Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar
GraceLand

GraceLand

By Chris Abani

more items

 
Report

Why the NSA’s Metadata Program Won’t Change Anytime Soon

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 22, 2014

By Bill Blum

Shutterstock

Of all the applause lines President Obama delivered in his speech Friday on NSA spying, none matched his promise to end the agency’s telephone metadata program “as it currently exists” under section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Unfortunately, however, the promise was at best misleading, and at worst entirely hollow. To understand why, it’s necessary to parse the fine print of the president’s address.

Far from questioning the constitutionality of the metadata program, Obama invoked national security (what else?) to endorse and maintain it. Not only did he claim that the program in general is necessary, but he suggested that if it had been in place before 9/11, it might have led the NSA to a call placed by one of the 9/11 hijackers, thereby—presumably—disrupting the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon before they took place.

Not once did the president mention that U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a Republican judicial appointee, had held in a blistering legal opinion written only last month that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the Justice Department had failed to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.” Similar findings about the program’s track record in thwarting terrorism were reached by Obama’s own blue ribbon commission on surveillance reform.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Fostering the appearance of change, the president proposed to remove the storage of collected metadata from the NSA’s computer system. Where the data would be held in the future—whether in the private sector, which thus far has balked at taking on the responsibility, in another government agency, or a private-public consortium on the model of Fannie Mae—Obama left up to Attorney General Eric Holder, who is to report back to the president on the available options by March 28. That, Obama said, is the date the metadata program comes up for “reauthorization.”

Both the alternatives that Holder likely will explore and the March 28 deadline are more illusory than real. As Jeffrey Rosen, who heads the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, noted in a New York Times op-ed Sunday, transferring the storage of metadata to the private sector would be of little value because “Internet service providers and telecoms are constrained neither by the Constitution nor, in meaningful ways, by federal privacy statutes. And they are free to engage in just the kind of intrusive surveillance that Judge Leon insisted was an unreasonable search and seizure when conducted by the N.S.A.”

And as for the tough-sounding time limit Holder will face, March 28 is not, as some media outlets have reported, the date when Congress is slated to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In 2011, Congress and the president renewed the Patriot Act for another four years. The March 28 deadline is when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is scheduled to reauthorize the collection of metadata—something it routinely does every 90 days. Should Holder miss the deadline, the FISA Court no doubt will permit the metadata program to continue, as it has 36 times in the past.

Nor is there any real bite in Obama’s proposal to create a panel of advocates to represent privacy interests in what the president termed “significant” cases that come before the FISA Court. The judges of the FISA Court uniformly oppose the idea, and the president has yet to show any resolve to incur their disfavor. Unless the panel is funded to operate in a truly independent fashion, it will fall far short of providing an alternative, adversarial voice.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook