GovernmentExecutive.com

Privacy and civil liberties advocates met with Justice Department officials on Monday for what was characterized by some as a contentious conversation about the impact of a recently passed law that enhances the executive branch's authority to spy on U.S. citizens.

The anti-terrorism mandate, which expires in six months unless Congress makes it permanent, was one of the last orders of business before lawmakers adjourned for August. The expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act lets the national intelligence director and the attorney general authorize spying without getting warrants from a special court.

Justice did not provide details about the meeting but said the discussion was held at the behest of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. A spokesman said the agency appreciated the visitors' input and looked forward "to continued dialogue with them as further legislation is debated."

Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said department officials asked him and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, Heritage Foundation and other groups for advice about implementing the new FISA guidelines.

That was tricky because the directives are classified, the FISA court opinion that produced the amendments to the law is classified, and "most of the relevant documents that the civil liberties groups and the oversight committees have sought have been withheld," Rotenberg said.

Lisa Graves, deputy director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the civil libertarians "candidly" shared their concerns, but the administration's "penchant for unnecessary secrecy" continued, including refusing to disclose the interpretation of the definition of "electronic surveillance" under the new powers.

Several participants noted that the selective leaking of intelligence "seems like a particularly bad way to make policy in this area," Rotenberg said. Most recently, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, disclosed secret FISA court information during an interview with Fox News.

ACLU staffers who attended learned "virtually nothing new," the group's executive director, Anthony Romero, said in a same-day letter to Gonzales. It is unclear what the agency's plans are for using the power to intercept e-mails and telephone calls when one party is on American soil, he said.

"Every question we had, they dodged and weaved, and we got no information out of that meeting that we couldn't have taken out of a press release," added Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's top lobbyist. "It was a ridiculous round-and-round conversation."

Brian Walsh, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said he is "worried the administration has gone too far in allowing privacy activists to hinder presidential authority to gather information about al Qaeda and related groups." Many of the demands being made at the meeting were "unreasonable," he said.

"I don't want to see any administration yield up its inherent authority in order to satisfy the current political climate," Walsh said.

The department agreed to host the group again but would not commit to a topic. Graves wanted the follow-up to focus on citizens' Internet privacy.

"Hopefully at the next meeting, there will be responsive answers and key documents that have been requested for months, if not years," she said.

COMMENTS

• My last posting addressed locations of articles indicating opposition to extensive governmental search and retention of communiqué’s that was felt unwarranted. I did not respond to “And then your categorizing anyone who does not agree with you as tripping the "Light Fantastique"?” by “a taxpayer and a federal worker”. While I, understandably, do not know nor care who you are, if your pseudonym is the one you use consistently then I’ve seen you here before; and you’ve probably seen me apologize for my letting emotions get the better of me. I do not like it when they run wild. For all those out there that I cause a negative reaction from, my humble apologizes and thanks for your contributions and corrections. Still, while I wish not to offend, provocation does have its rewards; sometimes. In my defense, what set me over the top was Brian's "worried the administration has gone too far in allowing privacy activists to hinder presidential authority to gather information about al Qaeda and related groups." This statement screams of outrageous indignation and yet, to my knowledge, no such incident exists; hence, my incredulity. "a taxpayer and a federal worker” asked where I got my ideas and information. I, in turn, ask him, her, or anyone else, to show me where this administration has EVER allowed privacy activists to hinder presidential authority as regards to information collection. This administration seems to care little for neither juristic rulings nor Congressional concerns as to the extent of ease-dropping on the American public. They’ve never stopped gathering intelligence, merely employed legions of lawyers to fight their battles; legions who seem expendable should they actually refer to law or legal precedent. Privacy now seems like a Dodo; something that once existed, but lives on in name only. Tip off Posted August 20, 2007 2:09 PM
• Dear "a taxpayer and a federal worker," Thank you for asking. I don't mean to flaunt GovExec's competition in their faces or their responses but these articles substantiate information they have written raising questions in the public's mind; well, at least this public's mind. Re: Google getting threatened by the FBI for resisting unwarranted searches of their databases; please see: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125133-page,1/article.html For one on AOL, please see: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126783-page,1-c,google/article.html Re: AT&T (San Francisco, Cal) getting sued for cooperating in not only massive downloads, but ongoing telecommunications trunk monitoring; please see: GovExec article "California appeals court to review spying cases" at: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37731&dcn=e_gvet with further elaboration in an excellent article "Lawsuit may detail secrets of spy program" at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081301 Re: DOJ answering to Congress for improper use of the national security letters; please see: GovExec article "Inspectors general gain prominence with new Congress" at: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36904&dcn=e_gvet Or GovExec article: "Privacy advocates decry accessing of bank records under security law" at: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35878&dcn=e_gvet For an overall reference to numerous Privacy actions in IT: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126783-page,1-c,google/article.html Please feel free to read and respond. There are many more. I am basing my concerns on "the preponderance of the evidence." I only hope I am wrong about the eventual outcome of our diminishing privacy. Tip off Tip Off Posted August 17, 2007 10:24 AM
• Tip, Talk about spin! How do you PERSONALLY know the FBI desired search on Google's database was 'unawarranted'? I personally have not heard of 'numerous accounts of personal privacy that have been violated'. Where do you get your information that no one else seems to know about? And then your categorizing anyone who does not agree with you as tripping the "Light Fantastique"? a taxpayer and a federal worker Posted August 16, 2007 8:00 AM