In the wake of parts of the Patriot Act being phased out and replaced by the USA Freedom Act, the discussion of security reforms once again rose to the forefront. One of the pieces of the USA Freedom Act centers around bulk metadata collection, which is the collection of phone records, phone numbers, and duration of calls. Under the Patriot Act, the National Security Administration (NSA) collected the data directly. Now, under the USA Freedom Act, that data must be subpoenaed by the NSA from phone companies.
Recently, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) wrote an op-ed for USA Today where he wrote about why he thought it was a good idea to extend the bulk metadata collection policy of the Patriot Act. In justifying the collection program, Rubio wrote this:
"There is not a single documented case of abuse" of the bulk metadata collection program.
Our partners at PolitiFact Florida decided to take a look at Rubio's claim to see if he was accurate. PolitiFact reporter Joshua Gillin says that Rubio's claim rates HALF TRUE on the Truth-O-Meter. Gillin says that it all depends on how you define the word "abuse."
"There are a few different things going on here that we have to define," said Gillin. "First is the different acts. Parts of the Patriot Act have expired and they've been either replaced or supplanted by the USA Freedom Act. In both, there are rules spelled out for bulk data collection. Secondly, you have to define the word 'abuse' as opposed to 'misuse.' Abuse generally implies malevolent intent, while misuse doesn't necessarily imply intentional violations of the rules."
It's because of that lack of definition that puts Rubio's claim on less solid footing. "There were plenty of documented cases of procedures not being followed properly," said Gillin. "There's not really any evidence that any of those cases were intentional. Now, is that abuse or misuse? That becomes the problem with Rubio's assertion."
Because Rubio did not differentiate between misuse and abuse, his claim becomes a bit more unclear, which leads to a HALF TRUE rating on PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter.
SOURCES: Abuse of the bulk metadata collection program?
- PolitiFact ruling
- U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, "Report of the United States," Aug. 31, 2009
- Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, "Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act," Jan. 23, 2014
- U.S. Department of Justice, "Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, Director Keith B. Alexander and General Counsel Robert S. Litt Testify Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee," Dec. 11, 2013
- U.S. Second District Court of Appeals, "ACLU vs. Clapper," May 7, 2015
- U.S. Senate, "Roll Call Votes 114th Congress," June 2, 2015
- U.S. House of Representatives, "Final Vote Results For Roll Call 224," May 13, 2015
- New York Times, "U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited," June 2, 2015
- The Guardian, "Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations," June 11, 2013
- Washington Post, "NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program," July 10, 2013
- Email interview with Molly Bishop Shadel, senior fellow at the University of Virginia Center for National Security Law, June 2, 2015
- Email interview with Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, May 27-June 2, 2015
- Email interview with Jonathan Mayer, cybersecurity fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, June 3, 2015