STATISTICAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT

REGARDING USE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES                                              

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016

April 2017

Introduction

In June 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) began releasing statistics relating to the

use of critical national security authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

(FISA), in an annual report called the Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National

Security Authorities (hereafter the Annual Statistical Transparency Report). Subsequent Annual

Statistical Transparency Reports were released in 2015 and 2016.

On June 2, 2015, the USA FREEDOM Act was enacted, codifying a requirement to publicly report

many of the statistics already reported in the Annual Statistical Transparency Report. The Act

also expanded the scope of the information included in the reports by requiring the DNI to

report information concerning United States person search terms and queries of certain FISA‐

acquired information, as well as specific statistics concerning information collected pursuant to

call detail records. See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b).   

Today, consistent with the USA FREEDOM Act requirements to release certain statistics

(codified in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)) and the Intelligence Community’s (IC) Principles of Intelligence

Transparency, we are releasing our fourth Annual Statistical Transparency Report presenting

statistics on how often the government uses certain national security authorities.  

This fourth report has been reformatted to provide a description of the statistics being

reported. Related definitions and additional context to the statistics included in this report are

provided throughout. The order in which the statistics are presented remains consistent with

last year’s report and follows the order set forth in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b).   

Additional public information on national security authorities is available at the Office of the

Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) website, www.dni.gov, and ODNI’s public tumblr site,

IContheRecord.tumblr.com.   
2

FISA Title I ‐‐ Title III ‐‐ Title VII Sections 703 & 704

Both FISA Title I and FISA Title III require a probable cause court order to target individuals

within the United States regardless of U.S. person status. Under FISA, Title I permits electronic

surveillance and Title III permits physical search in the United States of foreign powers or

agents of a foreign power for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information. See 50

U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823. Title I (electronic surveillance) and Title III (physical search) are

commonly referred to as “Traditional FISA.” Both require that the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (FISC) make a probable cause finding, based upon a factual statement in the

government’s application, that (i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,

as defined by FISA and (ii) the facility being targeted for electronic surveillance is used by or

about to be used, or the premises or property to be searched is or is about to be owned, used,

possessed by, or is in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. In

addition to meeting the probable cause standard, the government’s application must meet the

other requirements of FISA. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a) and 1823(a).   

FISA Title VII Sections 703 and 704 similarly require a court order based on a finding of

probable cause for the government to undertake FISA activities targeting U.S. persons located

outside the United States. Section 703 applies when the government seeks to conduct

electronic surveillance or to acquire stored electronic communications or stored electronic

data, in a manner that otherwise requires an order pursuant to FISA, of a U.S. person who is

reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. Section 704 applies when the

government seeks to conduct collection overseas targeting a U.S. person reasonably believed to

be located outside the United States under circumstances in which the U.S. person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the acquisition were

conducted in the United States. Both Sections 703 and 704 require that the FISC make a

probable cause finding, based upon a factual statement in the government’s application, that

 All of these authorities require individual court orders based on probable cause.  

  

 Titles I and III apply to FISA activities directed against persons within the United

States.

 Sections 703 and 704 apply to FISA activities directed against U.S. persons

outside the United States.
3

the target is a U.S. person reasonably believed to be (i) located outside the United States and

(ii) a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power;

additionally, the government’s application must meet the other requirements of FISA. See 50

U.S.C. §§ 1881b(b) and 1881c(b).   

 U.S. Person. As defined by Title I of FISA, a U.S. person is “a citizen of the United States

or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act), an unincorporated association with a

substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens

lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in

the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a

foreign power, as defined in [50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)].” 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i).

Section 602 of the USA FREEDOM Act, however, uses a narrower definition. Since the

broader Title I definition governs how U.S. person queries are conducted pursuant to

the relevant minimization procedures, it will be used throughout this report.

 Target. Within the IC, the term “target” has multiple meanings. With respect to the

statistics provided in this report, the term “target” is defined as the individual person,

group, entity composed of multiple individuals, or foreign power that uses the selector

such as a telephone number or email address.  

The role of the FISC. If the FISC finds that the government’s application meets the requirements

of FISA and the Constitution, the FISC must issue an order approving the requested authority.    

 Types of Orders. There are different types of orders that the FISC may issue in

connection with FISA cases, for example: orders granting or modifying the government’s

authority to conduct intelligence collection; orders directing electronic communication

service providers to provide any technical assistance necessary to implement the

authorized intelligence collection; and supplemental orders and briefing orders

requiring the government to take a particular action or provide the court with specific

information.  

 Amendments and Renewals. The FISC may amend an order one or more times after it

has been issued. For example, an order may be amended to add a newly discovered

account used by the target. This report does not count such amendments separately.   

The FISC may renew some orders multiple times during the calendar year. Each

authority permitted under FISA has specific time limits for the FISA authority to continue

(e.g., a Section 704 order against a U.S. person target may last no longer than 90 days
4

but FISA permits the order to be renewed, see 50 U.S.C. § 1881c(c)(4)). Each renewal

requires a separate application submitted by the government to the FISC and a finding

by the FISC that the application meets the requirements of FISA. Thus, unlike

amendments, this report does count each such renewal as a separate order. These

terms will be used consistently throughout this report.

FISA “Probable Cause” Court Orders and Targets

Titles I and III and Sections 703 and 704 of FISA     CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Total number of orders 1,767 1,519 1,585 1,559

Estimated* number of targets of such orders 1,144 1,562 1,695 1,687

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(1).  

*Throughout this report, when numbers are estimated, the estimate comports with the

statutory requirements to provide a “good faith estimate” of a particular number.  

How targets are counted. If the IC received authorization to conduct electronic surveillance

and/or physical search against the same target in four separate applications, the IC would count

one target, not four. Alternatively, if the IC received authorization to conduct electronic

surveillance and/or physical search against four targets in the same application, the IC would

count four targets. Duplicate targets across authorities are not counted.  

FISA “Probable Cause” Targets – U.S. Persons*

Titles I and III  and Sections 703 and 704 ‐‐ Targets                   CY2016

Estimated number of targets who are non‐U.S. persons 1,351  

Estimated number of targets who are U.S. persons 336

Estimated percentage of targets who are U.S. persons 19.9%

*While not statutorily required to publicly provide these statistics, the IC is providing them

consistent with the commitment to its Principles of Intelligence Transparency.
5

Title VII ‐ FISA Amendment Act (FAA) Section 702

Section 702. Title VII of FISA includes Section 702, which permits the Attorney General and the

DNI to jointly authorize the targeting of (i) non‐U.S. persons reasonably believed to be (ii)

located outside the United States to (iii) acquire foreign intelligence information. See 50 U.S.C.  

§ 1881a. All three elements must be met. Additionally, Section 702 requires that the Attorney

General, in consultation with the DNI, adopt targeting procedures and minimization procedures

that they attest satisfy the statutory requirements and are consistent with the Fourth

Amendment.   

 Section 702 Targets and “Tasking.” Under Section 702, the government “targets” a

particular non‐U.S. person, group, or entity reasonably believed to be located outside

the United States and who possesses, or who is likely to communicate or receive,

foreign intelligence information, by directing an acquisition at – i.e., “tasking” –

selectors (e.g., telephone numbers and email addresses) that are assessed to be used by

such non‐U.S. person, group, or entity, pursuant to targeting procedures approved by

the FISC.   

Before “tasking” a selector for collection under Section 702, the government must apply its

targeting procedures to ensure that the IC appropriately tasks a selector used by a non‐U.S.

person who is reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and who will likely

possess, communicate, or receive foreign intelligence information.   

The FISC’s role. Under Section 702, the FISC determines whether certifications provided jointly

by the Attorney General and the DNI appropriately meet all the requirements of Section 702. If

the FISC determines that the government’s certifications and its targeting and minimization

procedures meet the statutory requirements of Section 702 and are consistent with the Fourth

Amendment, then the FISC issues an order and supporting statement approving the

certifications. A recent FISC order and statement approving certifications was publicly released

in April 2016 and posted on IC on the Record.   

 Commonly referred to as “Section 702.”

 Requires individual targeting determinations that the target is (1) a non‐United States

person who (2) is reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and who

(3) has or is expected to communicate or receive foreign intelligence information.  
6

 Certifications. The certifications are jointly executed by the Attorney General and DNI

and authorize the government to acquire foreign intelligence information under Section

702. Each annual certification application package must be submitted to the FISC for

approval. The package includes the Attorney General and DNI’s certifications, affidavits

by certain heads of intelligence agencies, targeting procedures, and minimization

procedures. A sample of a certification application package was publicly released on IC

on the Record. The certifications identify categories of information to be collected,

which must meet the statutory definition of foreign intelligence information, through

the targeting of non‐U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United

States. The certifications have included information concerning international terrorism

and other topics, such as the acquisition of information concerning weapons of mass

destruction.

 Targeting procedures. The targeting procedures detail the steps that the government

must take before tasking a selector, as well as verification steps after tasking, to ensure

that the user of the tasked selector is being targeted appropriately – specifically, that

the user is a non‐U.S. person, located outside the United States, who is being tasked to

acquire foreign intelligence information. The IC must make individual determinations

that each tasked selector meets the requirements of the targeting procedures. As part

of the certification package, the FISC reviews the sufficiency of the IC’s targeting

procedures, which includes assessing the IC’s compliance with the procedures.  

 Minimization procedures. The minimization procedures detail requirements the

government must meet to use, retain, and disseminate Section 702 data, which include

specific restrictions on how the IC handles non‐publicly available U.S. person

information acquired from Section 702 collection of non‐U.S. person targets, consistent

with the needs of the government to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign

intelligence information. As part of the certification package, the FISC reviews the

sufficiency of the IC’s minimization procedures, which includes assessing the IC’s

compliance with past procedures. The 2015 minimization procedures have been

released on IC on the Record.

The IC’s adherence to the targeting and minimization procedures is subject to robust internal

agency oversight and to rigorous external oversight by the Department of Justice (DOJ), ODNI,

Congress, and the FISC. Every identified incidence of non‐compliance is reported to the FISC

(through individual notices or in reports) and to Congress in semiannual reports. DOJ and ODNI

also submit semiannual reports to Congress that assess the IC’s overall compliance efforts. Past

assessments have been publicly released.  
7

Section 702 Orders

Section 702 of FISA                         CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Total number of orders issued 1 1 1 0

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(2).

Counting Section 702 orders. As explained above, the FISC may issue a single order to approve

more than one Section 702 certification to acquire foreign intelligence information.  

Note that, in its own transparency report, which is required pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a), the

Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) counted each of the

Section 702 certifications associated with the FISC’s order. Because the number of the

government’s Section 702 certifications remains a classified fact, the government requested

that the AOUSC redact the number of certifications from its transparency report prior to

publicly releasing it.

In 2016, the government submitted a certification application to the FISC. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C.

§ 1881a(j)(2), the FISC extended its review of the 2016 certifications. The FISC may extend its

review of the certifications “as necessary for good cause in a manner consistent with national

security.” See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(j)(2). Thus, because the FISC did not complete its review of the

2016 certifications during calendar year 2016, the FISC did not issue an order concerning those

certifications in calendar year 2016. The 2015 order remained in effect during the extension

period.

Section 702 Targets*

Section 702 of FISA                            CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Estimated number of targets of such orders         89,138 92,707 94,368 106,469

*While there is no statutory requirement to disclose this number, it is provided in this report to

foster public understanding of the IC’s use of the Section 702 collection authority. The IC is

committed to sharing as much information as possible with the public without jeopardizing

mission capabilities.  

Estimating Section 702 targets. The number of 702 “targets,” provided above, reflects an

estimate of the number of non‐United States persons who are the users of tasked selectors.

This estimate is based on information readily available to the IC. Unless and until the IC has

information that links multiple selectors to a single foreign intelligence target, each individual
8

selector is counted as a separate target for purposes of this report. On the other hand, where

the IC is aware that multiple selectors are used by the same target, the IC counts the user of

those selectors as a single target. This counting methodology reduces the risk that the IC might

inadvertently understate the number of discrete persons targeted pursuant to Section 702.

Section 702 Search Terms Used to Query Content

Section 702 of FISA                                   CY2015 CY2016

Estimated number of search terms concerning a

known U.S. person used to retrieve the unminimized

contents of communications obtained under Section

702 (excluding search terms used to prevent the

return of U.S. person information)*

4,672   5,288

     

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(2)(A).  

*Consistent with § 1873(d)(2)(A), this statistic does not include queries that are conducted by

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The above is the good faith estimate of the number of search terms (e.g., email addresses and

telephone numbers,) concerning known U.S. persons that the government used to query

unminimized (i.e., raw) lawfully acquired Section 702 content.  

Counting U.S. person search terms used to query Section 702 content. The National Security

Agency (NSA) counts the number of U.S. person identifiers it uses to query the content of

unminimized Section 702‐acquired information. For example, if the NSA used U.S. person

identifier “johndoe@XYXprovider” to query the content of Section 702‐acquired information,

the NSA would count it as one regardless of how many times the NSA used

“johndoe@XYXprovider” to query its 702‐acquired information. In calendar year 2016, the

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) adopted this same model for counting search terms. In prior

calendar years, however, the CIA counted the total number of actual queries it conducted using

U.S. person identifiers. For example, if the CIA used the identifier “johndoe@XYXprovider” 7

times, in prior years the CIA would count this as 7 search terms. Now, CIA the counts this as a

single search term.
9

Section 702 Queries of Noncontents

Section 702 of FISA                             CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Estimated number of queries concerning a

known U.S. person of unminimized

noncontents information obtained under

Section 702 (excluding queries containing

information used to prevent the return of U.S.

person information)*

9500 17,500   23,800 30,355

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(2)(B).  

*Consistent with § 1873(d)(2)(A), this statistic does not include queries that are conducted by

the FBI.

The above is a good faith estimate of the number of queries concerning a known U.S. person

that the government conducted of unminimized (i.e., raw) lawfully acquired Section 702

metadata. 

Counting queries using U.S. person identifiers of noncontents collected under Section 702.

This estimate represents the number of times a U.S. person identifier is used to query the

noncontents (i.e., metadata) of unminimized Section 702‐acquired information.  For example, if

the U.S. person identifier telephone number “111‐111‐2222” was used 15 times to query the

noncontents of Section 702‐acquired information, the number of queries counted would be 15.  

As with last year’s transparency report, one IC element remains currently unable to provide the

number of queries using U.S. person identifiers of unminimized Section 702 noncontent

information. Under 50 U.S.C. § 1873(d)(3)(A), if the DNI concludes that this good‐faith estimate

cannot be determined accurately because not all of the relevant elements of the IC are able to

provide this good faith estimate, then the DNI is required to (i) certify that conclusion in writing

to the relevant Congressional committees; (ii) report the good faith estimate for those relevant

elements able to provide such good faith estimate; (iii) explain when it is reasonably anticipated

that such an estimate will be able to be determined fully and accurately; and (iv) make such

certification publicly available on an Internet web site. Because one IC element remains unable

to provide such information, the DNI made a certification, pursuant to § 1873(d)(3)(A) to the

relevant Congressional committees.

As required by statute, this certification is being made publicly available as an attached

appendix to this current report (see Appendix A).
10

Required Section 702 Query Reporting to the FISC

Section 702 of FISA                                                     CY2016

Per the FISC Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015:  

Each instance in which FBI personnel received and reviewed Section 702‐

acquired information that the FBI identified as concerning a U.S. person in

response to a query that was designed to return evidence of a crime

unrelated to foreign intelligence.

1

On November 6, 2015, the FISC granted the government’s application for renewal of the 2015

certifications and, among other things, concluded that the FBI’s U.S. person querying provisions

in its minimization procedures, “strike a reasonable balance between the privacy interests of

the United States persons and persons in the United States, on the one hand, and the

government’s national security interests, on the other.” Memorandum Opinion and Order dated

November 6, 2015, at 44 (released on IC on the Record on April 19, 2016). The FISC further

stated that the FBI conducting queries, “designed to return evidence of crimes unrelated to

foreign intelligence does not preclude the Court from concluding that taken together, the

targeting and minimization procedures submitted with the 2015 Certifications are consistent

with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Id.   

Nevertheless, the FISC ordered the government to report in writing, “each instance after

December 4, 2015, in which FBI personnel receive and review Section 702‐acquired information

that the FBI identifies as concerning a United States person in response to a query that is not

designed to find and extract foreign intelligence information.” (Emphasis added). Id. at 44 and

78. The FISC directed that the report contain details of the query terms, the basis for

conducting the query, the manner in which the query will be or has been used, and other

details. Id. at 78. In keeping with the IC’s Principles of Transparency, the DNI declassified the

number of each instance such queries occurred in calendar year 2016.  

   
11

ADDITIONAL SECTION 702 STATISTICS  

PROVIDED IN  

RESPONSE TO PCLOB RECOMMENDATION 9(5)

In July 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB or Board) issued a report on

Section 702 entitled, “Report on the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (PCLOB’s Section 702 Report), which contained 10

recommendations. Recommendation 9 focused on “accountability and transparency,” noting

that the government should implement measures, “to provide insight about the extent to

which the NSA acquires and utilizes the communications involving U.S. persons and people

located in the United States under the Section 702 program.” PCLOB’s Section 702 Report at

145‐146. Specifically, the PCLOB recommended that “the NSA should implement processes to

annually count [...] (5) the number of instances in which the NSA disseminates non‐public

information about U.S. persons, specifically distinguishing disseminations that includes names,

titles, or other identifiers potentially associated with individuals.” Id. at 146. This

recommendation is commonly referred to as Recommendation 9(5). In response to

Recommendation 9(5), NSA previously publicly provided (in the Annual Statistical Transparency

Report for calendar year 2015) and continues to provide the following additional information

regarding the dissemination of Section 702 intelligence reports that contain U.S. person

information.  

NSA has been providing similar information to Congress per FISA reporting requirements. For

example, FISA Section 702(l)(3) requires that NSA annually submit a report to applicable

Congressional committees regarding certain numbers pertaining to the acquisition of Section

702‐acquired information, including the number of “disseminated intelligence reports

containing a reference to a United States person identity.” See 50 U.S.C. § 1881(l)(3)(A)(i).

Additionally, NSA provides this number to Congress as part of Attorney General and Director of

National Intelligence’s joint assessment of compliance. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881(l)(1).

Prior to the PCLOB issuing its Section 702 Report, NSA’s Director of Civil Liberties and Privacy

Office published NSA’s Implementation of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702,” on

April 16, 2014, (hereinafter “NSA DCLPO Report”), in which it explained NSA’s dissemination

processes. NSA DCLPO Report at 7‐8. NSA “only generates classified intelligence reports when

the information meets a specific intelligence requirement, regardless of whether the proposed

report contains U.S. person information.” NSA DCLPO Report at 7.  
12

 Dissemination. In the most basic sense, dissemination refers to the sharing of

minimized information. As it pertains to FISA (including Section 702), if an agency (in this

instance NSA) lawfully collects information pursuant to FISA and wants to share (i.e.,

disseminate) that information, the agency must first apply its minimization procedures

to that information.  

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non‐U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located

outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information. Such targets, however,

may communicate information to, from, or about U.S. persons. NSA minimization procedures

(publicly released on August 11, 2016) permit the NSA to disseminate U.S person information if

the NSA masks the information that could identify the U.S. person. The minimization

procedures permit NSA to disseminate the U.S. person identity only if doing so meets one of

the specified reasons listed in NSA’s minimization procedures, including that the U.S. person

consented to the dissemination, the U.S. person information was already publicly available, the

U.S. person identity was necessary to understand foreign intelligence information, or the

communication contained evidence of a crime and is being disseminated to law enforcement

authorities. Even if one these conditions applies, as a matter of policy, NSA may still mask the

U.S. person information and will include no more than the minimum amount of U.S. person

information necessary to understand the foreign intelligence or to describe the crime or threat.

Id. In certain instances, however, NSA makes a determination prior to releasing its original

classified report that the U.S. person’s identity is appropriate to disseminate in the first

instance using the same standards discussed above.   

 Masked U.S. Person Information. Information about a U.S. person is masked when the

identifying information about the person is not included in a report. For example,

instead of reporting that Section 702‐acquired information revealed that non‐U.S.

person “Bad Guy” communicated with U.S. person “John Doe” (i.e., the actual name of

the U.S. person), the report would mask “John Doe’s” identity, and would state that

“Bad Guy” communicated with “an identified U.S. person,” “a named U.S. person,” or “a

U.S. person.”   

Recipients of NSA‘s classified reports, such as other Federal agencies, may request that NSA

provide the true identity of a masked U.S. person referenced in an intelligence report. The

requested identity information is released only if the requesting recipient has a legitimate

“need to know” the identity of the U.S. person and has the appropriate security clearances, and

if the dissemination of the U.S. person’s identity would be consistent with NSA’s minimization

procedures (e.g., the identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or

assess its importance). Furthermore, per NSA policy, NSA is allowed to unmask the identity for
13

the specific requesting recipient only where specific additional controls are in place to preclude

its further dissemination and additional approval has been provided by a designated NSA

official.  

As part of their regular oversight reviews, DOJ and ODNI review disseminations of information

about U.S. persons that NSA obtained pursuant to Section 702 to ensure that the

disseminations were performed in compliance with the minimization procedures.

Section 702 – U.S. person (USP) information disseminated by NSA           CY2016

Total number of NSA disseminated §702 Reports containing USP identities 3,914

Of those NSA disseminated §702 Reports containing USP identities       

(from the first row in this chart), the USP identity was originally masked in

this many reports

  2,964*

Of those NSA disseminated §702 Reports containing USP identities       

(from the first row in this chart), the USP identity was originally revealed in

this many reports

  1,200*

Of those NSA disseminated §702 Reports containing USP identities where

the USP identities was originally masked (from the second row in this

chart), the number of USP identities that NSA later released in response to

specific requests to unmask a USP identity**

1,934

*A single report may contain both masked and unmasked U.S. person identities.

**For this statistic, last year’s Annual Statistical Transparency Report provided the number of

approved requests (i.e., 654) for unmasking of U.S. person identities, rather than the number of

U.S. person identities that were released. A single request may contain multiple U.S. person

identities. This year’s report provides the number of U.S. person identities referred to by name

or title released in response to specific requests to unmask those identities. The number of U.S.

person identities that NSA released during calendar year 2015 in response to specific requests

to unmask an identity was 2,232, which was the number that should have been reported in last

year’s report.  
14

FISA Title IV – USE of PEN REGISTER and TRAP and TRACE (PR/TT) DEVICES

Pen Register/Trap and Trace Authority. Title IV of FISA authorizes the use of pen register and

trap and trace (PR/TT) devices for foreign intelligence purposes. Title IV authorizes the

government to use a PR/TT device to seek and capture dialing, routing, addressing or signaling

(DRAS) information. The government may submit an application to the FISC for an order

approving use of a PR/TT device (i.e., PR/TT order) for (i) “any investigation to obtain foreign

intelligence information not concerning a United States person or” (ii) “to protect against

international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of

a U.S. person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First

Amendment to the Constitution.” 50 U.S.C. § 1842(a). If the FISC finds that the government’s

application sufficiently meets the requirements of FISA, the FISC must issue an order for the

installation and use of a PR/TT device.    

 Commonly referred to as the “PR/TT” provision.

 Bulk collection is prohibited.

 Requires individual FISC order to use PR/TT device to capture dialing, routing, addressing,

or signaling (DRAS) information.

 Government request to use a PR/TT device on U.S. person target must be based on an

investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities and that

investigation must not be based solely on the basis of activities protected by the First

Amendment to the Constitution.  
15

PR/TT Statistics

Title IV of FISA

PR/TT FISA CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Total number of orders 131 135 90 60

Estimated number of targets of such

orders

319 516 456 41

Estimated number of unique

identifiers used to communicate

information collected pursuant to such

orders*

‐  ‐  134,987** 125,378

See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1873(b)(3), 1873(b)(3)(A), and 1873(b)(3)(B).  

*Pursuant to §1873(d)(2)(B), this statistic does not apply to orders resulting in the acquisition of

information by the FBI that does not include electronic mail addresses or telephone numbers.  

**This number represents information the government received from provider(s) electronically

for the entire 2015 calendar year. The government does not have a process for capturing

unique identifiers received by other means (such as hard‐copy or portable media).  

Counting orders. Similar to how orders were counted for Titles I and III and Sections 703 and

704, this report only counts the orders granting authority to conduct intelligence collection ‐‐ 

the order for the installation and use of a PR/TT device. Thus, renewal orders are counted as a

separate order; modification orders and amendments are not counted.    

Estimating the number of targets. The government’s methodology for counting PR/TT targets is

similar to the methodology described above for counting targets of electronic surveillance

and/or physical search. If the IC received authorization for the installation and use of a PR/TT

device against the same target in four separate applications, the IC would count one target, not

four. Alternatively, if the IC received authorization for the installation and use of a PR/TT device

against four targets in the same application, the IC would count four targets.   

Estimating the number of unique identifiers. This statistic counts (1) the targeted identifiers

and (2) the non‐targeted identifiers (e.g., telephone numbers and e‐mail addresses) that were

in contact with the targeted identifiers. Specifically, the House Report on the USA FREEDOM Act

states that "[t]he phrase 'unique identifiers used to communicate information collected

pursuant to such orders' means the total number of, for example, email addresses or phone

numbers that have been collected as a result of these particular types of FISA orders‐‐not just
16

the number of target email addresses or phone numbers." [H.R. Rept. 114‐109 Part I, p. 26],

with certain exceptions noted.

FISA PR/TT Targets – U.S. Persons*

PR/TT Targets                                        CY2016

Estimated number of targets who are non‐U.S. persons 23

Estimated number of targets who are U.S. persons 18

Estimated percentage of targets who are U.S. persons 43.9%

*While not statutorily required to publicly provide these statistics, the IC is providing them

consistent with the Principles of Intelligence Transparency.

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

   
17

FISA Title V – BUSINESS RECORDS

Business Records FISA. Under FISA, Title V authorizes the government to submit an application

for an order requiring the production of any tangible things for (i) “an investigation to obtain

foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or” (ii) “to protect against

international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of

a U.S. person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First

Amendment to the Constitution.” 50 U.S.C. § 1861. Title V is commonly referred to as the

“Business Records” provision of FISA.   

In June 2015, the USA FREEDOM Act was signed into law and, among other things, amended

Title V, including prohibiting bulk collection. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1861(b), 1861(k)(4). The DNI is

required to report various statistics about two Title V provisions – traditional business records

and call detail records (discussed further below).   

On November 28, 2015, in compliance with amendments enacted by the USA FREEDOM Act,

the IC terminated collection of bulk telephony metadata under Title V of the FISA (the “Section

215 Program”). Solely due to legal obligations to preserve records in certain pending civil

litigation, including First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, et al. v. National Security Agency, et

al., No. C 13‐03287‐JSW (N.D. Cal.) and Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., No. C 08‐

04373‐JSW (N.D. Cal.), the IC continues to preserve previously collected bulk telephony

metadata. Under the terms of a FISC order dated November 24, 2015, the bulk telephony

metadata cannot be used or accessed for any purpose other than compliance with preservation

obligations. Once the government’s preservation obligations are lifted, the government is

 Commonly referred to as “Business Records” provision.   

 Bulk collection is prohibited.  

 Call Detail Records (CDR) may be obtained from a telephone company if the FISC issues

an individual court order for target’s records.

 Request for records in an investigation of a U.S. person must be based on an

investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities and

provided that the investigation is not conducted solely upon activities protected by the

First Amendment to the Constitution.  
18

required to promptly destroy all bulk metadata produced by telecommunications providers

under the Section 215 Program.  

As noted in last year’s Annual Statistical Transparency Report, on November 30, 2015, the IC

implemented certain provisions of the USA FREEDOM Act, including the call detail records

provision and the requirement to use a specific selection term. Accordingly, only one month’s

worth of data for calendar year 2015 was available with respect to those provisions. Any

statistical information relating to a particular FISA authority for a particular month remains

classified. Therefore, the Title V data specifically associated with December 2015 was only

released in a classified annex provided to Congress as part of the report for CY2015. For this CY

2016 report, statistical information was collected for an entire year under the USA FREEDOM

Act Title V provisions. As a result, those statistics are included in this report.

Statistics related to traditional business records under Title V Section 501(b)(2)(B) are provided

first pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(4). Statistics related to call detail records under Title V

Section 501(b)(2)(C) are provided second pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(5).  

Business Record (BR) requests for tangible things include books, records, papers, documents,

and other items pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §1861(b)(2)(B), also referred to as Section 501(b)(2)(B) .

These are commonly referred to as “Traditional” Business Records.

“Traditional” Business Records Statistics  

Business Records “BR” – Section 501(b)(2)(B) CY2016

Total number of orders issued pursuant to applications under

Section 501(b)(2)(B)   84

Estimated number of targets of such orders 88  

Estimated number of unique identifiers used to communicate

information collected pursuant to such orders   81,035

See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1873(b)(4), 1873(b)(4)(A), and 1873(b)(4)(B).  

Estimating the number of unique identifiers. This is an estimate of the number of (1) targeted

identifiers (e.g., telephone numbers and email addresses) and (2) non‐targeted identifiers that

were in contact with the targeted identifiers. This metric represents unique identifiers received

“Traditional” Business Records – Section 501(b)(2)(B)
19

electronically from the provider(s). The government does not have a process for capturing

unique identifiers received by other means (i.e., hard‐copy or portable media).

Explaining how we count BR statistics. As an example of the government’s methodology,

assume that in 2016, the government submitted a BR request targeting “John Doe” with email

addresses john.doe@serviceproviderX, john.doe@serviceproviderY, and

john.doe@serviceproviderZ. The FISC found that the application met the requirements of Title

V and issued orders granting the application and directing service providers X, Y, and Z to

produce business records pursuant to Section 501(b)(2)(B). Provider X returned 10 non‐

targeted email addresses that were in contact with the target; provider Y returned 10 non‐

targeted email addresses that were in contact with the target; and provider Z returned 10 non‐

targeted email addresses that were in contact with the target. Based on this scenario, we would

report the following statistics: A) one order by the FISC for the production of tangible things, B)

one target of said orders, and C) 33 unique identifiers, representing three targeted email

addresses plus 30 non‐targeted email addresses.

Call Detail Records (CDR) – commonly referred to as “call event metadata” – may be obtained

from telecommunications providers pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §1861(b)(2)(C). A CDR is defined as

session identifying information (including an originating or terminating telephone number, an

International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, or an International Mobile Station

Equipment Identity (IMEI) number), a telephone calling card number, or the time or duration of

a call. See 50 U.S.C. §1861(k)(3)(A). CDRs do not include the content of any communication, the

name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer, or cell site location or

global positioning system information. See 50 U.S.C. §1861(k)(3)(B). CDRs are stored and

queried by the service providers. See 50 U.S.C. §1861(c)(2).  

Call Detail Record (CDR) Statistics  

Call Detail Records “CDR” – Section 501(b)(2)(C)                     CY2016

Total number of orders issued pursuant to applications under

Section 501(b)(2)(C)

40

Estimated number of targets of such orders 42

See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1873(b)(5) and 1873(b)(5)(A).

Call Detail Records – Section 501(b)(2)(C)
20

Estimating the number of targets of CDR orders. A “target” is the person using the selector. For

example, if a target uses four selectors that have been approved, the number counted for

purposes of this report would be one target, not four. Alternatively, if two targets are using one

selector that has been approved, the number counted would be two targets.

The estimated number of Call Detail Records received from providers. This metric represents

the number of records received from the provider(s) and stored in NSA repositories (records

that fail at any of a variety of validation steps are not included in this number). CDRs covered by

§ 501(b)(2)(C) include call detail records created before, on, or after the date of the application

relating to an authorized investigation. While the USA FREEDOM Act directs the government to

provide a good faith estimate of “the number of unique identifiers used to communicate

information collected pursuant to” orders issued in response to CDR applications (see                 

§ 1873(b)(5)(B)), the statistic below does not reflect the number of unique identifiers contained

within the call detail records received from the providers. As of the date of this report, the

government does not have the technical ability to isolate the number of unique identifiers

within records received from the providers. As explained in the 2016 NSA’s public report on the

USA FREEDOM Act, the metric provided is over‐inclusive because the government counts each

record separately even if the government receives the same record multiple times (whether

from one provider or multiple providers). Additionally, this metric includes duplicates of unique

identifiers – i.e., because the government lacks the technical ability to isolate unique identifiers,

the statistic counts the number of records even if unique identifiers are repeated. This statistic

includes records that were received from the providers in CY2016 for all orders active for any

portion of the year, which includes orders that the FISC approved in 2015.

Call Detail Record (CDR) Statistics  

Call Detail Records “CDR” – Section 501(b)(2)(C)                     CY2016

Estimated number of call detail records received from providers

and stored in NSA repositories

151,230,968

As an example, assume an NSA intelligence analyst learns that phone number (202) 555‐1234 is

being used by a suspected international terrorist. This is the “specific selection term” or

“selector” that will be submitted to the FISC (or the Attorney General in an emergency) for

approval using the “reasonable articulable suspicion” (RAS) standard. Assume that one provider

(provider X) submits to NSA a record showing (202) 555‐1234 had called (301) 555‐4321 on May

1, 2016. This is the “first hop” and would count as one record. If the provider submits records

showing additional calls between those same telephone numbers, each would count as an
21

additional record. Thus, if over the course of 2016, (202) 555‐1234 was in contact with (301)

555‐4321 once each day, then that would count as 365 records obtained from provider X. If

another provider (provider Y) also submits records showing direct contact between those two

telephone numbers (assume the same number of contacts), then those would add to the count.  

In turn, assume that NSA submits the “first‐hop” number above – (301) 555‐4321‐ to the

providers, and finds that it was used to call (410) 555‐5678. This is the “second‐hop” result.

Each contact between the first‐hop and second‐hop numbers would count as a separate record,

as would each such contact submitted by other providers. More information on how NSA

implements this authority can be found in the DCLPO report.

Call Detail Record (CDR) Statistics  

Call Detail Records “CDR” – Section 501(b)(2)(C)                     CY2016

Estimated number of search terms that included information

concerning a U.S. person that were used to query any database of

call detail records obtained through the use of such orders*

22,360

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(5)(C).  

*Consistent with § 1873(d)(2)(A), this statistic does not include queries that are conducted by

the FBI.

The number of search terms associated with a U.S. person used to query the CDR data. Each

unique query is counted only once. The same term queried 10 times, still counts as one search

term.  Similarly, a single query with 20 terms counts as 20.   

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

   
22

NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS (NSLs)

National Security Letters. In addition to statistics relating to FISA authorities, we are reporting

information on the government’s use of National Security Letters (NSLs). The FBI is statutorily

authorized to issue NSLs for specific records (as specified below) only if the information being

sought is relevant to a national security investigation. NSLs may be issued for four commonly

used types of records:  

1)   telephone subscriber information, toll records, and other electronic communication

transactional records, see 18 U.S.C. § 2709;  

2)   consumer‐identifying information possessed by consumer reporting agencies

(names, addresses, places of employment, institutions at which a consumer has

maintained an account), see 15 U.S.C. § 1681u;  

3)   full credit reports, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681v (only for counterterrorism, not for

counterintelligence investigations); and  

4)   financial records, see 12 U.S.C. § 3414.   

Counting NSLs. Today we are reporting (1) the total number of NSLs issued for all persons, and

(2) the total number of requests for information (ROI) contained within those NSLs. When a

single NSL contains multiple requests for information, each is considered a “request” and each

request must be relevant to the same pending investigation. For example, if the government

issued one NSL seeking subscriber information from one provider and that NSL identified three

e‐mail addresses for the provider to return records, this would count as one NSL issued and

three ROIs.   

 The Department of Justice’s Report on NSLs. In April 2017, the Department of Justice

released its Annual Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Report to Congress. That report,

which is available online, reports on the number of requests made for certain

 Not authorized by FISA but by other statutes.

 Bulk collection is prohibited, however, by the USA FREEDOM Act.

 FBI may only use NSLs if the information sought is relevant to international

counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation.
23

information concerning different U.S. persons pursuant to NSL authorities during

calendar year 2016. The Department of Justice’s report provides the number of

individuals subject to an NSL whereas the ODNI’s report provides the number of NSLs

issued. Because one person may be subject to more than one NSL in an annual period,

the number of NSLs issued and the number of persons subject to an NSL differs.

Why we report the number of NSL requests instead of the number of NSL targets. We are

reporting the annual number of requests for multiple reasons. First, the FBI’s systems are

configured to comply with Congressional reporting requirements, which do not require the FBI

to track the number of individuals or organizations that are the subject of an NSL. Even if the

FBI systems were configured differently, it would still be difficult to identify the number of

specific individuals or organizations that are the subjects of NSLs. One reason for this is that the

subscriber information returned to the FBI in response to an NSL may identify, for example, one

subscriber for three accounts or it may identify different subscribers for each account.  In some

cases this occurs because the identification information provided by the subscriber to the

provider may not be true. For example, a subscriber may use a fictitious name or alias when

creating the account. Thus, in many instances, the FBI never identifies the actual subscriber of a

facility. In other cases, this occurs because individual subscribers may identify themselves

differently for each account (e.g., inclusion of middle name, middle initial, etc.) when creating

an account.  

We also note that the actual number of individuals or organizations that are the subject of an

NSL is different than the number of NSL requests. The FBI often issues NSLs under different

legal authorities, e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u(a) and (b), 15 U.S.C. § 1681v,

and 18 U.S.C. § 2709, for the same individual or organization.  The FBI may also serve multiple

NSLs for an individual for multiple facilities (e.g., multiple e‐mail accounts, landline telephone

numbers and cellular phone numbers). The number of requests, consequently, is significantly

larger than the number of individuals or organizations that are the subjects of the NSLs.   

NSL Statistics

National Security Letters (NSLs)

                                                                       CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016

Total number of NSLs issued   19,212 16,348 12,870 12,150

Number of Requests for Information

(ROI)

38,832 33,024 48,642 24,801

See 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)(6).
24

APPENDIX A