Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Full case name	Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al.
Judge sitting	T. S. Ellis III[1]
Counsel for plaintiff(s)	American Civil Liberties Union, Cooley LLP
Plaintiff(s)	Wikimedia Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation, Rutherford Institute, Washington Office on Latin America.
Defendant(s)	National Security Agency, United States Department of Justice, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence, Department of Justice, and Eric H. Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.

Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. is a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA.^[2][3][4] The suit claims upstream surveillance breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.^[5]

The suit is filed in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland; the NSA is based in Fort Meade, Maryland.^[6]

The plaintiffs are the Wikimedia Foundation,^[7] the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, the PEN American Center, the Global Fund for Women, The Nation magazine,^[8] the Rutherford Institute, and the Washington Office on Latin America.^[5][9]

NSA slide referring to Wikipedia as a surveillance target

Upstream surveillance was first revealed by Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst.^[10] A previous challenge by the ACLU, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, failed for lack of standing, but Wikimedia and the ACLU believe their new lawsuit will succeed in the light of Snowden's disclosures, citing a classified NSA slide that specifically referred to Wikipedia.^[11] Since Clapper, the government itself has confirmed many of the key facts about NSA's upstream surveillance, including that it conducts suspicionless searches.^[7] ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey noted the lawsuit is particularly relevant as the plaintiffs engage in "hundreds of billions of international communications" annually. Any program of upstream surveillance must necessarily sweep up a substantial part of these communications.^[7][12]

On August 6, 2015, the defendants brought a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that they have been injured by upstream collection of data and thus lack standing to sue. In response, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of libraries and booksellers.^[13] Both sides presented oral arguments at a hearing on September 25, 2015.^[14]

On October 23, 2015, the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the suit on grounds of standing. US District Judge T. S. Ellis III ruled that the plaintiffs could not plausibly prove they were subject to upstream surveillance, echoing the 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International US.^[15][16] The Wikimedia Foundation said it expected to appeal the decision. The Foundation said its complaint had merit, and that there was no question that upstream surveillance captured the communications of both its user community and the Wikimedia Foundation itself.^[17] The Electronic Frontier Foundation, who had filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, said it was perverse to dismiss a suit for lack of proof (standing) when the surveillance program complained of was secret, and urged federal courts to tackle the serious constitutional issues that upstream surveillance presents.^[18]

National Security Agency surveillance
Map of global NSA data collection
Programs Pre-1978 ECHELON MINARET SHAMROCK PROMIS Since 1978 Upstream collection BLARNEY FAIRVIEW Main Core ThinThread Since 2001 OAKSTAR STORMBREW Trailblazer Project Turbulence President's Surveillance Program Terrorist Surveillance Program Since 2007 PRISM Dropmire Stateroom Bullrun MYSTIC MonsterMind (alleged) Databases, tools etc. PINWALE MARINA MAINWAY TRAFFICTHIEF DISHFIRE XKeyscore ICREACH BOUNDLESSINFORMANT GCHQ collaboration MUSCULAR Tempora Mastering the Internet Global Telecoms Exploitation
Legislation FISA Protect America Act of 2007 FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Patriot Act
Institutions FISC Senate Intelligence Committee
Lawsuits ACLU v. NSA Hepting v. AT&T Jewel v. NSA Clapper v. Amnesty Klayman v. Obama ACLU v. Clapper Wikimedia v. NSA
Whistleblowers William Binney Thomas Drake Mark Klein Edward Snowden Thomas Tamm Russ Tice
Publication 2005 warrantless surveillance scandal 2013 mass surveillance scandal
Related Cablegate Surveillance of reporters Mail tracking UN diplomatic spying Insider Threat Program Mass surveillance in the United States Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom
Concepts SIGINT Metadata
Collaboration United States CSS CYBERCOM DOJ FBI CIA DHS IAO Five Eyes CSEC GCHQ ASD GCSB Other DGSE BND

See also

• Edward Snowden
• Clapper v. Amnesty International
• Jewel v. NSA

References

External links

• Wikimedia v NSA infopage from ACLU
• Complaint from ACLU
• Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency FAQ
• NSA – Why Are We Interested in HTTP? (slide revealed by Edward Snowden showing Wikipedia as a surveillance target)