Sunshine Week: February 8, 2002 NSA Surveillance Memo
Yesterday, we published a list of missing documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program as part of EFF's celebration of Sunshine Week, and began to analyze what some of these missing documents might be.
Today, we turn to a document known as OLC 62. According to a declaration filed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury:
OLC 62 [is] a February 8, 2002, memorandum from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC to the General Counsel of another federal agency, prepared in response to a request for OLC views regarding the legality of certain hypothetical activities.
Since OLC 62 is a document from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking documents about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, we know that the memo dealt with that subject. At the time, John Yoo was the only Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) who was cleared for the NSA Program, indicating he was the author.
On March 2, 2009, the DOJ released a memo, dated January 15, 2009, that rescinded a February 8, 2002, memo from OLC Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to William J. Haynes II, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. It would be quite a coincidence if this was not a reference to the same memo.
The January 15, 2009, memo was written by Bradbury. Bradbury describes the February 8, 2002, memo as incorrectly asserting that Congress did not include a clear statement that FISA overrode the president’s “inherent” authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping, citing page 13. This indicates is it at least 13 pages long.
The January 15, 2009, memo redacts the subject of the February 8, 2002, memo, citing to “Re: [Classified Matter].” Thus, while we know that the February 8, 2002, memo dealt with the so-called inherent authority for the Executive to conduct warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA, we do not know what the “certain hypothetical activities” were. However, the use of the term “hypothetical” suggests that, on February 8, 2002, the activities were not yet operational.
There are a couple of interesting Department of Defense surveillance initiatives around that time that one would expect the DOD to seek legal advice before conducting. One is the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which was established at the Department of Defense (DOD) in January 2002. (See DOD’s Executive Summary).
Another is the DOD’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). On February 19, 2002, the DOD issued, DOD 5105.67, a directive establishing CIFA. (See National Security Archive’s Electronic Briefing Book on CIFA).
Both TIA and CIFA have since been shut down.
The public deserves to know about the programs that the DOD considered in reliance on John Yoo’s flawed (and subsequently withdrawn) legal analysis. We urge the Obama Administration to release this memo.
Updated, April 8 2009: Recently, the government filed a brief in the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case over OLC 62. In the brief, the government confirmed that the January 15, 2009 OLC memorandum "references to OLC 62," and acknowledged "that OLC 62 ... contains a particular 'questionable proposition' of law." OLC 62, which addressed "the legality of certain hypothetical activities," misapplied the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Nevertheless, the government asserted the contents of OLC 62 remain either "classified or nonsegregable from information that is classified," and insisted that it remain at the bottom of a deep, dark well of secrecy.
Recent DeepLinks Posts
Nov 25, 2015
Nov 25, 2015
Nov 25, 2015
Nov 24, 2015
Nov 23, 2015
- Fair Use and Intellectual Property: Defending the Balance
- Free Speech
- Know Your Rights
- Trade Agreements and Digital Rights
- State-Sponsored Malware
- Abortion Reporting
- Analog Hole
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
- Bloggers' Rights
- Broadcast Flag
- Broadcasting Treaty
- Cell Tracking
- Coders' Rights Project
- Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Reform
- Content Blocking
- Copyright Trolls
- Council of Europe
- Cyber Security Legislation
- Defend Your Right to Repair!
- Development Agenda
- Digital Books
- Digital Radio
- Digital Video
- DMCA Rulemaking
- Do Not Track
- E-Voting Rights
- EFF Europe
- Encrypting the Web
- Export Controls
- FAQs for Lodsys Targets
- File Sharing
- Fixing Copyright? The 2013-2015 Copyright Review Process
- Genetic Information Privacy
- Hollywood v. DVD
- How Patents Hinder Innovation (Graphic)
- International Privacy Standards
- Internet Governance Forum
- Law Enforcement Access
- Legislative Solutions for Patent Reform
- Locational Privacy
- Mandatory Data Retention
- Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases
- Mass Surveillance Technologies
- Medical Privacy
- National Security and Medical Information
- National Security Letters
- Net Neutrality
- No Downtime for Free Speech
- NSA Spying
- Offline : Imprisoned Bloggers and Technologists
- Online Behavioral Tracking
- Open Access
- Open Wireless
- Patent Busting Project
- Patent Trolls
- PATRIOT Act
- Pen Trap
- Policy Analysis
- Public Health Reporting and Hospital Discharge Data
- Reading Accessibility
- Real ID
- Search Engines
- Search Incident to Arrest
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
- Social Networks
- SOPA/PIPA: Internet Blacklist Legislation
- Student and Community Organizing
- Stupid Patent of the Month
- Surveillance and Human Rights
- Surveillance Drones
- Terms Of (Ab)Use
- Test Your ISP
- The "Six Strikes" Copyright Surveillance Machine
- The Global Network Initiative
- The Law and Medical Privacy
- TPP's Copyright Trap
- Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
- Travel Screening
- Trusted Computing
- Video Games