Latest in surveillance
In this surveillance-heavy episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck dig into a raft of news about foreign-intelligence collection authorities.
ODNI's transparency report contains loads of interesting information. In this post, I'd like to draw attention to the statistics on use of the FISA Business Records authority, 50 USC 1861.
A handy FAQ-style overview of the easily-confused issues associated with the surveillance side of the controversy surrounding HPSCI Chair Devin Nunes.
A few days, ago, I wrote this post exploring a 1945 memo from TJAG Myron Cramer regarding various legal issues surrounding the program that evolved into Operation Shamrock (as well as various other, more-conventional, collection activities). At the time I didn't feel free to provide a PDF of the memo itself, since I'd gotten it through the (for-pay) ProQuest database.
Alan Z. Rozenshtein, a former contributor to Lawfare who now works at DOJ, has a new article forthcoming in Stanford Law Review, "Surveillance Intermediaries," analyzing the role of corporate actors such as Apple, Google, Facebook, and others, that dominate digital communications and data storage, situated between government and targets of surveillance.
Some 1940s history can help us better understand the Church Committee's exposure of Operation SHAMROCK and Operation MINARET—which in turn sheds light on today's surveillance controversies.
In an October motion, the ACLU argued that a First Amendment “right of access” mandates release of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's opinions. Read on for a primer on the underlying legal theory.
A new report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) offers balanced guidance on 702 and other issues at the intersection of surveillance, security, economics, and privacy.
There is good reason to believe Pence will have a major hand, if not the helm, in shaping the Trump administration’s foreign policy and national security strategy—and not just when it comes to selecting cabinet members and managing the new administration’s relationship with Congress. The question is whether Trump’s stated positions on the campaign trail were, in fact, bluster borrowed for purposes of cultivating an authoritative, know-something posture, or if they represent genuine convictions on which he means to run his presidency. If they turn out to be the former, we will need to pivot from a literal interpretation of Trump’s campaign promises to a close examination of Pence’s.