NSA collection of phone metadata likely in breach of fourth amendment – read the judge’s ruling | World news | theguardian.com

 US district court judge Richard Leon says mass collection of phone metadata is ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ in its scope. Guardian US national security editor Spencer Ackerman takes us through the ruling in annotated text:



Klayman et, al versus Obama et. al

Related articles


Updated: The founder of Groklaw has decided to shut down the technology blog because of fears its email communications could be subject to government surveillance.

Former paralegal Pamela Jones founded Groklaw in 2003 to cover legal news of interest to the free software and open source community. In this final postat Groklaw, she says made the decision after learning that the government captures emails sent to and from foreign countries, the Atlantic and theGuardian report.

Read ABA Journal Updated Report here.


Related articles


“What Is That Box?” — When The NSA Shows Up At Your Internet Company

Pete Ashdown, CEO of XMission, an internet service provider in Utah, describes receiving a Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) warrant in 2010, mandating he let the feds monitor one of his customers, through his facility. He also received a broad gag order.

Related articles

NSA Sued by Churches, Gun and Digital Rights Groups Over Phone Surveillance

NSA Sued by Churches, Gun and Digital Rights Groups Over Phone Surveillance by FindLaw


Related articles

Snowden leak: Microsoft added Outlook.com backdoor for Feds • The Register

There are red faces in Redmond after Edward Snowden released a new batch of documents from the NSA‘s Special Source Operations (SSO) division covering Microsoft’s involvement in allowing backdoor access to its software to the NSA and others.

Documents seen by The Guardian detail how the NSA became concerned when Microsoft started testing Outlook.com, and asked for access. In five months Microsoft and the FBI created a workaround that gives the NSA access to encrypted chats on Outlook.com. The system went live in December last year – two months before Outlook.com’s commercial launch. Those Outlook users not enabling encryption get their data slurped as a matter of course, the documents show. “For Prism collection againstHotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption,” an NSA newsletter states.

Read entire Register report here.



Related articles

How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages | World news | The Guardian

Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users’ communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company’s own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.

The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.


Read entire Guardian report, including mention of Skype after its purchase by MS.

Related articles

EPIC – In re EPIC – NSA Telephone Records Surveillance

  • EPIC Files Supreme Court Petition, Challenges Domestic Surveillance Program: EPIC has filed a Petitionwith the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court vacate an unlawful order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that enables the collection of all domestic phone record by the NSA. The order, directed to Verizon, requires the production of all “call detail records” for calls made “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.” EPIC said “It is simply not possible that every phone record in the possession of a telecommunications firm could be relevant to an authorized investigation. . . . Such an interpretation of [the law] would render meaningless the qualifying phrases contained in the provision and eviscerate the purpose of the Act.” For more information, see In re Electronic Privacy Information Center. (Jul. 8, 2013)

Related articles