The most secretive court in the nation, which has been criticized for authorizingby the National Security Agency, has taken a tiny step toward openness in lawsuits brought by Google and Microsoft.
CNET has learned that Reggie Walton, the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, told the Obama administration last week that -- barring any objections from the government -- he would take the unusual step of disclosing procedural information about the.
The Department of Justice responded yesterday by saying it had no objections. Neither Google nor Microsoft's legal briefs "contain information that is now classified, nor information that should be held under seal," the department said in a response submitted by John Carlin, the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor nowof Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airpot, has leaked a series of classified documents that outlined how the spy agency vacuums up Americans' confidential communications. The disclosures have and prompted a high-level diplomatic tussle over whether or not Russia will deport Snowden to face under the Espionage Act.
Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and other Internet companies were left reeling after a pair of articles earlier this month, based on one of Snowden's disclosures, alleged that they provided the NSA with "direct access" to their servers through a so-called PRISM program.
By the next day, however, CNET concluding there is no evidence that "the privacy of any American was illegally or improperly invaded." Google's before the surveillance court said the initial news coverage was "misleading," and Microsoft's lawyers "inaccurate."that was incorrect, and the Washington Post backtracked from its original story on PRISM, eventually
The two companies, which have say they respond to government requests for individual account data only when they're legally compelled to do so -- in cases ranging from kidnapping to missing persons to terrorist investigations -- and want permission to divulge more information publicly.providing any government agency with direct access to their servers, filed the lawsuits to try to clear their names. They
Microsoft says it received a combined total of "between 6,000 and 7,000" orders from federal, state, and local government agencies for "between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts" during the six months that ended in December 2012. Facebook's total: up to 10,000 requests for up to 19,000 accounts. Apple's: up to 5,000 requests for up to 10,000 accounts or devices. Yahoo receiving up to 13,000 requests, but did not say how many user accounts were swept in. Google has asked for permission to be far more specific.
Walton, the FISC's presiding judge, gave the Justice Department until July 9 to respond to the requests from Google and Microsoft to disclose summary statistics about orders received under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which became look in 2008. The pair of companies have until July 16 to submit their replies.
Section 702 requires that the government obtain the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's approval of "targeting" and "minimization" procedures, and that the court review the agencies' certification describing how proposed surveillance techniques will comply with the law. Judges must consider whether the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to exclude Americans and purely domestic surveillance.
The Justice Department had the option of objecting to allowing this phase of the litigation to take place publicly by claiming either of the company's requests "contains classified information" or "information that is or should be sealed."
Walton defended the court last week against charges it allowed bulk surveillance by the NSA with limited oversight. In a statement to Reuters, he said: "The perception that the court is a rubber stamp is absolutely false. There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts, and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."