EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation): VICTORY! Federal Court Rules Backdoor Searches of 702 Data Unconstitutional
EFF argued for over a decade that this is unconstitutional, and now a federal court agrees with us.
BY ANDREW CROCKER AND MATTHEW GUARIGLIAJANUARY 22, 2025
Better late than never: last night a federal district court held that backdoor searches of databases full of Americans private communications collected under Section 702 ordinarily require a warrant. The landmark ruling comes in a criminal case, United States v. Hasbajrami, after more than a decade of litigation, and over four years since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that backdoor searches constitute separate Fourth Amendment events and directed the district court to determine a warrant was required...
... This decision sheds light on the governments liberal use of what is essential a finders keepers rule regarding your communication data. As a legal authority, FISA Section 702 allows the intelligence community to collect a massive amount of communications data from overseas in the name of national security. But, in cases where one side of that conversation is a person on US soil, that data is still collected and retained in large databases searchable by federal law enforcement. Because the US-side of these communications is already collected and just sitting there, the government has claimed that law enforcement agencies do not need a warrant to sift through them. EFF argued for over a decade that this is unconstitutional, and now a federal court agrees with us.
Hasbajrami involves a U.S. resident who was arrested at New York JFK airport in 2011 on his way to Pakistan and charged with providing material support to terrorists. Only after his original conviction did the government explain that its case was premised in part on emails between Mr. Hasbajrami and an unnamed foreigner associated with terrorist groups, emails collected warrantless using Section 702 programs, placed in a database, then searched, again without a warrant, using terms related to Mr. Hasbajrami himself.
The district court found that regardless of whether the government can lawfully warrantlessly collect communications between foreigners and Americans using Section 702, it cannot ordinarily rely on a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant clause when searching these communications, as is the FBIs routine practice. And, even if such an exception did apply, the court found that the intrusion on privacy caused by reading our most sensitive communications rendered these searches unreasonable under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In 2021 alone, the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless searches of US persons 702 data.
In light of this ruling, we ask Congress to uphold its responsibility to protect civil rights and civil liberties by refusing to renew Section 702 absent a number of necessary reforms, including an official warrant requirement for querying US persons data and increased transparency. On April 15, 2026, Section 702 is set to expire. We expect any lawmaker worthy of that title to listen to what this federal court is saying and create a legislative warrant requirement so that the intelligence community does not continue to trample on the constitutionally protected rights to private communications. More immediately, the FISC should amend its rules for backdoor searches and require the FBI to seek a warrant before conducting them.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/victory-federal-court-finally-rules-backdoor-searches-702-data-unconstitutional
Another gateway closed to Patel for going after his enemies list of 60 people, including Joe & Kamala.
magicarpet
(17,439 posts)... the Fascists are here,...
Button down the hatches.
ancianita
(39,260 posts)infiltrations.
Reading is better for getting free of fascists than screens.
We'll all feel much better when we read this. Worth every minute and penny.
dickthegrouch
(3,774 posts)But now we have to work to get the collected data inadmissible. In whatever jurisdictions its actually stored. And by whatever entity was paid to collect it in the first place.
Guantanamo exists outside normal jurisdiction oversight, Im willing to bet that all that section 702 data exists in similar legal limbo.
ancianita
(39,260 posts)Pretty sure that jurisdictions are usually where their headquarters are regardless of server locations.
From what I've gathered, law enforcement can still get warrants. Keyword search warrants, geofence warrants, and administrative subpoenas are all perfectly legal methods of collecting your information. That information could be anything from your location to your social media activity.
Pretty sure that corporate owned social media like Meta and Xitter can refuse data collection without a warrant, right? Meta says it doesn't sell its users' data. Last week, though, when I requested that Meta prep 10 years of my data logs, I'm still waiting. It says "still in process." However they did sent 8 files from 10 years of my platform photos, active sessions, chat history, IP addresses, facial recognition data and ads. So I downloaded those to an external.
dickthegrouch
(3,774 posts)And I'm aware SCROTUS hasn't necessarily agreed but the fourth amendment language is pretty clear
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I maintain that blanket seizure doesn't rise to any of those conditions.
ancianita
(39,260 posts)Yes, my understanding is that blanket search warrants aren't covered by the 4th.