美國安局監聽計畫違憲
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/12/27
2013-12-20 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/pedrosimoes7/ |
負責合憲審查的聯邦法官里昂（Richard
Leon）表示，美國的大型監控計畫會讓麥迪遜（James Madison）驚駭無比。12月16日，里昂發佈長達68頁的評論，認為國安局使用的科技「幾近歐威爾」，並要求國安局停止收集兩名原告的通訊紀錄。
里昂暫緩其禁制令以待上訴，但此事已讓華盛頓血脈僨張。該案由保守派行動人士克萊曼（Larry Klayman）等人提出，為數個針對大型監控計畫而來的異議之一；揭露國安局大型監控計畫的史諾登目前則藏身於俄羅斯。由美國公民自由聯盟提出的類似案件，目前也在紐約接受審理，最終決定權無疑是握在最高法院手中。
目前看來，美國政府地毯式收集「通訊檔案資料」、亦即你在何時撥電話給什麼人，其基礎比過去還要不穩定。美國政府的律師一向倚賴34年前的判例，強調第四修正案的不合理搜查保護不適用於後設資料。在史密斯對馬里蘭（Smith v Maryland）案中，最高法院贊成在未取得搜索令的情況下收集嫌犯的電話紀錄。但里昂並不這麼認為，他寫道：「我不可能利用一椿行動電話興起前的案例，作為探索第四修正案未知領域的北極星。」
情報官員表示，可以打撈的大海面積越大，能找到的尖針也就越多。里昂反駁道，政府並未提出任何例證，證明分析檔案資料「真的可以阻止即將來臨的攻擊」。2013年，最高法院駁回了針對國安局監控計畫提出的異議，理由為原告無法證明他們受到監控。但那是在史諾登事件之前；克萊曼表示，他和其他原告必定遭受監控，因為幾乎所有人都受到監控。
史諾登認為那證明了他行為的合理性，「今日，一項祕密法庭核准的祕密計畫在公諸於世之後，便是證實它違反了美國人的權利。那只是諸多秘密計畫的第一宗。」批評者指出，史諾登揭露他誓言保守的機密，依舊違反了法律──他們認為，如果史諾登想挑戰非法行為，他應該使用正式管道，而非公佈那些可能有害美國國安的資訊。此外，許多史諾登揭露的行為在美國皆屬合法。
史諾登可能還有很多資料有待公開。負責損害評估的國安局官員雷傑特（Rick Ledgett）表示，史諾登可能還握有多達170萬份、有如「王國之鑰」的國安局文件。雷傑特曾建議特赦史諾登以換取他手上的資料，但遭到白宮拒絕。
12月17日，歐巴馬與幾間美國大型科技公司的老闆會面。蘋果、Facebook、Google等幾間企業（怪的是，其中沒有電信業者）皆呼籲政府減少監聽；它們擔心，要是民眾認為它們會將個人資訊並交給情報單位，可能造成客戶流失。
巴西等部分國家已著手制訂更嚴格的規範，以管制處理民眾資訊的企業。歐盟也在與美國進行角力，以規範收集和使用這些資料的企業。如果這讓企業更難、得花更多成本收集資料，那勢必會傷害Facebook、Google等倚賴客戶資訊進行目標式廣告的企業。
白宮成立的國安局行為調查顧問委會員，已向總統提出了建議。一如預期，委員會促請歐巴馬停止由政府收集美國人的電信紀錄，並將此責任交給電信企業或第三方單位；政府必須取得外國情報通訊監察法庭的命令，才能取用這些資料。其潛在阻礙在於，電信企業的資訊保留期不同，有些僅保留6個月。
委員會建議政府停止數項有害美國產品信用的行動，亦請求政府確切表明「政府絕不會破壞、損害、削弱或弱化常見的商用加密」，並停止損害安全編碼標準。部分駭侵工具可以用於網路攻擊，委員會也建議政府改變尋找和動用這類工具的方式。
委員會指出，監聽外國領袖應通過外交及經濟成本效益分析，而且得由總統及總統顧問、而非情報單位核可。委員會亦建議，讓外國情報目標的獲得與美國人類似的保護。歐巴馬將於新年期間決定是否採行這些建議。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
The Economist
NSA snooping
Judge v spies
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 20, 2013
Dec 17th 2013, 22:57 by The Economist
JAMES MADISON "would be aghast" at America's vast
surveillance programmes. So said Richard Leon, a federal judge hearing a
challenge to their constitutionality. On December 16th he issued a blistering
68-page critique, calling the technology used by the National Security Agency
(NSA) "almost Orwellian" and ordering it to stop collecting the
telephone records of two plaintiffs.
Though Mr Leon stayed his ruling pending an appeal, it has set pulses
racing in Washington. The case, brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative
activist, and others, is one of several challenges to the mass-surveillance
programmes disclosed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the NSA now
hiding in Russia. A similar case, brought by the American Civil Liberties
Union, is being heard in New York. The Supreme Court will doubtless have the
final say.
The government's blanket collection of "telephony
metadata"—information about whom you call and when—looks to be on wobblier
ground than before. Its lawyers have long relied on a 34-year-old precedent to
argue that the Fourth-Amendment protection against unreasonable searches does
not apply to metadata. In Smith v Maryland the Supreme Court upheld the
warrantless collection of a criminal suspect's phone records. But Mr Leon is
unimpressed. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment
waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell
phones," he writes.
Intelligence officials argue that the more haystacks they can paw
through, the more needles they'll find. Mr Leon protests that the government
does not cite a single instance in which analysis of metadata "actually
stopped an imminent attack". In 2013 the Supreme Court rejected a
challenge to the NSA's surveillance programmes on the ground that the plaintiffs
could not prove they had been spied on. But that was before Mr Snowden's
disclosures. Mr Klayman argued that he and his fellow plaintiffs must have been
snooped on because nearly everyone has been.
Mr Snowden feels vindicated. "Today, a secret programme authorised
by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate
Americans' rights. It is the first of many," he crowed. Critics note that
he still broke the law by revealing secrets he was under oath to keep—if he had
wanted to challenge illegal acts, they say, he could have used formal channels
instead of publishing information that could harm American security. Moreover,
many of the activities Mr Snowden revealed—such as the NSA's snooping on
foreigners—are legal in America.
Mr Snowden probably has more to reveal: perhaps as many as 1.7m of the
agency's documents, representing the "keys to the kingdom", says Rick
Ledgett, the NSA official charged with assessing the damage. Mr Ledgett has
suggested granting Mr Snowden amnesty in return for his stash. But the White
House says no.
On December 17th President Barack Obama met the bosses of some of
America's biggest tech firms. Several, including Apple, Facebook and Google
(but no telecoms firms, oddly), have called for curbs on the snooping. They
worry that they will lose customers if the public thinks they hoover up
people's personal information and hand it to spooks.
Already some countries, such as Brazil, are writing much stricter rules
for firms that handle their citizens' data. The European Union is also tussling
with America over how such data may be collected and used by companies. Should
all this make it harder and costlier for companies to gather information, that
would hurt the likes of Facebook and Google, which depend on knowing enough
about their customers to ping them with ads that match their tastes.
All of this comes as the White House mulls new limits on surveillance
recommended by a presidential advisory committee. Its suggestions are
classified, but reportedly include new privacy protections, even as the bulk
collection of phone records continues. One idea is to have lawyers paid to
argue against the intelligence agencies in front of the secret courts that hear
requests for permission to snoop. Spying is about to get harder.
Update: The White House has released the recommendations of the
advisory committee set up to review the NSA's activities. As expected, the
panel urged Mr Obama to end the government's collection of Americans' phone
records and place that responsibility in the hands of the phone companies or a
third party. The government would then be permitted to access the data with an
order from the FISA court. A potential obstacle is that the phone companies
retain data for different periods of time, some for as little as six months.
The panel recommended the government halt several activities that
undermine confidence in American products. It urged the administration to
clearly show that "it will not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken or
make vulnerable generally available commercial encryption" and stop
undermining work on secure encryption standards. It also recommended changes to
the way the government discovers and employs hacking tools—some of which depend
on finding flaws in common computer programs—that could be used in
cyberattacks, like the Stuxnet attack on Iran.
The panel said operations to spy on foreign leaders should have to pass
a diplomatic and economic cost-benefit analysis and be approved by the
president and his advisers, not the intelligence agencies. It also recommended
increase protections, similar to those for Americans, for foreign targets of
intelligence.
Mr Obama will decide on the recommendations in the new year.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
