TOLL FREE 844.4REJALICALL US TODAY OR CLICK HERE FOR YOUR CONSULTATION
mycase Change Language

NSA's Collection of Americans' Phone Records Violates Patriot Act

01-13-2016


On May 7th, 2015, a three judge panel for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appellate court to rule on the legality of a government surveillance program, put in place in the interests of national security.

The claims in A.C.L.U. v Clapper, brought after the surveillance was revealed by Edward Snowden 2013, raised statutory and constitutional challenges to the National Security Agency’s (NSA) “telephone metadata program.” Under this program, the NSA collects metadata associated with telephone calls made by Americans, and aggregates it into a data bank where it can be searched. This data is created by telephone companies in their normal course of business, but under the program companies are explicitly required to give that information to the government on an ongoing basis. 

The government went into significant detail about metadata, and pointed out this type of data does not include voice content of telephone conversations, rather it includes details of calls including length of call, phone number called, phone number from which the call was made, etc. The government maintained that the information does not include identities or names of individuals. Appellants and amici countered with evidence from a recent study that showed metadata can reveal a surprising amount of private information such as political or religious affiliations, social status, or whether a person is involved in an intimate relationship. 

After a thorough discussion of the history of intelligence gathering in the United States and efforts of counter-terrorism, the Court concluded the language of the Patriot Act, specifically §215, could not be construed to authorize the telephone metadata program. 

What makes this case particularly interesting is the fact that the issues decided could soon become moot. Section 215 is set to expire on June 1st of this year, meaning Congress will have an opportunity to change its terms, or simply choose not to reauthorize it. The
Court did not reach constitutional arguments, as events in the near future could significantly alter the issues. Ultimately, government interests in protecting our nation’s security will most certainly continue to clash with privacy interests of citizens.

Author:  Marissa Bartolucci



San Diego Immigration Law Firm San Diego Civil Litigation Lawyer immigrationlaw californiaprop47 deporation sandiegocriminallawyer californiadruglaw deportation San Diego Immigration Lawyer DUI San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer liability personal injury negligence San Diego Personal Injury Lawyer litigation immigration lawsuit sandiegoimmigrationlawyer cancellation of removal moral character sdpd 5thamendment criminaldefense. san diego sandiegodeportationlawyer sandiegotrialattorneys GIA Gemologicalinstituteofamerica alter-ego corporation. privilege injury appeals NSA Patriot Act. torts duty breach CANRA child abuse e-2 visa investment visa u.s. immigration lawyer u.s. investment lawyer business immigration San Diego Immigration Lawyer Immigration Lawyer asylum green card immigrant visa citizensarrest capenalcode837 4th Amendment litigation civil rights UCSD regents of the university of california unruh act greencardholder Sb-1visa re-entrypermit Mission Valley Criminal Defense Lawyer Vehicle Code 23612 san diego criminal lawyer blood blood sample Birchfield v. North Dakota Constitution Corpus Delicti DUI Defense San Diego DUI Defense malpractice civil rights Immigration Law Constitutional Law crime of violence DHS deportation proceedings appellate review civil appeals removal proceedings deportation. Criminal Defense Sixth Amendment Trial Lawyer immigration deportation vacating conviction relief personal injury new case law alert medical expenses doctors on liens Disability Disability rights 504 Rehabilitation Act ADA ADA 504 Rehabilitation Act Disability rights Disability Regents; Unruh Civil Rights Act search and seizure automobile exception car accident slip and fall collisions denial of claim insurance denial. valuation of claim insurance personal injury. 5th Amendment United States Supreme Court right against self-incrimination. mcdonalds san diego. Travel Ban President Trump U.S. Supreme Court Trump v. Hawaii trial direct examination witnesses Jameson v. Desta California Supreme Court Decision Equal Access San Diego County Court reporters objections interrogatories fraud default judgment motion to set aside default judgment due process personal jurisdiction discovery company car crash reports discovery trial personal injury damages witnesses settlement; trial lawyer; San Diego trial lawyers; personal injury lawyers; San Diego injury lawyers San Diego Injury Lawyer san diego trial lawyer san diego trial attorney san diego jury trial lawyer san diego trial lawyer San Diego Injury Lawyer san diego civil trial lawyer