A collection of civil-liberties and free-speech advocates, including the popular Wikipedia site, announced Tuesday they are suing the National Security Agency over its broad surveillance of U.S. Internet traffic, in part based on information gleaned from NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
The lawsuit — a second attempt by some of the plaintiffs — comes as both public and Congressional opinion is turning against federal surveillance programs authorized under the Patriot Act.
“We’re filing suit today on behalf of our readers and editors everywhere,” said Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.
“Surveillance erodes the original promise of the internet: an open space for collaboration and experimentation, and a place free from fear,” he said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
The nine plaintiffs include the Wikimedia Foundation and Amnesty International, and are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The suit claims that the NSA’s surveillance is violating citizens’ constitutional rights, and asks the court to put an end to the program. The Justice Department is also named as a defendant for crafting the legal authorization for domestic spying.
SEE ALSO: FBI surveillance tactics jeopardized by fight over NSA phone snooping program
Dubbed “upstream” surveillance, the NSA’s use of such programs “reduces the likelihood that clients, users, journalists, witnesses, experts, civil society organizations, foreign government officials, victims of human rights abuses and other individuals will share sensitive information,” the lawsuit says.
Representatives for the NSA did not respond to reporters’ request for comment Tuesday. A Justice Department spokesman told The Washington Times that the agency is currently reviewing the complaint.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the NSA uses as authority for its bulk data collection, is set to expire in June unless it gets reauthorization from Congress. But lawmakers have so far seemed unwilling to support the act unless they make major changes addressing civil liberties concerns.
In 2013, Mr. Snowden revealed that the NSA was collecting bulk data on U.S. citizens, including email exchanges and phone records. It set off a firestorm of controversies, with some accusing Mr. Snowden, who fled the U.S. for Communist China and now resides in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, of treason and others hailing him as a national hero.
A previous attempt to sue the NSA in 2013, Amnesty v. Clapper, was rejected by the Supreme Court, the justices ruling 5-4 that the plaintiffs, led by Amnesty International, didn’t have standing because they couldn’t prove the NSA had directly harmed or targeted them.
But Wikimedia said that NSA records disclosed by Mr. Snowden included direct references to Wikipedia, arguing that means they now have legal standing to bring the case and won’t be dismissed like in 2013.
The NSA’s surveillance programs have been under strict public scrutiny since Mr. Snowden’s defection, and pressure has mounted to rein in what many have called government overreach and intrusion into citizens’ private lives.
A January 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center and USA Today, shortly after the Snowden revelations, found that public opinion had started to shift against the NSA surveillance, with 53 percent of Americans disapproving of the program surveillance, the first time the number was more than half.
When asked about surveillance in general, 70 percent of Americans told the USA Today / Pew pollsters that they are concerned security concerns may be going too far in trampling on personal freedoms.
Naureen Shah, the director of Amnesty International USA’s Security and Human Rights program, said in a statement that surveillance is “thwarting” the group’s efforts to communicate with victims of human rights abuses.
“Our sources are often survivors and witnesses to horrific abuses, and they are taking a personal risk when they reach out to us,” Ms. Shah said. “If these witnesses and survivors of abuse fear we are under surveillance, they won’t talk to us — and if they don’t talk to us, we can’t do the work.”
But Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor and current partner at law firm Dorsey and Whitney, said he thinks the lawsuit will ultimately be rejected because the NSA would have had legal jurisdiction from secretive counter-terrorism courts set up by the U.S. to issue warrants for surveillance.
“They’d only do that if there was a court order,” he said.
Mr. Akerman said it was “ridiculous” to try to put a blanket rule in place that would prevent the NSA from conducting online surveillance.
“Otherwise, the only people who could go out on the Internet and start looking at this stuff is the bad guys,” he said.
• Phillip Swarts can be reached at pswarts@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.