Surveillance

  • February 11, 2014
     
    The American Bar Association Standards Review Committee is considering a recommendation that the ABA no longer prohibit law students from receiving money for internships and externships. Karen Sloan of The National Law Journal has the story.
     
    In their debut article for The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald examine the National Security Agency’s controversial role in targeting terror suspects for lethal drone strikes and the effectiveness of geolocating technology.
     
    Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins created the nation's first Conviction Integrity Unit. In an interview with NPR’s Melissa Block, Watkins discusses the 87 overturned convictions in the U.S. in 2013 and what is being done in Dallas County to prevent miscarriages of justice.
     
    With the U.S. Supreme Court returning to session on February 24, the justices could soon rule on whether legislative prayer violates the Establishment Clause. Michael Kirkland at UPI breaks down Town of Greece v. Galloway.
  • February 5, 2014
     
    JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay the U.S. government $614 million to settle its defective loan case. Announced Tuesday, the deal settles claims stemming from JPMorgan’s approval of unqualified home mortgage loans since 2002. NPR reports on the legal ramifications being felt by the world’s biggest banks.
     
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is designing new “Vehicle to Vehicle” communication technology that would help prevent traffic accidents. Reporting for the ACLU’s Blog of Rights, Jay Stanley discusses the privacy implications surrounding the new technology.
     
    Herbert Smulls, a convicted inmate in Missouri, was executed before his final stay was denied last week by the U.S. Supreme Court. Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic reports on what went wrong and reveals a “breach in ethics and in the law.”
     
    Daphne Eviatar at Just Security addresses the issues surrounding drone technology and what must be done to guarantee that its use remains within the law.
     
    Writing for The Root, Henry Louis Gates Jr. provides a brief history of Black History Month and its founder, Dr. Carter G. Woodson.
  • February 3, 2014
     
    * Editor’s Note: "LegalEyes," a new daily ACSblog feature highlighting important news in law and public policy, begins with this inaugural post. Visit each weekday at noon for fresh updates.
     
    Writing for the Brennan Center for Justice, Andrew Cohen explains how lawmakers in Alabama and Tennessee have introduced legislation to expedite capital cases in their states. With an already damaged prison system, Cohen explains how these new measures could mean the difference between life and death for today’s inmates.
     
    While section 215 of the Patriot Act is widely known for its controversial surveillance tactics, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) brings to the forefront a whole host of issues regarding the legality of mass surveillance. Section 702 allows for the spying of non-U.S. citizens in an effort to prevent terrorism while collecting security intelligence without a warrant. In the first part of her ongoing discussion at Just Security on reforming Section 702, Jennifer Granick explains why and how the section should be reformed.
     
    It was one issue that had Democrats and Republicans on their feet during the State of the Union address last week: immigration reform. Although House Republicans have answered calls to tackle immigration reform with a newly written plan, their recent efforts have culminated in a controversially opaque blueprint. Alex Altman at TIME Magazine breaks down reactions to the GOP’s ambiguous plan to reconstruct immigration law.
     
    Writing for Balkinization, Jason Mazzone comments on the second murder conviction of Amanda Knox. The infamous case involving Knox and her former boyfriend in the 2007 murder of a British roommate was reestablished after the Italian criminal justice system reinstated its guilty verdict last week. In a revealing comparison between legal systems, Mazzone argues that Knox may be in a far better position today than if the case were originally held in the United States.
  • January 3, 2014
    Guest Post
    by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law and ACS Co-Faculty Advisor at the University of Chicago, and former ACS Board Chair
     
    * This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post and is the third part of an ongoing series. The first part can be read here; the second part can be read here; the fourth part can be read here; the fifth part can be read here.
     
    In my last post, I explored the pros and cons of the NSA's bulk telephony meta-data program. As I reported, after considering all the competing interests and perspectives, the Review Group concluded that, in light of the availability of other means by which the government could achieve its legitimate objectives, there was "no sufficient justification to allow the government itself to collect and store bulk telephony meta-data." The Review Group therefore recommended that the meta-data program, as currently constituted, "should be terminated as soon as reasonably practicable."
     
    At the same time, though, the Review Group found that access to telephony meta-data can be useful to the government in its effort to identify terrorists operating inside the United States. The challenge was to figure out how best to preserve the legitimate value of the program while at the same time reducing its risks to personal privacy and individual freedom.
     
    To strike a better balance, the Review Group recommends several important changes in the program as it currently exists.
     
    First, and perhaps most important, the Review Group recommends that the government should not be permitted to store the telephony meta-data. The Review Group reasoned that taking the meta-data out of the hands of government would substantially reduce the potential for government abuse. The Review Group therefore recommends that the telephony meta-data should be held by private entities. That is, the meta-data should be held either by the various telephone service providers themselves or, upon a showing that that solution would make effective use of the meta-data impossible, by a private organization created specifically for that purpose. This approach would both prevent the government from having direct access to the database and ensure that an independent set of eyes could monitor the government's access to the information.
     
  • December 23, 2013
     
    Last week’s release of a 300-plus page report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies was only the latest bump on a long road of challenging news in recent weeks for the National Security Agency (NSA).
     
    The esteemed panel of intelligence and legal experts – including Geoffrey R. Stone, former ACS Board Member and Co-Faculty Advisor to the ACS Student Chapter at the University of Chicago Law School – suggested “significant new limits” on intelligence activities as well as general principles to guide future reform.
     
    All in all, 46 recommendations were offered, among them the private, non-governmental retention of all personal communications data, accessible only through individualized court orders approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC); the first-ever appointment of a “public interest advocate” to argue on behalf of civil liberties and privacy concerns before the FISC, which currently has no adversarial process; the ceasing of “back door” access points in hardware or software; and the incorporation of privacy protections for non-U.S. citizens.
     
    Also of note was the enumeration of guiding principles. For example, the panel endorsed a dual understanding of “security” – national security, on the one hand, and Fourth Amendment personal security on the other. The report also said the idea of “balancing” these two interests has “an important element of truth” but is “inadequate and misleading”:
     
    [S]ome safeguards are not subject to balancing at all. In a free society, public officials should never engage in surveillance in order to punish their political enemies; to restrict freedom of speech or religion; to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent; to help their preferred companies or industries; to provide domestic companies with an unfair competitive advantage; or to benefit or burden members of groups defined in terms of religion, ethnicity, race, and gender.
     
    The panel also endorsed a “broad principle for the future: as a general rule and without senior policy review, the government should not be permitted to collect and store mass, undigested, non-public personal information about US persons for the purpose of enabling future queries and data-mining for foreign intelligence purposes.”