Tag Archive: United States Department of Justice


AP, DOJ clash over seriousness of leak that prompted phone records seizure

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls on a reporter during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday.

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

Justice Department and Associated Press officials clashed Tuesday over leaked classified information that led the government to seize AP phone records, with Attorney General Eric Holder saying it “put the American people at risk” and the news organization’s chief executive insisting it delayed publishing its story until it was assured “national security concerns had passed.”

The day of back-and-forth public sallies came as new details emerged about negotiations between the AP and U.S. officials over the unauthorized release of classified information on a foiled bomb plot in Yemen, information that apparently triggered the investigation.

“This was a very, very serious leak,” Holder said at a news conference. “I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 – and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, in the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk – and that is not hyperbole.”

Holder defended the secret subpoena for about two months of AP phone records on 20 separate telephone lines without prior notice as a necessary step, saying that trying to find the source of the leak “required very aggressive action.”

Holder’s comments and a letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole defending the seizure of the AP records – without notifying the news organization until last week –  drew a stern response from AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt. He  blasted the action as “overbroad under the law,” saying  that “more than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones.”

“Rather than talk to us in advance, they seized these phone records in secret, saying that notifying us would compromise their investigation,” Pruitt said in a statement late Tuesday. “They offer no explanation of this, however.

 

Read Full Article Here

***********************************************************************************************

DOJ’s secret subpoena of AP phone records broader than initially revealed

Information has emerged  in the Justice Department seizure of Associated Press phone records as well as the news that reporter for Fox News is now a target of a leak investigation concerning North Korea.  NBC’s Michael Isikoff reports.

The Justice Department’s secret subpoena for AP phone records included the seizure of records for five reporters’ cellphones and three home phones as well as two fax lines, a lawyer for the news organization tells NBC News.

David Schulz, the chief lawyer for the AP, said the subpoenas also covered the records for 21 phone lines in five AP office lines — including one for a dead phone line at  office in Washington that had been shut down six years ago. The phone lines at four other offices – where  100 reporters worked — were also covered by the subpoenas, Schulz said.

Although AP had given general information about the subpoenas last week, it provided new details Monday about the number of cell and home phone records as it considers possible legal action against the Justice Department.

 

Read Full Article Here

About these ads

DoHowToEvo

Published on May 14, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder says he’s ordered a Justice Department investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny.

He said the FBI was coordinating with the Department of Justice to see if any laws were broken.

At a news conference Tuesday at the Justice Department, Holder called the practice, in his words, “Outrageous and unacceptable.”

Holder’s comments come a day after President Barack Obama said that, if the agency intentionally targeted such groups, “that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it.”

Steven Miller, the IRS acting chief, has acknowledged “a lack of sensitivity” in the agency’s screenings of political groups seeking tax-exempt status and insisted those mistakes won’t be repeated.

**************************************************************************************

IRS Under Fire for Scrutinizing Conservative Groups

PBSNewsHour PBSNewsHour·

Published on May 13, 2013

Reports charge the IRS targeted conservative political groups in 2012 by applying extra scrutiny to organizations that focused on government spending or the U.S. Constitution or had the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Judy Woodruff reports on responses from the president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

***************************************************************************************

The Time Obama Made An Auditing Joke FLASHBACK 2009

StandUpFor FreedomLiberty StandUpFor FreedomLiberty

Published on May 10, 2013

President Obama was giving the commencement address at Arizona State University in 2009 where he joked about auditing the president of ASU and their board of regents . Today, the IRS apologized for unfairly targeting Tea Party groups with extra scrutiny about their tax status.

***************************************************************************************

Mary Bruce
ABC News
Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:01 CST

The White House is declining to explain its criteria for directing drone attacks against American citizens working abroad with terrorists

The White House today defended the use of targeted drone strikes against U.S. citizens abroad suspected of high-level terrorist activity, but declined to detail the criteria for ordering such an attack.

“Sometimes we use remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the United States and to save American lives,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, to prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives. These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise,” he said.

Administration lawyers found it is lawful to kill an American citizen if a “high-level” government official believes the target is an operational leader of al Qaeda who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if capture is infeasible, according to a newly disclosed Justice Department document.

Insight: The document sheds new light on the legal reasoning behind a reported increase in the number of drone strikes used against al-Qaida suspects in recent years, including those aimed at American citizens
….

‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo

Erin McClam
NBCNews.com
Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:47 CST

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida – with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”

The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.
“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.

The memo, made public Monday, provides detail about the administration’s controversial expansion of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens.

Among them were Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed by an American strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Both men were U.S. citizens who had not been charged with a crime.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a talk at Northwestern University Law School in March, endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans provided that the government determines such an individual poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the memo obtained by NBC News refers to a broader definition of imminence and specifically says the government is not required to have “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”

“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wrote.

cnsnews.com
gun(AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – The Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers 2008, published by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics in June 2012, shows that of the 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who are authorized to make arrests and carry firearms as federal employees, 3,501 are in the Offices of Inspectors General (OIG).

Overall, “the number of federal officers in the United States increased by 15,000, or 14 percent, between 2004 and 2008,” the report states, adding that  “33 of the 69 statutory federal IG offices employed criminal investigators with arrest and firearm authority in 2008. Overall, these offices employed 3,501 such personnel in the United States in 2008, 12% more than in 2004. IG offices investigate criminal violations. They also prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse related to federal programs, oprations and employees.”

In Table 3 of the report, the number of “full-time personnel with arrest and firearm authority” as of September 2008 is broken down by agency, with the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General having the most with 508 armed officers. (Report is here: Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008.pdf )

Health and Human Services’ OIG is second with 389 – 44 more than the Department of Defense, which has a total of 345 armed officers.

The Department of Treasury is ranked fourth with 302, while the Social Security Administration is fifth (272) followed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (228).

The OIG at the Department of Homeland Security is 9th, with 157 workers who can pack guns and arrest people through its Office of Inspector General.

Others making the list are the Department of Education (85), the Environmental Protection Agency (40) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (16), and the National Science Foundation (6).

 

Read Full Article Here

Judge rebuffs feds’ secret arguments on no-fly list

By JOSH GERSTEIN |

 

A federal judge in California has rejected the Obama administration’s effort to use secret arguments and evidence to defeat a lawsuit relating to the so-called no-fly list designed to keep suspected terrorists off of airline flights.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup turned down a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss former Stanford student Rahinah Ibrahim’s lawsuit against various federal government agencies over her reported inclusion on the no-fly list as well as an incident in September 2005 where she was barred from taking a flight from San Francisco and detained for a couple of hours.

Alsup, who sits in San Francisco, also refused the Justice Department’s offer to show him affidavits from law enforcement officials which the government would not share with Ibrahim or her attorneys.

“Here the government seeks to affirmatively use allegedly privileged information to dispose of the case entirely without ever revealing to the other side what its secret evidence might be,” Alsup wrote in an order filed last week (and posted here). “Only in the rarest of circumstances should a district judge, in his or her discretion, receive ex parte argument and evidence in secret from only one side aimed at winning or ending a case over the objection of the other side. Here, the government has not justified its sweeping proposal.

“It has gone so far as even to redact from its table of authorities some of the reported caselaw on which it relies! This is too hard to swallow,” Alsup wrote.

 

Read Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Justice Department Uses Red Tape To Delay Release Of Required Information On Domestic Spying Until Well After It Matters

from the most-transparent-administration-in-history! dept

A couple of months ago, Julian Sanchez wrote about the ridiculous situation in which he filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to reveal the latest semi-annual report from the Justice Department concerning how it was implementing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. As we’ve been discussing, for a while, how the FISA Amendments Act broadly expanded the ability of federal law enforcement, in particular the NSA, to spy on everyone. While there is some language that suggests it’s only supposed to be used on foreigners, it’s been revealed that there is a secret interpretation of the bill, that likely allows them to use a loophole (plus the secret interpretation) to collect and review tons of data on Americans. The FAA is up for renewal, and it’s likely that Congress will rush through a five year extension — despite overwhelming evidence that many in Congress don’t know how the NSA is interpreting the bill (and even making statements that directly contradict the evidence of how the bill is being used).

The law does require the “semi-annual” report mentioned above, and thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU, the courts have said that the government is required to release redacted versions of those documents. Which is why it was crazy when Sanchez initially filed his FOIA request to see the most recent versions, arguing (quite reasonably) that such documents were inherently important in the debate over the FAA’s renewal, that the DOJ initially told him that it had to deny his request because it could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of records in these files responsive to your request.” That was obviously bullshit. Once again: the report is required by law, and the courts have already said that the content is subject to FOIA requests. Thankfully, after Sanchez went public with the ridiculousness of the situation, the DOJ quickly admitted the original response was a mistake, and promised they’d get right on finding the documents.

Sanchez now has an update of the situation, which is almost as ridiculous as the original story.

 

Read Full Article Here

BP settles criminal charges for $4 billion in spill; supervisors indicted on manslaughter

Steven Mufson
The Washington Post
bp oil spill

© Reuters

BP has agreed to a plead guilty to 14 criminal counts, including manslaughter, and will pay $4 billion over five years in a settlement with the Justice Department over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the company and Justice Department announced Thursday.

In addition, the London-based oil giant will pay $525 million over three years to settle claims with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which said the company concealed information from investors.

“This marks both the single largest criminal fine – more than $1.25 billion – and the single largest total criminal resolution… in the history of the United States,” Attorney General Eric Holder said during a news conference in New Orleans. “I hope this sends a clear message to those who would engage in this wanton misconduct that there will be a penalty paid.”

Holder also announced a separate 23-count criminal indictment – including charges of seaman’s and involuntary manslaughter – against the two top-ranking BP supervisors on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig where a blowout occurred April 20, 2010, sinking the rig and killing 11 workers.

Holder also announced an indictment against David Rainey, a BP vice president, for hiding information from Congress and lying to law enforcement officials about the rate at which oil was gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

“Make no mistake: While the company is guilty, individuals committed these crimes,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, head of the criminal division. Of the two rig supervisors, Breuer said: “In the face of glaring red flags indicating that the well was not secure, both men allegedly failed to take appropriate action to prevent the blowout.”

BP said it would increase its existing $38.1 billion charge against earnings for the spill by $3.85 billion.

The criminal settlement does not cover federal civil claims, including Clean Water Act claims, federal and state claims of damages to natural resources or private civil claims. Settling those would probably cost BP billions of dollars more, and the company said it is “prepared to vigorously defend itself against remaining civil claims.”

But the settlement resolves a variety of criminal charges. BP agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect of ships’ officers relating to the loss of 11 lives on the drilling rig that caught fire and sank; one misdemeanor count under the Clean Water Act; one misdemeanor count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and one felony count of obstruction of Congress. BP said that the last of those is related to misreporting to a member of Congress the rate at which oil was gushing into the gulf.

The settlement is subject to U.S. federal court approval.

“All of us at BP deeply regret the tragic loss of life caused by the Deepwater Horizon accident as well as the impact of the spill on the Gulf coast region,” Bob Dudley, BP’s chief executive, said in a statement before Holder’s announcement. “From the outset, we stepped up by responding to the spill, paying legitimate claims and funding restoration efforts in the Gulf. We apologize for our role in the accident, and as today’s resolution with the U.S. government further reflects, we have accepted responsibility for our actions.”

“We believe this resolution is in the best interest of BP and its shareholders,” Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP’s chairman, said in the statement. “It removes two significant legal risks and allows us to vigorously defend the company against the remaining civil claims.”

The criminal plea could complicate BP’s efforts to contain the cost of civil claims, but the company said 13 of the 14 criminal charges “are based on the negligent misinterpretation of the negative pressure test conducted on board the Deepwater Horizon.” BP said that it “acknowledged this misinterpretation more than two years ago” and insisted that the agreement today “is consistent with BP’s position in the ongoing civil litigation that this was an accident resulting from multiple causes, involving multiple parties, as found by other official investigations.”

“It’s obviously not cheap. A $4 billion settlement is pricey for anyone, even a company this size,” said Pavel Molchanov, an oil analyst at the investment firm Raymond James. But, he said, “it’s a positive step” from an investor’s point of view. “By eliminating the criminal overhang, the inference is that BP can afford to be more aggressive in dealing with the civil claims,” he said. “They no longer have to fear the criminal stick.”

At 3 pm, BP shares were up about 0.2 percent to $40.37.

BP said that the $4 billion settlement with the Justice Department includes $1.256 billion in criminal fines, $2.394 billion to be paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and $350 million to be paid to the National Academy of Sciences.

“The fines and penalties that the Justice Department has demanded BP pay are appropriate for such a massive disaster,” Rep. Edward J. Markey, the senior Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “People died, BP lied to Congress, and millions of barrels of oil poured into the Gulf. This steep cost to BP will provide the Gulf coast some of the funds needed to restore the region, and will hopefully deliver some comfort and closure to the families and businesses affected by the spill.”

It was unclear how BP’s plea would affect its ability to bid on contracts to supply fuel to the U.S. military. BP has been a major supplier of fuel to the Pentagon in the past. But analysts expect that it will not impair the company’s ability to lease areas of the Gulf of Mexico or explore for oil and gas there. The company said that it “has not been advised of the intention of any federal agency to suspend or debar the company in connection with this plea agreement. BP will continue to work cooperatively with the debarment authority.”

Under the terms of the plea agreement, BP has also agreed to to further “enhance” the safety of drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. These steps relate to BP’s risk management, including third-party auditing and verification, training, and well control equipment and processes such as blowout preventers and cementing. In addition, BP has agreed to several initiatives with academia and regulators to develop new technologies related to deepwater drilling safety.

The agreement also provides for the appointment of two monitors, both with terms of four years. A process safety monitor will review, evaluate and provide recommendations for the improvement of BP’s process safety and risk management procedures concerning deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. An ethics monitor will review and provide recommendations for the improvement of BP’s code of conduct and its enforcement, the company said.

So far BP has spent $14 billion responding to and cleaning up the spill. It has also paid out $9 billion mostly to individuals and businesses. Additional private civil claims are being pursued in a separate lawsuit in a New Orleans federal court, where a settlement that BP estimates will cost $7.8 billion is being finalized.

The BP settlement with the Justice Department is not expected to cover other companies involved in the April 20, 2010 accident, including rig owner and operator TransOcean and cement contractor Halliburton.

Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

By Kyle Balluck

 

 

CBS Chicagoreports that Jackson would resign from Congress for health reasons under the tentative deal and plead guilty to charges involving misuse of campaign funds. Jackson would also repay any contributions that were converted to personal use.

At least some jail time would appear to be inevitable for Jackson, according to the report, which said Jackson’s attorney, Dan Webb, is in talks with the U.S. Justice Department.

Jackson has been on an extended absence from Capitol Hill to undergo treatment for depression at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.

The nine-term lawmaker left Washington in mid-June, revealing two months later that he was being treated for bipolar disorder.

He returned to the capital briefly in September, but readmitted himself to the Mayo Clinic to continue his treatment.

Jackson easily won reelection on Tuesday, despite not campaigning.

The allegations into misuse of campaign funds first surfaced in October, when The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office were spearheading the investigation.

 

 

 

Former U.S. Prosecutor Negotiating Plea Deal For Jackson Jr.

CBS Chicago

U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (File Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (File Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Reporting Jay Levine


CHICAGO (CBS) – A former U.S. attorney representing embattled Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is negotiating a plea deal with the federal government, CBS 2 has learned.

CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine has the exclusive details.

The plea deal would end Jackson’s 17-year career as a congressman representing Chicago’s South Side and suburbs.

At the center of negotiations is white-collar criminal defense attorney Dan Webb, who served as Chicago’s top federal prosecutor in the 1980s, when several Cook County judges were indicted for public corruption under the “Operation Greylord” investigation.

Webb, the chairman of Winston & Strawn LLP in Chicago, has been the point person for Jackson in talks with the U.S. Justice Department in Washington.

The tentative deal includes:

–Jackson resigning for health reasons.

–His pleading guilty to charges involving misuse of campaign funds.

–The congressman’s repayment of any contributions that were converted to personal use, such as home furnishings, improper travel or gifts.

At least some jail time would appear to be inevitable for Jackson, the son of civil-rights icon Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. and spouse of Chicago 7th Ward Ald. Sandi Jackson.

Webb was also involved in the high-profile political plea deal for the late Dan Rostenkowski, who pleaded guilty to converting a congressional postage allowance into cash for himself. Rostenkowski got 17 months in jail but kept his $126,000-a-year pension for the rest of his life.

The onetime chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee died two years ago.

Jackson’s pension for 17 years in Congress would be between 65,000 and $80,000 a year, plus health benefits. But he’s only 47 and won’t be eligible for pension payouts until 62.

Jackson’s pension is also part of the current negotiations.

The Congressman is currently being treated for a bi-polar disorder, both at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and as an outpatient at his home in Washington. He has been on medical leave since June and did not campaign in-person to be re-elected to his 2nd Congressional District seat. He won his bid Nov. 6.

Those who have seen and spoken with Jackson say there are serious doubts as to whether health issues would ever permit his return to Congress.

As for a timetable for the agreement, a source familiar with those negotiations said as soon as possible and probably by the end of the year.

Webb, reached Friday, had no comment.

If Jackson resigns, as expected, a special election will determine his successor. Jackson himself replaced the disgraced U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds in 1995.

CBS 2 Political Producer Ed Marshall contributed to this report.

 

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans’ privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

 

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission — and without a warrant — to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras” in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans’ privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA’s warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that’s being searched.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance,” Callahan wrote.

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that “No Trespassing” signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.

U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment." U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property “does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

(Credit: U.S. Department of Justice)

Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that “open fields” could be searched without warrants because they’re not covered by the Fourth Amendment. What lawyers call “curtilage,” on the other hand, meaning the land immediately surrounding a residence, still has greater privacy protections.

“Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment,” Justice Department prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department’s argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight — subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure.

About four days after the DEA’s warrantless installation of surveillance cameras, a magistrate judge did subsequently grant a warrant. But attorneys for Mendoza and Magana noticed that the surveillance took place before the warrant was granted.

“That one’s actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society’s concept of privacy,” wrote Brett Reetz, Magana’s attorney, in a legal filing last month. “The owner and his guest… had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy.”

A jury trial has been scheduled for January 22.

Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It

IT  :  Security – Collection of Personal Data – Social Networks – Invasion Of Privacy

Feds snooping on email activity and social networks, without warrants – and it’s on the rise

 

Private investigator, courtesy of ShutterstockCrime-fighting authorities in the United States can snoop upon your email activity, who you are instant messaging, and what you are up to on Facebook, Google Plus and other social networks in real-time, not only without your permission – but without even requiring a warrant.

And, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this real-time access by federal investigators to your online activity is on the rise.

Documents released by the ACLU on Thursday show that law enforcement agencies in the United States have greatly increased surveillance of Americans’ electronic communications, and often the surveillance happens without a warrant or judicial oversight.

The documents were released by the U.S. Department of Justice in response to a February 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (PDF) by the ACLU.

They show a sharp rise in the use of two types of surveillance in the last five years: “trap and trace” and “pen register”.

Orders for pen registers and trap and trace devices used to spy on phones increased by 60% between 2009 and 2011, from 23,535 to 37,616. The number of individuals whose communications were the subject of surveillance more than tripled in the same period, from approximately 15,000 to 45,000, ACLU said.

Requests to eavesdrop on electronic communications such as email and network data jumped during the same period, also. Trap and Trace requests for electronic data, for example, increased from just over 100 in 2009 to 800 in 2011, the ACLU found.

Graph from ACLU

Pen registers capture outgoing data from a subject over telecommunications lines. Trap and trace surveillance tools capture incoming data.

Historically, the tools were physical devices attached to telephone lines in order to covertly record the incoming and outgoing numbers dialed. Today, no special equipment is required to record this information, as interception capabilities are built into the call-routing hardware of telecoms firms.

According to the ACLU, the surveillance requests do not require a warrant, because American courts consider the data in question – phone numbers, the “to” and “from” addresses in an email, records about IM conversations, etc – to be “non-content” information, which is not covered by the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

Man with magnifying glass, courtesy of ShutterstockTo initiate pen register or trap and trace surveillance under the act, therefore, law enforcement can simply request approval from a judge by saying that the information they are likely to obtain is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation”.

Judges don’t get to weigh the merits of that claim.

The ACLU took the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to court in May to force the government to release the data about its electronic surveillance activities. The ACLU said that the DOJ is required to release the surveillance statistics to Congress each year, but rarely does so.

Past FOIA requests by the ACLU also document the sharp increase in surveillance requests. A 2010 request covering 2006 to 2009 showed that original requests for pen register and trap and trace doubled in that period, as well, from 11,000 to 24,000.

Together with the data released this week, the evidence suggests that law enforcement surveillance requests have more than tripled between 2006 and 2012.

The ACLU said that legislation is needed to toughen the requirement for the government to regularly update the public about its surveillance activities.

The civil liberties group also said that courts should reconsider the 1979 ruling (Smith v. Maryland) that set a lower standard for pen register and trap and trace monitoring than for traditional wire taps.

ACLU wrote:

The distinction from which these starkly different legal requirements arise is based on an erroneous factual premise, specifically that individuals’ lack a privacy interest in non-content information... Non-content information can still be extremely invasive, revealing who you communicate with in real time and painting a vivid picture of the private details of your life... The low legal standard currently applied to pen register and trap and trace devices allows the government to use these powerful surveillance tools with very little oversight in place to safeguard Americans’ privacy.

You can view the Pen Register and Trap and Trace documents online here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 723 other followers