DOJ request for more time with private data denied
As it stands, the information that the Agency collects can only be stored for five years, but several pending lawsuits fall outside that scope of time and would require the additional preservation of information.
March 10, 2014 at 07:09 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The National Security Agency has been widely criticized for its ongoing collection of data from United States citizens. However this past week, the court in charge of the covert activities of the NSA pushed back on a request by the Department of Justice to extend how long it could store private information. The moved potentially marks changing attitudes towards what is acceptable in the face of national security.
As it stands, the information that the Agency collects can only be stored for five years, but several pending lawsuits fall outside that scope of time and would require the additional preservation of information prompting the request. Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Reggie Walton said in a decision issued on Mar. 7 that the NSA was still a source of privacy issues for the public, and therefore would be denied the ability to store unused information for any longer.
“The amended procedures would further infringe on the privacy interests of United States persons whose telephone records were acquired in vast numbers and retained by the government to aid in national security investigations,” Walton said in his order.
Walton continued, saying, “The great majority of these individuals have never been the subject of investigations by the FBI to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The government seeks to retain these records, not for national security reasons, but because some of them may be relevant in civil litigation in which the destruction of those very same records is being requested. However, the civil plaintiffs potentially interested in preserving the (telecom) metadata have expressed no desire to acquire the records.”
While the denial of this request would stop the Department of Justice from holding onto data indefinitely, information that either currently being used in an investigation or flagged in anyway would not be subject to the restrictions.
For more developments on data security and privacy check out these stories:
Apple data breach compromises users of iOS and OS X
Technology companies form coalition to counter NSA data collection
State lawmakers trying to rein in feds
The National Security Agency has been widely criticized for its ongoing collection of data from United States citizens. However this past week, the court in charge of the covert activities of the NSA pushed back on a request by the Department of Justice to extend how long it could store private information. The moved potentially marks changing attitudes towards what is acceptable in the face of national security.
As it stands, the information that the Agency collects can only be stored for five years, but several pending lawsuits fall outside that scope of time and would require the additional preservation of information prompting the request. Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Reggie Walton said in a decision issued on Mar. 7 that the NSA was still a source of privacy issues for the public, and therefore would be denied the ability to store unused information for any longer.
“The amended procedures would further infringe on the privacy interests of United States persons whose telephone records were acquired in vast numbers and retained by the government to aid in national security investigations,” Walton said in his order.
Walton continued, saying, “The great majority of these individuals have never been the subject of investigations by the FBI to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The government seeks to retain these records, not for national security reasons, but because some of them may be relevant in civil litigation in which the destruction of those very same records is being requested. However, the civil plaintiffs potentially interested in preserving the (telecom) metadata have expressed no desire to acquire the records.”
While the denial of this request would stop the Department of Justice from holding onto data indefinitely, information that either currently being used in an investigation or flagged in anyway would not be subject to the restrictions.
For more developments on data security and privacy check out these stories:
Technology companies form coalition to counter NSA data collection
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250