Editing National Security Agency (section)

=== Congressional oversight ===
[[File:Ron Wyden and James Clapper - 6 June 2013.webm|thumb|Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]] The Intelligence Committees of the US House and Senate exercise primary oversight over the NSA; other members of Congress have been denied access to materials and information regarding the agency and its activities.<ref>Greenwald, Glen, "[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA]", ''The Guardian'', August 4, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.</ref> The [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]], the secret court charged with regulating the NSA's activities is, according to its chief judge, incapable of investigating or verifying how often the NSA breaks even its own secret rules.<ref>Loennig, C., "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-ability-to-police-us-spying-program-limited/2013/08/15/4a8c8c44-05cd-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231008052647/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-ability-to-police-us-spying-program-limited/2013/08/15/4a8c8c44-05cd-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html |date=2023-10-08 }}", ''The Washington Post'', August 16, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.</ref> It has since been reported that the NSA violated its own rules on data access thousands of times a year, many of these violations involving large-scale data interceptions.<ref>Gellman, B. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds], ''The Washington Post'', August 15, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.</ref> NSA officers have even used data intercepts to spy on love interests;<ref>Gorman, S. [https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/ NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140401212529/http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/ |date=2014-04-01 }}, Wall St Journal, August 23, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.</ref> "most of the NSA violations were self-reported, and each instance resulted in administrative action of termination."<ref>Andrea Peterson, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/ LOVEINT: When NSA officers use their spying power on love interests] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924092154/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/ |date=2023-09-24 }}, ''The Washington Post'' (August 24, 2013).</ref>{{Attribution needed|date=July 2020}}

The NSA has "generally disregarded the special rules for disseminating United States person information" by illegally sharing its intercepts with other law enforcement agencies.<ref name="AckermanFisa">Spencer Ackerman, November 19, 2013, "[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/fisa-court-documents-nsa-violations-privacy Fisa court documents reveal extent of NSA disregard for privacy restrictions]", ''The Guardian''. Retrieved November 21, 2013.</ref> A March 2009 FISA Court opinion, which the court released, states that protocols restricting data queries had been "so frequently and systemically violated that it can be fairly said that this critical element of the overall ... regime has never functioned effectively."<ref>John D Bates (October 3, 2011). "[https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf &#91;redacted&#93;] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130824171345/https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf |date=2013-08-24 }}". p. 16.</ref><ref>Ellen Nakashima, Julie Tate, and Carol Leonnig (September 10, 2013). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/declassified-court-documents-highlight-nsa-violations/2013/09/10/60b5822c-1a4b-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html Declassified court documents highlight NSA violations in data collection for surveillance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228045431/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/declassified-court-documents-highlight-nsa-violations/2013/09/10/60b5822c-1a4b-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html |date=2022-02-28 }}". ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved September 14, 2013.</ref> In 2011 the same court noted that the "volume and nature" of the NSA's bulk foreign Internet intercepts was "fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe".<ref name="AckermanFisa" /> Email contact lists (including those of US citizens) are collected at numerous foreign locations to work around the illegality of doing so on US soil.<ref name="GellmanSoltaniAddress" />

Legal opinions on the NSA's bulk collection program have differed. In mid-December 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the "almost-Orwellian" program likely violates the Constitution, and wrote, "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, [[James Madison]], who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast."<ref name="LeonRuling">Richard Leon, December 16, 2013, ''[https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/dec/16/nsa-collection-phone-metadata-district-court-ruling Memorandum Opinion, Klayman vs. Obama]''. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Reproduced on The Guardian website. Retrieved February 3, 2013.</ref>

Later that month, U.S. District Judge [[William H. Pauley III|William Pauley]] ruled that the NSA's collection of telephone records is legal and valuable in the fight against terrorism. In his opinion, he wrote, "a bulk telephony metadata collection program [is] a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data" and noted that a similar collection of data before 9/11 might have prevented the attack.<ref>{{cite web |last=Bazzle |first=Steph |title=Judge Says NSA's Data Collection Is Legal |url=http://www.indyposted.com/227717/judge-says-nsas-data-collection-legal/ |publisher=Indyposted |access-date=December 28, 2013 |date=December 27, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131228162843/http://www.indyposted.com/227717/judge-says-nsas-data-collection-legal/ |archive-date=December 28, 2013 }}</ref>