Slashdot Mirror


EFF Tells Court That the NSA Knowingly and Illegally Destroyed Evidence

An anonymous reader writes in with this latest bit of EFF vs NSA news. 'We followed the back and forth situation earlier this year, in which there were some legal questions over whether or not the NSA needed to hang onto surveillance data at issue in various lawsuits, or destroy it as per the laws concerning retention of data. Unfortunately, in the process, it became clear that the DOJ misled FISA court Judge Reggie Walton, withholding key information. In response, the DOJ apologized, insisting that it didn't think the data was relevant — but also very strongly hinting that it used that opportunity to destroy a ton of evidence. However, this appeared to be just the latest in a long history of the NSA/DOJ willfully destroying evidence that was under a preservation order.

The key case where this evidence was destroyed was the EFF's long running Jewel v. NSA case, and the EFF has now told the court about the destruction of evidence, and asked the court to thus assume that the evidence proves, in fact, that EFF's clients were victims of unlawful surveillance. The DOJ/NSA have insisted that they thought that the EFF's lawsuit only covered programs issued under executive authority, rather than programs approved by the FISA Court, but the record in the case shows that the DOJ seems to be making this claim up.'

4 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So... to summarise: by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

    The preservation order overrides any policies and destruction rules.
    They knew that to destroy those records was both illegal and obstruction.
    As to fishing expedition, apparently the judge didn't think so.

  2. Re:Destroying evidence should have worse penalty by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 5, Informative

    In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario

    That is exactly what is supposed to happen, it is called spoilation of evidence and is very frowned upon. The penalties are supposed to include inferring that the missing evidence is beneficial to the opposing party and civil and criminal penalties against whomever destroyed the evidence. Though I doubt that will happen in this case.

    --
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  3. Re: So... to summarise: by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative

    It actually turns out to be very easy to do something about it:
    https://supporters.eff.org/don...

  4. Re: So... to summarise: by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Supporting EFF is a good start, I agree, but it's no magic solution. Remember, EFF's lawsuit about the NSA dragnet was completely stopeed in its tracks by the "state secrets" defense for YEARS, until Snowden's leak put the relevant info into the public domain, when it was finally allowed to proceed.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant