Skip to main content

Supreme Court must protect our privacy from the government

By Marc Rotenberg, Special to CNN
updated 11:30 AM EDT, Wed July 17, 2013
Marc Rotenberg asks: it legal for the government to collect information about people posing no national security threat?
Marc Rotenberg asks: it legal for the government to collect information about people posing no national security threat?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Marc Rotenberg: Electonic Privacy group wants Supreme Court to step in on privacy
  • He says secret court order makes Verizon give call record info to National Security Agency
  • He says: Patriot Act powers can only be used in certain circumstances
  • Rotenberg: Supreme Court has ultimate authority to say what law allows -- and it is not this

Editor's note: Marc Rotenberg is President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and teaches information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center. He frequently testifies before Congress on emerging privacy issues.

(CNN) -- Last week the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to stop the government's collection of telephone records of Verizon customers. It was not a decision we took lightly. But as an organization dedicated to protecting privacy, we had no choice.

Of all the recent revelations about the government's surveillance activities, the most significant is a secret court order that required Verizon to provide to the National Security Agency -- on an ongoing basis -- the call detail records on all of its customers.

Marc Rotenberg
Marc Rotenberg

Not since the congressional hearings of the Church Committee -- the Senate committee that investigated widespread intelligence abuses in the 1970s -- has there been evidence of such extensive spying by the U.S. government on the American public. But unlike then, the digital data of the modern telephone network allows for an extraordinary sorting and sifting of digital information today.

A phone number is easily linked to a person, perhaps a doctor, a minister, a family member, or a close friend. Call detail records can also reveal where people are and who they are with. Such information can be very useful when tracking a particular target in a criminal or intelligence investigation, but collecting such data on all Americans who have a telephone is without precedent.

In our filing with the Supreme Court, the Electronic Privacy Information Center asked a simple question that we hope the Court will answer: Is it legal for the government to collect so much information about so many people suspected of no threat to national security?

According to the law -- section 215 of the Patriot Act -- the government is only allowed to obtain such information if it is "relevant" to an "authorized investigation" and if its use is for very narrow purposes. How could it possibly be that all of the customers of Verizon could be subject to an authorized investigation of the U.S. government?

To us that seems impossible. And that is also the view of some of those who wrote the law and who served on the court that applies the law.

NSA spying on your calls
Secret spying: From critic to supporter
Brok: NSA's spying on EU 'out of control'

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, the original author of the Patriot Act, recently said he was "extremely disturbed" about the news of the Verizon order and said it was "not consistent with the Patriot Act."

Retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said he was "stunned" to learn about the court's broad authorities.

The views of Sensenbrenner and Robertson are shared by many legal scholars. It is simply inconceivable that Congress could grant legal authority for the routine surveillance of all of our telephone records.

And the secrecy surrounding these activities -- not only was the court order kept secret, but so too was the legal justification -- should set off alarm bells. If the government has a good justification for the program, it should not be difficult to provide a public explanation, even if some of the details must be withheld.

Some are surprised that our organization went directly to the Supreme Court. They point out that the Supreme Court prefers hearing disputes after the issues have been considered by lower courts. But under the special rules of the secret court that issued the Verizon order, we had no choice. Only the government or Verizon could have objected to the order of the secret court. They didn't, so we turned to the one Court that has the ultimate authority to say what the law allows.

And if there is one case that justifies review under the Supreme Court's "mandamus" standard, our organization's challenge to the NSA's domestic surveillance program is that case.

Over the next month, we look forward to working with legal scholars, technical experts and others who have expressed support for our petition. They will be filing friend of the court briefs to explain to the Supreme Court in more detail the important issues in our case. We anticipate that the Court will consider our arguments when it returns in early October.

Still, there is more to do. We believe that the NSA's decision to undertake domestic surveillance has also triggered a provision of law that requires the agency to take public comments. We believe that the public should have the opportunity to express its views on the program. Whether you oppose or support the NSA's domestic surveillance program, your views should be heard.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Marc Rotenberg.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 8:27 PM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
The ability to manipulate media and technology has increasingly become a critical strategic resource, says Jeff Yang.
updated 11:17 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Today's politicians should follow Ronald Reagan's advice and invest in science, research and development, Fareed Zakaria says.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Artificial intelligence does not need to be malevolent to be catastrophically dangerous to humanity, writes Greg Scoblete.
updated 10:05 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Historian Douglas Brinkley says a showing of Sony's film in Austin helped keep the city weird -- and spotlighted the heroes who stood up for free expression
updated 8:03 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Tanya Odom that by calling only on women at his press conference, the President made clear why women and people of color should be more visible in boardrooms and conferences
updated 8:12 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
When oil spills happen, researchers are faced with the difficult choice of whether to use chemical dispersants, authors say
updated 1:33 AM EST, Thu December 25, 2014
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
updated 6:12 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
updated 8:36 AM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
updated 2:14 PM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
updated 3:27 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
updated 10:35 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
updated 7:57 AM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
updated 11:29 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
updated 4:15 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
updated 1:11 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
updated 1:08 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
updated 1:53 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
updated 3:19 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
updated 5:39 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
updated 8:12 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
updated 12:09 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
updated 6:45 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
updated 4:34 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT