Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/185475392/Udall-Wyden-Heinrich-Challenge-Effectiveness-of-Dragnet-Surveillance-Program-in-NSA-Court-Case
Timestamp: 2015-05-30 06:41:21
Document Index: 633542151

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2702', '§ 2703', '§ 2709', '§ 3122', '§ 3125', '§ 1842', '§ 1843', '§ 1861']

P. 1Udall, Wyden, Heinrich Challenge Effectiveness of Dragnet Surveillance Program in NSA Court CaseUdall, Wyden, Heinrich Challenge Effectiveness of Dragnet Surveillance Program in NSA Court CaseRatings: (0)|Views: 4,590|Likes: 0Published by Mark UdallU.S. Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), members of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today challenged the effectiveness of the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection program. The senators' amicus curiae brief, filed in the First Unitarian Church vs. National Security Agency U.S. District Court case, questioned a central premise of the government's argument. The brief argues that after extensive review, the senators have seen no evidence the dragnet collection of Americans' private phone records has provided any intelligence of value that could not have been gathered through less intrusive means. The senators also pushed back on the government's overbroad interpretation of certain surveillance laws, warning the court that such an expansive reading of the law could potentially support even more intrusive surveillance practices, such as collection of financial or medical records, or even records revealing the location of ordinary Americans. "Our number one priority must be to keep Americans safe while keeping faith with the values that make this country great. Yet in recent years the balance between protecting our liberties and ensuring our security has become fundamentally broken," Udall said. "The dragnet collection of millions of innocent Americans' private phone records is a clear threat to our constitutional rights, yet we have seen no evidence that this exceedingly intrusive monitoring has provided any uniquely valuable intelligence. The courts should exercise their power and call out the government's position." "As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have a responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight and ensure that there is adequate openness and accountability regarding intelligence policies. After spending many years reviewing the bulk phone records collection program I have yet to see any examples of it providing real intelligence value that could not be have been gained by more constitutionally sound means," Wyden said. "I believe it was important for us to file an amicus brief in this case to ensure that the court is aware of our understanding of the facts as it considers the important constitutional questions raised by this case." "Collecting the daily telephone activity of millions of innocent Americans is a major intrusion to our privacy rights that does little if anything to further the fight against terrorism," Heinrich said. "As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am more familiar than most with this program, and know what is and isn't true about this program. To the extent I can do so without violating my national security obligations, I will do what I can to keep the government honest about what it tells others, including our courts, about this program." The senators filed their amicus brief with the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Northern California. The case involves a suit filed on behalf of 22 organizations that claim that the government’s ongoing bulk phone records collection program has violated their constitutional rights to privacy, free speech and free association.U.S. Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), members of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today challenged the effectiveness of the National Security Agency's bulk phone records collection program. The senators' amicus curiae brief, filed in the First Unitarian Church vs. National Security Agency U.S. District Court case, questioned a central premise of the government's argument. The brief argues that after extensive review, the senators have seen no evidence the dragnet collection of Americans' private phone records has provided any intelligence of value that could not have been gathered through less intrusive means. The senators also pushed back on the government's overbroad interpretation of certain surveillance laws, warning the court that such an expansive reading of the law could potentially support even more intrusive surveillance practices, such as collection of financial or medical records, or even records revealing the location of ordinary Americans. "Our number one priority must be to keep Americans safe while keeping faith with the values that make this country great. Yet in recent years the balance between protecting our liberties and ensuring our security has become fundamentally broken," Udall said. "The dragnet collection of millions of innocent Americans' private phone records is a clear threat to our constitutional rights, yet we have seen no evidence that this exceedingly intrusive monitoring has provided any uniquely valuable intelligence. The courts should exercise their power and call out the government's position." "As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have a responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight and ensure that there is adequate openness and accountability regarding intelligence policies. After spending many years reviewing the bulk phone records collection program I have yet to see any examples of it providing real intelligence value that could not be have been gained by more constitutionally sound means," Wyden said. "I believe it was important for us to file an amicus brief in this case to ensure that the court is aware of our understanding of the facts as it considers the important constitutional questions raised by this case." "Collecting the daily telephone activity of millions of innocent Americans is a major intrusion to our privacy rights that does little if anything to further the fight against terrorism," Heinrich said. "As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am more familiar than most with this program, and know what is and isn't true about this program. To the extent I can do so without violating my national security obligations, I will do what I can to keep the government honest about what it tells others, including our courts, about this program." The senators filed their amicus brief with the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Northern California. The case involves a suit filed on behalf of 22 organizations that claim that the government’s ongoing bulk phone records collection program has violated their constitutional rights to privacy, free speech and free association.More info:Published by: Mark Udall on Nov 19, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/185475392/Udall-Wyden-Heinrich-Challenge-Effectiveness-of-Dragnet-Surveillance-Program-in-NSA-Court-Case11/28/2013pdftextoriginal 123456789101112131415161718192021222324
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al. v. National Security Agency et al.
, Case No. 3: 13-cv-03287 JSW MOTION OF AMICI WYDEN, UDALL & HEINRICH IN SUPP. OF PLS’ MOT. FOR PARTIAL S.J. Alex Abdo aabdo@aclu.org Brett Max Kaufman bkaufman@aclu.org Patrick Toomey ptoomey@aclu.org
Jameel Jaffer jjaffer@aclu.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 Julia Harumi Mass (CA SBN 189649) jmass@aclunc.org
Nicole A. Ozer (CA SBN 228643) nozer@aclunc.org
Matthew T. Cagle (CA SBN 286101) mcagle@aclunc.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Mark Udall, & Senator Martin Heinrich
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES et al.
, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al.
. Case No. 3:13-cv-03287 JSW BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
SENATOR RON WYDEN, SENATOR MARK UDALL & SENATOR MARTIN HEINRICH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS 123456789101112131415161718192021222324
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al. v. National Security Agency et al.,
Case No. 3: 13-cv-03287 JSW BRIEF OF AMICI WYDEN, UDALL & HEINRICH IN SUPP. OF PLS.’ MOT. FOR PARTIAL S.J. Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................3 I.
AMICI HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BULK COLLECTION OF AMERICANS’ PHONE RECORDS HAS PROVIDED USEFUL INTELLIGENCE UNOBTAINABLE THROUGH LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS .................................3 A.
Amici have seen no evidence that the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records under Section 215 is uniquely necessary to the national security of the United States ..........................................................3 B.
The government possesses a number of legal authorities with which it may obtain the call records of suspected terrorists and those in contact with suspected terrorists .....................................................8 C.
Amici have seen no evidence that bulk collection was necessary to obtain information critical to specific counterterrorism investigations .............................................................................................11 II.
THE GOVERNMENT’S LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 215 COULD BE EXTENDED TO AUTHORIZE BULK COLLECTIONS OF AMERICANS’ DATA BEYOND THE CALL RECORDS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE ..............................................................................................................14 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................15 123456789101112131415161718192021222324
Case No. 3: 13-cv-03287 JSW BRIEF OF AMICI WYDEN, UDALL, & HEINRICH IN SUPP. OF PLS.’ MOT. FOR PARTIAL S.J. Page ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things from [Redacted]
, No. BR 13-80 (FISC Apr. 25, 2013) ...............................................10 In re Production of Tangible Things
, No. BR 08-13 (FISC Mar. 2, 2009) ..................................4 In re Production of Tangible Things
, No. BR 08-13, 2008 WL 9475145 (FISC Dec. 12, 2008) ...........................................................................................................................9 In re Production of Tangible Things
, No. BR 13-109, 2013 WL 5741573 (FISC Aug. 29, 2013) .....................................................................................................................5, 15 Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 2702 ...........................................................................................................................9 18 U.S.C. § 2703 ...........................................................................................................................9 18 U.S.C. § 2709 .....................................................................................................................9, 10 18 U.S.C. § 3122 ...........................................................................................................................9 18 U.S.C. § 3125 ...........................................................................................................................9 50 U.S.C. § 1842 ...........................................................................................................................9 50 U.S.C. § 1843 .........................................................................................................................10 50 U.S.C. § 1861 ...........................................................................................................................9 Other Authorities
155 Cong. Rec. S9563 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 2009) .........................................................................2 157 Cong. Rec. S3258 (daily ed. May 24, 2011) ..........................................................................2 157 Cong. Rec. S3360 (daily ed. May 25, 2011) ..........................................................................1 157 Cong. Rec. S3386 (daily ed. May 26, 2011) ....................................................................1, 15 157 Cong. Rec. S3389 (daily ed. May 26, 2011) ........................................................................15 159 Cong. Rec. S6056 (daily ed. July 30, 2013) ........................................................................12 Activity (5)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readsLoad more
Similar to Udall, Wyden, Heinrich Challenge Effectiveness of Dragnet Surveilla...Udall, Wyden, Heinrich Urge Solicitor General to Set Record Straight on Misrepresentations to U.S. Supreme Court in Clapper v. AmnestyMark UdallWyden and Udall Letter to General Alexander on NSA's Section 702 Fact Sheet InaccuracySenator Ron WydenPalmer v Kleargear Default JudgmentArs TechnicaLucky Child by Loung Ung -- Teacher Study GuideHarperAcademicLetter to Sen. WydenmmemmottUdall Challenges White House to Support 'Fullest Possible Declassification' of Intelligence Committee's Torture StudyMark UdallWarner Letter to FTC 7 9 14MarkWarnerBattelle v. Southfork OrderAndreas C. SchouUS Attorney RecommendationTom UdallUSA Freedom Act Letter 10-31-13.pdfThe Washington PostTyranny of ChoicerahlcormierWizzard Technical Design - WordPress Security 2015 InfographicStuart WaltonDigital Music Report 2012fnetolab
Cato InstituteKnowledge Sharing in Open Innovation: An Overview of Theoretical Perspectives on Collaborative InnovationCrowdsourcing.orgLSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationtorrentfreakBaywatchtorrentfreak2012 KPCB Internet Trends Year-End UpdateKleiner Perkins Caufield & ByersH.D. Thoreau - Civil DisobedienceJude PaxmrosyKPCB Internet Trends (2011)Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byersmpaa-infographicTorrentFreak_Analyst Desktop Binder_REDACTEDAndrea StoneWIPO-Intellectual Property and InnovationdmaproiectNot Hollywood by Sherry B. OrtnerDuke University PressLeviathan by Thomas HobbesBooksTypes of PiracyRahul MalhotraTorrentFreak on Apple p2p SharingtorrentfreakCopy FraudanalogphilRead Reddit's Crowdsourced "Free Internet Act," Which Would Make It Hugely Difficult To Monitor The Web Crowdsourcing.orgCommunitysourcing: Engaging Local Crowds to Perform Expert Work Via Physical KiosksCrowdsourcing.org
RecommendedUdall, Wyden, Heinrich Urge Solicitor General to Set Record Straight on Misrepresentations to U.S. Supreme Court in Clapper v. AmnestyMark UdallU.S. Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D...Wyden and Udall Letter to General Alexander on NSA's Section 702 Fact Sheet InaccuracySenator Ron WydenWyden and Udall Letter to General Alexander on NSA's Section 702 Fact Sheet I...Palmer v Kleargear Default JudgmentArs TechnicaPalmer v Kleargear Default JudgmentLucky Child by Loung Ung -- Teacher Study GuideHarperAcademicQuestions for Class Discussion 1. What memories and scars of war and genocid...Letter to Sen. WydenmmemmottIn 2011, the Justice Department wrote to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to lay out i...Udall Challenges White House to Support 'Fullest Possible Declassification' of Intelligence Committee's Torture StudyMark UdallMark Udall, a champion of government transparency, urged the president today ...Warner Letter to FTC 7 9 14MarkWarnerBattelle v. Southfork OrderAndreas C. SchouThis is the order.US Attorney RecommendationTom UdallOn April 26, 2013, Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich sent a letter to Pr...USA Freedom Act Letter 10-31-13.pdfThe Washington PostThe letter, sent to top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, endorses g...Tyranny of ChoicerahlcormierWizzard Technical Design - WordPress Security 2015 InfographicStuart WaltonWizzard Technical Design - WordPress Security 2015 InfographicDigital Music Report 2012fnetolab
Cato InstituteNaomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine purports to be an exposKnowledge Sharing in Open Innovation: An Overview of Theoretical Perspectives on Collaborative InnovationCrowdsourcing.orgLSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationtorrentfreakLSEBaywatchtorrentfreakbaywatch2012 KPCB Internet Trends Year-End UpdateKleiner Perkins Caufield & ByersH.D. Thoreau - Civil DisobedienceJude PaxmrosyKPCB Internet Trends (2011)Kleiner Perkins Caufield & ByersMary Meeker, Partner at KPCB, presented at the annual Web 2.0 Summit on Octob...mpaa-infographicTorrentFreak_Analyst Desktop Binder_REDACTEDAndrea StoneSocial Media Reference Guide for DHS AnalystsWIPO-Intellectual Property and InnovationdmaproiectThe phrase “knowledge-based economy” describes the new economic environment i...Not Hollywood by Sherry B. OrtnerDuke University PressThe pioneering anthropologist Sherry B. Ortner explores the culture and pract...Leviathan by Thomas HobbesBooksLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall a...Types of PiracyRahul MalhotraPiracy exists in different forms right from Software Piracy to Internet Pirac...TorrentFreak on Apple p2p SharingtorrentfreakTorrentFreak on Apple p2p SharingCopy FraudanalogphilRead Reddit's Crowdsourced "Free Internet Act," Which Would Make It Hugely Difficult To Monitor The Web Crowdsourcing.orgCommunitysourcing: Engaging Local Crowds to Perform Expert Work Via Physical KiosksCrowdsourcing.orgPrevious|NextPage 1 of 8