Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ancianita

(39,260 posts)
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 12:02 PM Tuesday

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 government’s 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 Amendment’s warrant clause when searching these communications, as is the FBI’s 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 person’s 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.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation): VICTORY! Federal Court Rules Backdoor Searches of 702 Data Unconstitutional (Original Post) ancianita Tuesday OP
The Fascits are coming,... the Fascists are coming,... magicarpet Tuesday #1
According to Timothy Snyder they're already here. This court decision is a precedent to put a chill on fascist ancianita Tuesday #2
Congratulations EFF! dickthegrouch Tuesday #3
Can you explain what you mean by "inadmissible"? Do you mean for collecting, or in court as evidence? ancianita Tuesday #4
I meant for Court evidence dickthegrouch Tuesday #5
Cool. Thanks. ancianita Tuesday #6

magicarpet

(17,439 posts)
1. The Fascits are coming,... the Fascists are coming,...
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 12:21 PM
Tuesday

... the Fascists are here,...

Button down the hatches.

ancianita

(39,260 posts)
2. According to Timothy Snyder they're already here. This court decision is a precedent to put a chill on fascist
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 12:28 PM
Tuesday

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)
3. Congratulations EFF!
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 12:38 PM
Tuesday

But now we have to work to get the collected data inadmissible. In whatever jurisdictions it’s actually stored. And by whatever entity was paid to collect it in the first place.
Guantanamo exists outside normal jurisdiction oversight, I’m willing to bet that all that section 702 data exists in similar legal limbo.

ancianita

(39,260 posts)
4. Can you explain what you mean by "inadmissible"? Do you mean for collecting, or in court as evidence?
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 12:56 PM
Tuesday

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)
5. I meant for Court evidence
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 02:09 PM
Tuesday

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)
6. Cool. Thanks.
Tue Jan 28, 2025, 02:13 PM
Tuesday

Yes, my understanding is that blanket search warrants aren't covered by the 4th.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»EFF (Electronic Frontier ...