Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On December 18, 2013, the White House published a report recommending reforms to the federal government’s wide-ranging surveillance programs. The voluminous report, entitled “Liberty and Security in a Changing World,” was authored by The Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, an advisory panel that includes experts in national security, intelligence gathering and civil liberties.

The Obama Administration is in the process of finalizing its review of a statutory electronic surveillance proposal initially developed by the FBI, and is expected to support the introduction of a modified version as legislation. The proposal addresses concerns raised by law enforcement and national security agencies regarding the widening gap between their legal authority to intercept real-time electronic communications pursuant to a court order, and the practical difficulties associated with actually intercepting those communications. According to the government, this gap increasingly prevents the agencies from collecting Internet-based phone calls, emails, chats, text messages and other communications of terrorists, spies, organized crime groups, child pornography distributors and other dangerous actors. The FBI refers to this as the “going dark” problem.

On February 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided in Clapper v. Amnesty International that U.S. persons who engage in communications with individuals who may be potential targets of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) lack standing to challenge the statute’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not “certainly impending” and that the measures they claimed to have taken to avoid surveillance were not “fairly traceable” to the challenged statute. Although this 5-4 decision would not be considered a “privacy” or “data breach” case, the Court’s analysis will have a significant impact on such cases going forward, and may thwart the ability of individuals affected by data breaches to assert standing based on possible future harm.