judicial folly.

Whether or not the government is using surveillance properly in any given case, the fact that it knows it can hide what it is doing by chanting "national security" whenever its actions are questioned means that abuses will go undetected. The fact that the government knows its abuses will go undetected guarantees that they will happen. Its pretty much a textbook example of why we value transparency in government: It’s not that the government is necessarily always abusing its authority, it’s that if it knows it can abuse its authority and not be caught, then it definitely will abuse its authority.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Last I checked, there was no national security exemption to having to obey the law — built into the constitution or anywhere else. It’s been created by the courts despite the fact they supposedly lack the authority to create new laws.

Also, last I checked, there was no personal security exemption to having to obey the law. But if the government, which has only the powers granted to it by the constitution can ignore the law and do things its own charter forbids, then why must anyone obey any law whatsoever?

Because the government has more guns and more people willing to use them than you do. But if might makes right, getting the drop on a federal agent and killing him would be morally and ethically right, not wrong.

freedomfan (profile) says:

By the way, if the government is doing something that seems like it might be unconstitutional, then the default view of the courts should be that the government cannot do it, not the other way around. A court “deferring” to the government about what the government can do and what it can keep secret makes a joke of the whole idea of checks and balances between the branches.

The court seems to be saying it doesn’t know enough to judge whether something the government is doing is legitimate. How does that translate into “the government wins”? If the court doesn’t know enough to decide, then the government has not succeeded in making its case. If I am accused of some misbehavior and I tell the court, “Well, you don’t know enough about my secret activities to judge them and I refuse to explain them to you because they are secret,” what are my odds of winning that case?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...