DOJ Report: FBI Needs Supervision in Use of Security Letters


The Center for Democracy and Technology has issued a scathing report on the FBI's attempts to self police with regard to compliance with regulations associated with the issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). This comes as a result of two successive DOJ-IG reports showing systematic failures and abuses by the FBI in the management of these disclosure devices.

In October 2001, the PATRIOT Act dramatically weakened the standard for issuing NSLs by removing the requirement that the records sought with the NSL pertain to an "agent of a foreign power" such as a terrorist or a spy. The PATRIOT Act also eliminated the requirement that the government be able to articulate the factual basis for its suspicion.


Current law merely requires an FBI official to state "purely for internal purposes -- that the records are "relevant to" or "sought for" foreign counter-intelligence or terrorism purposes. Furthermore, an amendment adopted in 2003 dramatically expanded the institutions subject to NSLs to include travel agencies, real estate agents, jewelers, the Postal Service, insurance companies, casinos, car dealers and others.


Among other things, the IG found that the FBI issued NSLs when it had not even opened the investigation that is the only predicate for issuing an NSL. It found that the FBI retains almost indefinitely the information it obtains with an NSL, even if the record subject turns out to be innocent of any crime and of no intelligence interest.


It also found that the Attorney General had refused to adopt adequate "minimization" procedures designed to protect the privacy of information about innocent Americans obtained with an NSL, even though an interagency working group had recommended such procedures.

So, the CDT is calling for an overhaul of the legislation related to NSLs. After the 2007 IG report, CDT reports that the FBI did institute internal rules and training which improved things somewhat with regard to agents actually opening a case before issuing an NSL, or returning or destroying information received but not relevant to the investigation. However, the 2008 IG report still found that the internal review process prior to issuing an NSL was stil insufficient.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.