NSA violated phone rules, misinformed secret court, documents show
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Newly released documents show the National Security Agency violated phone-records rules
- Papers: NSA also submitted incorrect information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
- The papers were released to comply with ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation requests
- The court required the NSA to seek approval to query data until processes were improved
The documents indicate
that the National Security Agency violated its own internal guidelines
relating to phone numbers it can "query" from among records the agency
collects.
Moreover, the documents indicate that the NSA presented false information to the surveillance court about the violation.
"The people responsible
for authoring the report did not fully understand how the operation was
working," a senior intelligence official said. "That misrepresentation
resulted in a factually inaccurate report."
The documents satisfy a
judge's order pertaining to public records requests from the American
Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy
advocacy group, about FISA Court interpretations of the section of the
Patriot Act dealing with collecting metadata, the so-called business
records provision.
The metadata program
started in 2006 and allowed the NSA to seek to obtain more information
about a number if there was "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the
number was linked to terrorism.
The NSA also kept a
separate "alert list" that was used to compare the new numbers that were
coming in daily and consider whether new numbers should be added to the
category of those with "reasonable articulable suspicion."
The alert list started
with about 4,000 numbers and ended up with 17,835, most of which did not
have the required suspicion, officials say.
The court ruled that the
NSA was allowed to have the alert list, but the agency could not run it
against the larger database because it did not have the reasonable
suspicion.
Every day, phone
companies sent metadata, which went into an archive. But each day, the
NSA ran the alert list against the new information to see if it could
establish reasonable suspicion. This went on from May 2006 until January
2009.
"To further complicate
matters," an official said, "reporting to the court, we described the
alert list but did not describe (it) accurately."
Senior intelligence
officials attempted to assure reporters that the news was not so much
the compliance violation, but the fact that the NSA uncovered the
problem, reported it to the Justice Department and the FISA Court, "took
steps thereafter to do a thorough scrub of operations," and reported
back to the FISA Court after the changes had been made.
In one declassified order from March 2009, Judge Reggie Walton said the court would "not permit the government to access
the data collected until such time as the government is able to restore
the court's confidence that the government can and will comply with
previously approved procedures for accessing such data."
A senior intelligence
official noted "fairly strong language" by the court, but stressed that
it did not find any "intentional attempt" to violate the law or abuse
the program.
Because there was such
confusion about the program, the NSA instituted new steps to guard
against future violations, including adding a compliance director, the
officials said.
One official said this
proved that there was "effective oversight by the executive branch and
the court. NSA is not perfect and screws up from time to time." But
there never has been any indication that these programs have been abused
by spying for improper purposes or exceeding guidelines with improper
authority, he said.
The officials said they did not know of any NSA employee who was punished or fired as a result of the problem.
Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement that the incidents were
promptly reported to the court, which ordered NSA to seek its approval
to query metadata on a case-by-case basis, except when lives were under
imminent threat.
"The documents released
today are a testament to the government's strong commitment to
detecting, correcting, and reporting mistakes that occur in implementing
technologically complex intelligence collection activities, and to
continually improving its oversight and compliance processes," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment