Confronting the Electronic Surveillance 'Legal Void'

By Tricchinelli, Rob | News Media and the Law, Fall 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Confronting the Electronic Surveillance 'Legal Void'

Tricchinelli, Rob, News Media and the Law

Secrecy of surveillance orders prevents effective coverage of government monitoring activity

Stephen W. Smith, a federal magistrate judge in Houston, regularly hears government requests for electronic surveillance, including access to cellular telephone and email records.

This work done by Smith and his fellow magistrate judges in die U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, however, is but a small piece of the overall electronic surveillance scheme undertaken by U.S. law enforcement agencies, both federal and state.

A recent article by Smith published in a prestigious legal journal, along with related disclosures by government officials and cellphone carriers, have thrown light on a burgeoning expansion of electronic surveillance used in law enforcement investigations - a significant revelation given that under the federal law authorizing the surveillance, many of the requests become secret and stay that way indefinitely.

Although litde aggregate data exist, what is available shows that the government's use of electronic surveillance during investigations is rising dramatically, in both secrecy and frequency, a trend that threatens journalists' ability to effectively cover courts and law enforcement investigations and accurately report on the extent of government intrusion into individuals' digital lives.

A law that threatens transparency

The law behind it all is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), enacted in 1986. The ECPA predates common use of search engines, smartphones and countless other instant communications technologies, but governments still use its aging structural framework to conduct surveillance.

Perhaps more troubling, though, is an often overlooked aspect of the law: its "regime of secrecy" that trumps even that of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which hears requests for surveillance warrants against people suspected of being foreign intelligence operatives, according to Smidi's article.

Under the ECPA, the authorizing judge is required to seal the order granting a government request to wiretap electronic communications, and the order remains in effect "until further order of the court." The law requires notifying the targets of the investigation within 90 days, but this requirement can be, and routinely is, postponed. In addition, courts routinely issue gag orders prohibiting service providers and their employees from disclosing to anyone the existence of certain types of approved surveillance or the underlying investigation, leaving the public and news media in the dark about the true breadth of the law and its application in individual cases.

"The careful balance of privacy and security set by Congress is inevitably washed away by a torrent of secret orders, unrestrained by the usual adversarial and appellate processes," Smith said in his article, which appeared this past summer in Harvard Law & Policy Review, the official journal of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy published twice annually by Harvard Law School.

"Through a potent mix of indefinite sealing, nondisclosure (i.e., gagging), and delayed-notice provisions, ECPA surveillance orders all but vanish into a legal void. It is as if they were written in invisible ink."

One solution to the disturbing trend, Smith said, is recognition of and adherence to the well-established law governing the right of public access to the nation's court system - jurisprudence that "condemns" secrecy and promotes openness.

The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken repeatedly on the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, Smith said, noting the dictate from the Court's 1980 landmark opinion Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia that "people in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing."

Application of the law

Smith's article relied on a 2009 study of 2006 data and, with extrapolation and analysis, concluded that federal courts issued more than 30,000 secret electronic surveillance orders in 2006.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Confronting the Electronic Surveillance 'Legal Void'


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?