The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court faced a flurry...
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court faced a flurry of separate filings from the American Civil Liberties Union, ProPublica and technology companies in the past week, all pushing back against the government urge to classify and redact. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
and LinkedIn joined in a filing to attack the government’s redactions. “The government offers no explanation of how national security would be harmed by allowing the providers -- each of whom would have been or could be entrusted with the individual orders issued by the court -- to access the government’s response,” the tech companies said (http://1.usa.gov/1hCqyz5). “It fails to grapple with the specifics of this case, resting its response to the providers’ constitutional arguments on generalities about the protection of classified information.” The providers know what FISC requests they have received, if any, and “only now, in this lawsuit” does the government argue the information is too sensitive to reveal, the companies said, asking that the FISC strike the government’s Sept. 30 filing unless providers can access the unredacted version. The ACLU, in a separate proceeding, also criticized government redactions and pressed for release of opinions related to bulk collection of metadata. The ACLU joined the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic in the filing (http://1.usa.gov/1cm2Fe0), which asked for expedited consideration and oral argument before the FISC. The ACLU cited increased public debate on the programs, such as in the Klayman v. Obama opinion that ruled unconstitutional the surveillance. “Just days ago, the President’s own review group joined that conversation with a three-hundred-page report that recommends, in part, greater transparency in this Court’s operation,” the ACLU said. ProPublica, in yet another proceeding, had asked for release of phone surveillance opinions but attacked subsequent classifications and redactions, in a Monday filing. “But the Executive’s claims of classification have yet to be subject to judicial scrutiny, and therefore they do not moot ProPublica’s motion,” it said. The FISC should review the redacted opinions and “independently determine whether to publish it,” ProPublica said (http://1.usa.gov/1kDlOf6). “There is a growing recognition that the classification system itself is in drastic need of oversight."