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 4:47 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jim Bell says NASA's latest discovery support the notion that habitable worlds are probably common in the galaxy.
updated 2:17 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jay Parini says even the Gospels skip the actual Resurrection and are sketchy on the appearances that followed.
updated 1:52 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Graham Allison says if an unchecked and emboldened Russia foments conflict in a nation like Latvia, a NATO member, the West would have to defend it.
updated 9:11 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
John Sutter: Bad news, guys -- the pangolin we adopted is missing.
updated 1:10 PM EDT, Sat April 19, 2014
Ben Wildavsky says we need a better way to determine whether colleges are turning out graduates with superior education and abilities.
updated 6:26 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Charles Maclin, program manager working on the search and recovery of Malaysia Flight 370, explains how it works.
updated 8:50 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jill Koyama says Michael Bloomberg is right to tackle gun violence, but we need to go beyond piecemeal state legislation.
updated 2:45 PM EDT, Thu April 17, 2014
Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts say Americans are ready for sensible gun laws, but politicians are cowed by the NRA. Everytown for Gun Safety will prove the NRA is not that powerful.
updated 9:28 AM EDT, Thu April 17, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says Steve Israel is right: Some Republicans encourage anti-Latino prejudice. But that kind of bias is not limited to the GOP.
updated 7:23 PM EDT, Wed April 16, 2014
Peggy Drexler counts the ways Phyllis Schlafly's argument that lower pay for women helps them nab a husband is ridiculous.
updated 12:42 PM EDT, Wed April 16, 2014
Rick McGahey says Rep. Paul Ryan is signaling his presidential ambitions by appealing to hard core Republican values
updated 11:39 AM EDT, Wed April 16, 2014
Paul Saffo says current Google Glasses are doomed to become eBay collectibles, but they are only the leading edge of a surge in wearable tech that will change our lives
updated 2:49 PM EDT, Tue April 15, 2014
Kathleen Blee says the KKK and white power or neo-Nazi groups give haters the purpose and urgency to use violence.
updated 7:56 AM EDT, Wed April 16, 2014
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Henry Waxman say read deep, and you'll see the federal Keystone pipeline report spells out the pipeline is bad news
updated 7:53 AM EDT, Wed April 16, 2014
Frida Ghitis says President Obama needs to stop making empty threats against Russia and consider other options
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT