{"id":9457,"date":"2013-09-24T06:44:44","date_gmt":"2013-09-18T06:22:03","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-09-18T06:22:03","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9457","title":{"rendered":"FISC declassifies an opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"

NYT: Extended Ruling by Secret Court Backs Collection of Phone Data<\/a> by Charlie Savage:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday offered its most extensive public explanation for why it has allowed the government to keep records of all Americans\u2019 phone calls, releasing a previously classified opinion<\/a> in which it said the program was constitutional and did not violate Americans\u2019 privacy rights.<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

The opinion by Judge Eagan \u2014 a 2001 appointee of President George W. Bush who was assigned to the surveillance court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. this year \u2014 also noted that no telecommunications company had invoked its legal right to object to turning over its customers\u2019 calling records to the government. <\/p>\n

\u201cTo date, no holder of records who has received an order to produce bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an order,\u201d she wrote. <\/p>\n

The opinion, dated Aug. 29, was the first written since the program came to light. While other judges had routinely reauthorized the program every 90 days with only brief reiteration of the court\u2019s legal analysis, according to an official familiar with the still-classified rulings, Judge Eagan wrote the lengthier memorandum apparently for the purpose of public release. <\/p>\n

Judge Eagan noted in her opinion that the court had previously reauthorized the program to continue for another three months on July 19 after having held an \u201cextensive hearing to receive testimony and evidence on this matter.\u201d In a footnote, she said that only the government, and not opponents of the program, participated in the hearing, as is routine for such proceedings. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring Production of Tangible Things from [Redacted]<\/a>, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134786 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. August 29, 2013) (order expires October 11, 2013).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}