SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Metadata Collection Reveals Personal Details, Rights Groups Assert
Bulk surveillance offers "intimate portraits of the lives of millions of Americans," legal brief reads
Aug 21, 2014
"Metadata is not trivial," Electronic Frontier Foundation legal fellow Andrew Crocker said Wednesday, announcing the filing of an amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, the high-profile lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's program of mass surveillance.
The brief, filed jointly by the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union, declares that "call records collected by the government are not just metadata -- they are intimate portraits of the lives of millions of Americans."
Larry Klayman, a conservative activist and founder of the political advocacy group Freedom Watch, filed his lawsuit against the NSA and President Obama in June, 2013. It alleges that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications," in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
In December, Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, in violation of the right against unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment; the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his ruling, Leon wrote: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval."
In their brief, the EFF and ACLU are equally harsh, asserting that changes in technology, as well as the government's move from targeted to mass surveillance of American citizens, mean that previous legal decisions that the government relies on to justify its spying program do not apply.
Government officials have claimed the nature of the data collected is innocuous -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said "[T]his is just metadata. There is no content involved." But the rights organizations say those claims are spurious:
A call to a hotline or another type of dedicated, single-purpose phone line provides perhaps the starkest demonstration of this power. An hour-long call at 3 A.M. to a suicide prevention hotline; a thirty-minute call to an alcohol addiction hotline on New Year's Eve; or a fifteen-minute call to a phone-sex service--the "metadata" from those calls, even in the absence of the "content" of the conversation, still reveals information that virtually anyone would consider exceptionally private.
In fact, the "vast" quantity of metadata the government collects, the duration for which it does so, and the modern nature of people's phone use, means that such dragnet surveillance "provides a window into the thoughts, beliefs, traits, habits, and associations of millions of Americans," the brief reads. "The Court should reject any contrary suggestion. Given the detailed portrait that can be drawn from metadata alone -- and given the especially revealing nature of large quantities of metadata -- the collection of this sensitive information receives the highest protection of the Fourth Amendment."
Oral arguments for the case will take place November 4, 2014.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
"Metadata is not trivial," Electronic Frontier Foundation legal fellow Andrew Crocker said Wednesday, announcing the filing of an amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, the high-profile lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's program of mass surveillance.
The brief, filed jointly by the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union, declares that "call records collected by the government are not just metadata -- they are intimate portraits of the lives of millions of Americans."
Larry Klayman, a conservative activist and founder of the political advocacy group Freedom Watch, filed his lawsuit against the NSA and President Obama in June, 2013. It alleges that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications," in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
In December, Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, in violation of the right against unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment; the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his ruling, Leon wrote: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval."
In their brief, the EFF and ACLU are equally harsh, asserting that changes in technology, as well as the government's move from targeted to mass surveillance of American citizens, mean that previous legal decisions that the government relies on to justify its spying program do not apply.
Government officials have claimed the nature of the data collected is innocuous -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said "[T]his is just metadata. There is no content involved." But the rights organizations say those claims are spurious:
A call to a hotline or another type of dedicated, single-purpose phone line provides perhaps the starkest demonstration of this power. An hour-long call at 3 A.M. to a suicide prevention hotline; a thirty-minute call to an alcohol addiction hotline on New Year's Eve; or a fifteen-minute call to a phone-sex service--the "metadata" from those calls, even in the absence of the "content" of the conversation, still reveals information that virtually anyone would consider exceptionally private.
In fact, the "vast" quantity of metadata the government collects, the duration for which it does so, and the modern nature of people's phone use, means that such dragnet surveillance "provides a window into the thoughts, beliefs, traits, habits, and associations of millions of Americans," the brief reads. "The Court should reject any contrary suggestion. Given the detailed portrait that can be drawn from metadata alone -- and given the especially revealing nature of large quantities of metadata -- the collection of this sensitive information receives the highest protection of the Fourth Amendment."
Oral arguments for the case will take place November 4, 2014.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
"Metadata is not trivial," Electronic Frontier Foundation legal fellow Andrew Crocker said Wednesday, announcing the filing of an amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, the high-profile lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's program of mass surveillance.
The brief, filed jointly by the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union, declares that "call records collected by the government are not just metadata -- they are intimate portraits of the lives of millions of Americans."
Larry Klayman, a conservative activist and founder of the political advocacy group Freedom Watch, filed his lawsuit against the NSA and President Obama in June, 2013. It alleges that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications," in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
In December, Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, in violation of the right against unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment; the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his ruling, Leon wrote: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval."
In their brief, the EFF and ACLU are equally harsh, asserting that changes in technology, as well as the government's move from targeted to mass surveillance of American citizens, mean that previous legal decisions that the government relies on to justify its spying program do not apply.
Government officials have claimed the nature of the data collected is innocuous -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said "[T]his is just metadata. There is no content involved." But the rights organizations say those claims are spurious:
A call to a hotline or another type of dedicated, single-purpose phone line provides perhaps the starkest demonstration of this power. An hour-long call at 3 A.M. to a suicide prevention hotline; a thirty-minute call to an alcohol addiction hotline on New Year's Eve; or a fifteen-minute call to a phone-sex service--the "metadata" from those calls, even in the absence of the "content" of the conversation, still reveals information that virtually anyone would consider exceptionally private.
In fact, the "vast" quantity of metadata the government collects, the duration for which it does so, and the modern nature of people's phone use, means that such dragnet surveillance "provides a window into the thoughts, beliefs, traits, habits, and associations of millions of Americans," the brief reads. "The Court should reject any contrary suggestion. Given the detailed portrait that can be drawn from metadata alone -- and given the especially revealing nature of large quantities of metadata -- the collection of this sensitive information receives the highest protection of the Fourth Amendment."
Oral arguments for the case will take place November 4, 2014.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.