august 2013 nsa compliance report

7/27/2019 August 2013 NSA Compliance Report

1/52


2/52

TOP SECRIlTIiSIIfjojOFOR:';(U) SEMIANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURES AND

GUIDELINES ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 702 OF THE FOREIGNINTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERALAND THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

August 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(U) Executive Summary(U) Section I: Introduction(U) Section 2: Oversight of the Implementation of Section 702

is). I.(SIINF) II.tS ) III.tS) IV .IS} V.

Join t Oversight ofNSAJoin t Oversight orelAloint Oversight of FBIInteragencylProgrammatic OversightOther Compliance Efforts

l F O u ~ Section 3: Trends in Section 702 Targeting and Minimization-tS1 I.mIl.

(SIIIJF) Ill.Trends in NSA Targeting and MinimizationTrends in FBI Targeting and Mi nimizationTrends in CIA Minimization

(U) Section 4: Compliance Assessment - Findings(U) I.

.(S1- II.~ / , q ; 1 ' Y I l l.

tS) IV.~ V .

Compliance Incidents - GeneralReview ofCompliance Incidents - NSA Targeting andMinimization ProceduresReview ofCompliance Incidents- eLA Minimization ProceduresReview ofCompliance Incidents - FBI Targeting andMinimization ProceduresReview ofCompliance Incidents - Provider Incidents(U) Section 5: Conclusion(U) Appendix A

TOP ~ E e I t E ' f , y S I I l N O F O R N

235689III I

14

14172022232835363637

A-I


3/52

'fOP SECIH:'fffSIIINOFOItN(U) Semiannual Assessment of Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant

to Section 702 of tbe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Submitted by the AttorneyGeneral and the Director of National Intelligence

August 2013Reporting Period: June 1, 2012 - November 30, 2012

(ID EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(U) The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (hereinafter "FAA") requires the Attorney Generaland the Director of National Intelligence to assess compliance with certain procedures andguidelines issued pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,

50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as amended, (hereinafter "FISA" or "the Act") and to submit suchassessments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and relevant congressionalcommittees at least once every six months. This report sets forth the Department of Justice,National Security Division (NSD) and Office of Director of National Intelligence's (ODNI) ninthjoint compliance assessment under Section 702, covering the period June 1, 2012, throughNovember 30, 2012 (hereinafter the "reporting period"). This report accompanies the SemiannualReport of the Attorney General Concerning Acquisitions under Section 702 of the ForeignIntelligence Surveillance Act, which was submitted as required by Section 707(b)(I) ofFISA(hereinafter "the Section 707 Report") on March 11 , 2013, and covers the same reporting period.

(U) Compliance assessment activities have been jointly conducted by NSD and O DNI.Specifically, the joint team consisted of members from NSD, ODNI's Civil Liberties and PrivacyOffice (CLPO), OONI's Office of General Counsel (OGC), and OONI' s Office of the DeputyDirector for Intelligence IntegrationlMission Integration Division (DD/IIIMID). NSD and ODNIhave assessed the oversight process used since Section 702 was implemented in 2008, and haveidentified improvements in the Intelligence Community personnel's awareness of and compliancewith the restrictions imposed by the statute, targeting procedures, minimization procedures and theAttorney General Guidelines.

(Sn't'iF) The joint team has found that a vast majority of compliance incidents reported inthe Section 707 Reports have been self-identified by the agencies, sometimes as a result ofpreparation for the joint reviews. In discussing compliance incidents in this SemiannualAssessment (hereinafter al so referred to as the Joint Assessment), the focus is on incidents that havethe greatest potential to impact United States persons' privacy interests; intra- and in teragencycommunications; the effect of human errors on the conduct of acquisition; and the effect oftechnical issues on the conduct of acquisition.

~ This Joint Assessment finds that the agencies have continued to implement theprocedures and follow the guidelines in a manner that reflects a focused and concerted effort byagency personnel to comply with the requirements of Section 702. The personnel involved inimplementing the authorities are appropriately focused on directing their efforts at non-UnitedStates persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for the purpose ofacquiring foreign intelligence infonnation. Processes are in place to implement these authorities

TOP SECRETHSIlfNOFOItN 2


4/52

TOP SECRETflSIIINOI'OItNand to impose internal controls for compliance and verification purposes. The compliance incidentswhich occurred during the reporting period represent a very small percentage of the overallcollection activity, which has increased from the last Joint Assessment. Individual incidents,however, can have broader implications, as further discussed herein and in the Section 707 Report.Based upon a review of these compliance incidents, the joint team believes that none of theseincidents represent an intentional attempt to circumvent or violate the Act, the targeting orminimization procedures, or the Attorney General's Acquisition Guidelines.

(U) SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION(U) The FISA Amendments Act 0[2008, relevant portions ofwhich are codified at

50 U.S.C. 1881 - 1881g (hereinafter "FAA"), requires the Attorney General and the Director ofNationallntelligence (DNI) to assess compliance with certain procedures and guidelines issuedpursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.c. 180 I elseq., as amended (hereinafter "FISA" or "the Act"), and to submit such assessments to the ForeignIntelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and relevant congressional committees at least once everysix months. As required by the Act, a team of oversight personnel from the Department of Justice'sNational Security Division (NSD) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)have conducted compliance reviews to assess whether the authorities under Section 702 of FISA(hereinafter "Section 702") have been implemented in accordance with the applicable proceduresand guidelines, discussed herein. This report sets forth NSO and OONI's ninth joint complianceassessment under Section 702, covering the period June I, 2012, through November 30, 2012(hereinafter the "reporting period,,).l

(U) Section 702 requires that the Attorney General, in consultation with the DNl, adopttargeting and minimization procedures, as well as guidelines. A primary purpose of the guidelinesis to ensure compliance with the limitations set forth in subsection (b) of Section 702, which are asfollows:

An acquisition authorized under subsection (a}-(I ) may not intentionally target any person known at the time ofacquisition to belocated in the United States;(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside theUnited States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known

person reasonably believed to be in the United States;(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be

located outside the United States;(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and allintended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to bc located in the

United States; andI (U) This report accompanies the Semiannual Report of the Attorney General Concerning Acquisitions under Section702 of the Fo reign intelligence Surveillance Act, which was previously submitted on March 1\, 2013, as required bySection 707(b)(J) of FISA. and covers the same reporting period.

T O P S E C R T H S ~ O F O R N3


5/52

TOP SECREl'HSIHNOFOR."(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to theConstitution of the United States.

These guidelines, the Attorney General's Guidelines for the Acquisition of Foreign IntelligenceInfonnation Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended (hereinafter"the Attorney General's Acquisition Guidelines"), were adopted by the Attorney General inconsultation with the DN! on August 5, 2008.

(TSHSIIfNF) During the reporting period, the Attorney General and ONISection certifications, all of which reauthorized p",vic)\li

which featured modifications from thetargeting and minimization procedures used in previous certifications. The AtI:onlevAcquisition Guidelines applicable for each certification remained unchanged.Constitutional requirements. These certifications, and all associated documents were2012, the FISC held that the targetin!ind minimization procedures met all statutorypreviously provided to the congresslOna committees on September 28, 2012, and as attachments tothe Semiannual Report of the Attorney General Concerning Acquisitions under Section 702 ofFISA, March 2013, submitted as required by Section 707(b)(I) ofFISA (hereinafterthe "Section707 Report") filed on March 11,2013.

"'(SHNF) Three agencies are primarily involved in implementing Section 702: the NationalSecurity Agencl (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA). An overview of how these agencies implement the authority appears in AppendixA of this assessment.! (BmW) The other agency involved in implementing Section 702 is the National Counterterrorism Center (NCfq,which has a limited role, as reflected in the recently approved "Minimization Procedures Used by NCTe in connectionwith Information Acquired by the FBI pUflluant to Section 702 of FISA, as amended." Under these limitedminimization procedures, NCTC is not authorized to receive unminimized Seclion 702 data. Rather, these proceduresrecognize thai, in light ofNCTC's statutory counterterrorism ro le and mission, NCfC has been provided access tocertain FBI systems containing minimized Section 702 information, and prescribe how NCTC is to treat thatinformation. For example, because NCTC is not a law enforcement agency, it may nol receive disseminations ofSection 702 information that is evidence of a crime, but whieh has no foreign intelligence value; accordingly, NCfC'sminimization procedures require in situations in which NCTC pefllonnel discover purely law enforcement informationwith no foreign intelligence value in the course of reviewing minimized foreign intelligence information that the NCTCpersonnel either purge that information (i f the information has been ingested into NCTC systems) or not use, retain, ordisseminate the information (i f the information has been viewed in FBI systems). No incidents of noncompliance with 4

TQI' SIi:CRIi:THS!#NQFQR."


6/52

TOP SECItETfISIIIN0f10RN

(U//"FbooJ. Section Two of this Joint Assessment provides a comprehensive overview ofoversight measures the Government employs to ensure compliance with the targeting andminimization procedures, as well as the Attorney General 's Acquisition Guidelines. Section Threecompiles and presents data acquired from the joint oversight team's compliance reviews in order toprovide insight into the overall scope of the Section 702 program, as well as trends in targeting,reporting, and the minimization ofUnited States person infonnation. Section Four describescompliance trends. All of the specific compliance incidents for the reporting period have beenpreviously described in detail in the Section 707 Report. As with the prior Joint Assessments, someof those compliance incidents are analyzed here to determine whether there are patterns or trendsthat might indicate underlying causes that could be addressed through additional measures, and toassess whether the agency involved has implemented processes to prevent recurrences.

( U / ~ In summary, the joint team finds that the agencies have continued to implementthe procedures and follow the guidelines in a manner that reflects a focused and concerted effort byagency personnel to comply with the requirements of Section 702 during this reporting period. Asin the prior Joint Assessments, the joint team has not found indications in the compliance incidentsthat have been reported or otherwise identified of any intentional or willful attempts to violate orcircumvent the requirements of the Act. The number of compliance incidents remains small,particularly when compared with the total amount of targeting and collection activity. To reducethe number of future compliance incidents, the Government will continue to focus on measures toimprove communications, training, and monitoring of collection systems, as well as monitor purgepractices and withdrawal of disseminated reports as may be required.3 Further, the joint oversightteam will also monitor agency practices to ensure appropriate remediation steps are taken toprevent, whenever possible, reoccurrences of the types of compliance incidents discussed hereinand in the Section 707 Report.

(U) SECTION 2: OVERSIGHT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 702(Sh'NF) The implementation of Section 702 is a multi-agency effort. As described in detail

in Appendix A, NSA and FBI each aC(lui,"';pro,oedLlfe," NSA, FBI, andeach handle Section 702-"cq[uilred. There are differences in the way each agency implements its procedures resulting fromunique provisions in the procedures themselves, differences in how these agencies utilize Section702-acquired data, and efficiencies from using preexisting systems to implement Section 702the NCTC minimization procedures were identified during this reporting period. The joint oversight team will beassessing NCTC's compliance with its minimization procedures in the next reporting period.3 (U//Fbt;co In November 20 I2, during fmal review of the prior Assessment, the NSA Office of inspector Generalshared with NSD and DONI the results of its study ofNSA s management controls of its Section 702 program. TheOffice of the Inspector General subsequently revised its study in March 2013. NSD and OONI are currently reviewingthese result,> and will incorporate any re levant additional informalion resulting from the review in the next Jo intAssessment.

TOP SECIMSTIiSliII'IO.,ORN 5


7/52

'fOP SECRE'fh'SlfflI'OFORNauthorities. Because of these differences in practice and procedure, there are correspondingdifferences in both the internal compliance programs each agency has developed and in the externaloversight programs conducted by NSD and ODNL

(U) A joint team has been assembled to conduct compliance assessment activities,consisting of members from NSD's Office of Intelligence (01), ODNl's Civil Liberties and PrivacyOffice (CLPO), OONI's Office of General Counsel (OONI OGC), and OONI's Office of theDeputy Director for Intelligence IntegrationIMission Integration Division (ODNI DD/IIIMID). Theteam members play complementary roles in the review process. The following describes theoversight activities of the joint team, the results ofwhich, in conjunction with the internal oversightconducted by the reviewed agencies, provide the basis for this Joint Assessment.

1 S J I ! ~ 1 1 l l . I. Joint Oversight of NSA(Sflt.f) Under the process established by the Attorney General and Director ofNationalIntelligence's certifications, all Section 702 targeting is initiated pursuant to the NSA's targeting

procedures. Additionally, NSA is responsible for conducting post-tasking technical checks of allSection 702-tasked communication facilities" once collection begins. NSA must also minimize itscollection in accordance with its minimization procedures. Each of these responsibilities is detailedin Appendix A. Given its central role in the Section 702 process, NSA has devoted substantialoversight and compliance resources to monitoring its implementation of the Section 702 authorities.NSA's internal oversight and compliance mechanisms are further described in Appendix A.

NSk

~ > , i / j > l l l N f 7 NSD and ODNI's joint oversight ofNSA's i . : ~ ~ e : . ; :~ e \ l i e ' " , s , which NSA s targeting p

702as well as the investigation and reporting ~ : ; ; ~ i ~ ~ ~ c : tfeiitiDg period, NSD and ODNI conducted the following onsite at

Figure 1: '"tiJ.. NSA ReviewsDate Applicable Certifications

December 11, 2012

Taskings/Minimization

October 1, 2012 - November2012

'tst-section 702 authorizes the targeting of non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside theUnited States. This targeting is effectuated by tasking communication facilities (also referred to herein as "selectors"),including but not limited to telephone numbers and electronic communications accounts, 10 Section 702 electroniccommunication service providers. A fuller description of the Section 702 targeting process may be found in theAppendix.TQP SIlCRIlTlf6ll1NOFORN

6


8/52

TOP SilCRilTIISIIRI'Ol'ORNReports for each of these reviews, which document the relevant time period of the review, thenumber and types of selectors, the types of infonnation that NSA relied upon, and a detailedsummary of the findings for that review period, have been provided to the congressional committeeswith the Section 707 Report, as required by Section 707(b)(I)(F) ofFISA.

( S ~ J f ) The review process for NSA targeting begins well before the onsite review. Priorto each review, NSA electronically sends the tasking record (known as a tasking sheet) for eachselector tasked during the review period to NSD and OONI. Members of the joint oversight tcamreview tasking sheets and then NSD prepares a detailed report of the findings, which they sharewith the ODNI members of the review team. During this initial review, NSD attorneys determinewhether the tasking sheets meet the documentation standards required by NSA's targetingprocedures and provide sufficient information for the reviewers to ascertain the basis for NSA'sforeignness determinations. For those tasking sheets that, on their face, meet the standards andprovide sufficient information, no further supporting documentation is requested. The jointoversight team then identifies the tasking sheets that, without further review of the citeddocumentation, did not provide sufficient information, and either sets forth its questions for eachselector or requests that NSA provide the cited documentation for review.

(S/R>lf) During the onsite review, the joint oversight team examines the citeddocumentation underlying these identified tasking sheets, together with NSA Signals IntelligenceDirectorate (SID) Oversight and Compliance personnel, NSA attorneys, and other NSA personnelas required, to ask questions, identify issues, clarify ambiguous entries, and provide guidance onareas of potential improvement. Interaction continues following the onsite reviews in the form of email and telephonic exchanges to answer questions and clarify issues.

( S / ~ J f ) The joint oversight team also reviews NSA's minimization of Section 702-acquireddata. The team reviews a large sample of the serialized reports that NSA has disseminated andidentified as containing Section 702-acquired United States person information. NSD and ODNIalso review a sample ofNSA disseminations to certain foreign government partners made outside ofits serialized reporting process. These disseminations consist of information that NSA hasevaluated for foreign intelligence and minimized, but which may not have been translated intoEnglish. In addition to the dissemination review, NSD and DDNI also review NSA's querying ofunminimized Section 702-acquired communications using United States person identifiers.

( S ~ J F ) The joint oversight team also investigates and reports incidents of noncompliancewith the NSA targeting and minimization procedures, as well as with the Attorney GeneralAcquisition Guidelines. While some of these incidents may be identified during the reviews, mostare identified by NSA analysts or by NSA's internal compliance program. NSA is also required toreport certain events that may not be compliance incidents (e.g., NSA must report any instance inwhich a targeted individual is found to be located in the United States, a circumstance which is onlya compliance incident ifNSA knew or should have known the target was in the United States duringthe collection period), but the report of which may lead to the discovery of an underlyingcompliance incident. Investigations of all of these incidents often result in requests forsupplemental information. All compliance incidents identified by these investigations are reportedto the congressional committees in the Section 707 Report, and to the FISC through quarterlyreports or individualized notices.

7TOP SilCRETIiStIfN61'61tN


9/52

'fOP SIlCRIl'fHSIHNOI'ORN

(SIINf) II. Joint Oversight of CIA

I I ,

(9fflqF) NSD and ODNI also conduct periodic compliance reviews ofelA's application ofits minimization procedures approximately once every two months. For this reporting period, NSDand ODNI conducted the following onsite reviews at CIA:

Figure 2: ~ CIA ReviewsDate of Visit Minimization ReviewedAuous! 22 2012 June 1,2012 - Julv31,2012October 24, 2012 August 1,2012 - September

30,2012December 19,2012 October 1,2012 - November

31,2012Reports for each of these reviews have previously been provided to the congressional committeeswith the Section 707 Report, as required by Section 707(b)(I)(F) ofFISA.

(Sffl


10/52

TOP SECRETIISIHNOFOn,'.Office and CIA OGe, and when necessary, may involve requests for further information, meetingswith CIA legal, analytical, and/or technical personnel, or the review of source documentation. Allcompliance incidents identified by these investigations are reported to the congressional committeesin the Section 707 Report, and to the FISC through quarterly reports or individualized notices.

(SIfNF) III. Joint Oversight of FBI

;;;;e;;;;;:r Coilij;!iiii1Ce programOvOriilgllit program are to ensure FBI's compliance with statutory and proceduralrequirements for each of these three roles. Each of the roles discussed above, as well as the FBI'sinternal compliance program, are set forth in further detail in Appendix A.

manu" process,monthly reviews. For this reporting period, ensite reviews were conducted on the following dates:

TO!' ~ E C R E T H S I / / N O F O I t N


11/52

'1'01' SECU'fIiStHNOFORNFigure 3: 'tSlFBI Reviews

Date of Visit

September 27, 2012

January 23, 2013

Tasking and Minimization

July 2012 taskings; June 2012 -2012 minimization

2012 taskings;August 2012 - September 2012minimizationNovember 2012 taskings;October 2012 - November

minimizationReports for each of these reviews have previously been provided to the congressional committeeswith the Section 707 Report, as required by Section 707(b)(l)(F) ofFISA.

( S ~ ~ F ) In conducting the targeting review, the joint oversight team reviews the targeting,en,i""" personnel involved in the process, together

~ m ; ; s e v e r yThe joint oversight team also reviews a s ~ ~ ~ : ~

~ ~ ; : I : ~ ~ issues. FBI analysts and supervisory are available to answer questions, andp: supporting documentation. The joint oversight team provides guidance on areas ofpotential improvement.

- { a , ~ U 7 With respect to minimization, the joint oversight team re'viewsdocuments related to FBI's~ ~ t h a t

(sttt4f) The joint oversight team also investigates potential incidents of noncompliancewith the FBI targeting and minimization procedures, the Attorney General's Acquisition Guidelines,or other agencies' procedures in which FBI is involved. These investigations are coordinated withFBI OGC and may involve requests for further infonnation, meetings with FBI legal, analytical,and/or technical personnel, or review of source documentation. All compliance incidents identified6 (S/ttlf) Subsequent to the reporting period for this assessment, NSD expanded it minimization reviews in FBI reviewoffices to also examine retention and dissemination decisions made by FBI field office personnel. A full description ofthese new oversight reviews and the results of such reviews will be included in the next Joint Assessment. 10

TOP SECRTIISIIIN0l10Rlli


12/52

' for SIi!CItIi!'fffStlfNOI'ORNby these investigations are reported to the congressional committees in the Section 707 Report, andto the FISC through quarterly reports or individualized notices.

(SHNF) IV. InteragencylProgrammatic Oversight(S/R-4F) Because the implementation and oversight of the Government's Section 702

authorities is a multi-agency effort, investigations of particular compliance incidents may involvemorc than one agency. The resolution ofparticuiar compliance incidents can provide lessonslearned for all agencies. Robust communication among the agencies is required for each toeffectively implement its authorities, gather foreign intelligence, and comply with alllegaJrequirements. For these reasons, NSD and ODNI conduct bimonthly meetings with representativesfrom all agencies implementing Section 702 authorities to discuss and resolve interagency issuesaffecting compliance with the statute and applicable procedures.

(9ffl,F) NSD and ODNl's programmatic oversight also involves efforts to proactivelyminimize the number of incidents of noncompliance. For example, NSD and ODNI have requiredagencies to demonstrate to the joint oversight team new or substantially revised systems involved inSection 702 targeting or minimization prior to implementation. NSD and ODNI personnel alsocontinue to work with the agencies to review, and where appropriate seek modifications of, theirtargeting and minimization procedures in an effort to enhance the Government ' s collection offoreign intelligence infonnation. civil liberties protections, and compliance.

(U) V. Other Compliance Efforts

TOP SECRETh'SIh'NOI'OR,'I


13/52


14/52

TOP SECRE'fh'SIi\'NOI'ORN

(TSHSIHNF) B. Query Processes Using United States Person Identifiers('fSi/9IifUF) As reported in the last semiannual assessment, NSA minimization procedures

now permit NSA to query its databases containing telephony and non-upstream electroniccommunications using United States person identifiers in a manner designed to find foreignintelligence information. Similarly. CIA's minimization procedures have been modified to makeexplicit that CIA may also query its databases using United States person ident ifiers to yield foreignintelligence information.8 As discussed above in the descriptions of the joint oversight team'sefforts at each agency, the joint oversight team conducts reviews of each agency's usc of its abilityto query using United States person identifiers. To date, this review has not identified any incidentsof noncompliance with respect to the use of United States person identifiers; as discussed in Section4, the agencies' internal oversight programs have, however, identified isolated instances in whichSection 702 queries were inadvertently conducted using United States person identifiers.

(U) D. Training( S f ~ l r ) In addition to specific instructions to personnel directly involved in the incidents of

noncompliance discussed in Section 4, the agencies and the joint oversight team have also beenengaged in broader training efforts to ensure compliance with the targeting and minimizationprocedures. NSA is currently updating its compliance training course and consolidating its onlinetraining materials. CIA continues to provide regular FlSA training at least twice a year to all of theattorneys it embeds with CIA operational personnel. CIA has also revised its initial training for itsother personnel to better explain how to apply the legal standards to real world situations. FBI, inconjunction with its broader roll-out of its fonnal Section 702 nomination program, hassubstantially expanded its training program during this reporting period. After consultation withNSD and ODNI, FBI implemented an online training program regarding nominations and the

c=____ _" p"ov;ded that agency the ability tooffice reviews over the lasl several

l3TOP SI>CRETHStllNOl'OItN


15/52

'fOI' SECItE'fffSIIIN0l101tNrequirements of FBI already had an online training regardingcompliance with procedures. NSD and FBI have also conductednumerous in-person trainings at FBI field offices.

( U / ~ SECTION 3: TRENDS IN SECTION 702TARGETING AND MINIMIZATION( S ~ 4 r ) In conducting the above-described oversight program, NSD, ODNI, and the

agencies have collected a substantial amount of data regarding the implementation of Section 702.In this section, a comprehensive collection of this data has been compiled in order to identifyoverall trends in the agencies targeting, minimization, and compliance.(SHNpt I. Trends in NSA Targeting and Minimization

( T 8 i 1 8 ~ l f ) NSA reportscollection pursuant to Certillie'ltic,ns~ a y during the reporting_ se lectors under collection on any given day in the reporting oend.IS comparable to the rate of increase in the prior reporting periods, whichrespectively. As Figure 4 demonstrates, with one exception, the average numbercollection has increased every reporting period.

( T S I I S I ~ l f ) It is anticipated that the average number of tasked selectors will continue to

TOP SECRETHSINNOFORL'I14


16/52

TOP 8ECRET!l8WNOfORN

increase. The rate of increase may accelerate now that FBI has made its nomination process morewidely available to its fie ld office personnel.

\f:9HSlffNfi The above statistics describe the average number of selectors under collectionat any given time during the reporting period. The total number of newly tasked sel,ee!(the reporting period provides another useful metric.1O . documentationtaskings during the reporting period. in new task ingsprevious reporting period. taskings in the currentreporting period were telephone of the newly-taskedselectors were electronic communications accounts.

(TSIfSlh'f'4f) Figure 5 charts the total monthly numbers of newly tasked facilities sincecollection pursuant to Section 702 began in September 2008.11

10 ( S j ~ C N F ) The tenn newly tasked selectors refers to any selector that was added to collect ion under a certification. Thistenn includes any selector added to collection pursuant to the Section 702 targeting procedures ; some of these newlytasked selectors are therefore selectors that had been previously tasked for collection, were detasked, and now have beenrelasked.11 ( S / ~ I F ) For 2008 and 2009, the chart includes laskings under the last Protect America Act of2007 (PAA)certification, Certification 08-01, which was not replaced by a Section 702(g) certification until early Apri l 2009.

TOP 8ECRETMSllfNOFORN 15


17/52

TOP SECRETHSIIiNOFORN

As the chart demonstrates, the number of newly tasked tdepllo"ebegan to increase again in 12. The ofthe first 11 months of 20 12 As has been the case program wascommunication accounts has continued to increase . The average number ofcommunications accounts tasked each month for the flrst 11 months of2012increase from the prior year.

(TS#SIIa-JE).. With respect to minimization, for this reporting period NSA identified to NSDand ODNI_ serialized reports ba i j edon minimized Section 702- or Protect America Act( P A A ) a c q ~ a t a . This represents increase from the such serialized reports NSAidentified in the prior reporting period. As emonstrated byFi.WhiCh reflects NSA reportingsince latc 2009. this increase represents a continuation of the overall increase in the number ofreports based on Section 702- and PAA-acquired data since collection pursuant to these authoritiesbegan.

16TOP E C R E T I I S I l t N O F O R . ~


18/52

TOP SI':CRETNSIHNOI'OR.'1

person f ! ~ ~ : : : ~ : ~ ~PAA-acquired data . NSD and DONI's review revealed that in the vast majority of circumstances,the United States person information was at least initially masked. 12 The percentage of reportscontaining United States . has remained lowat_ or this reporting period,decreasing at a marginal rate from the prior reporting petiod.'A.dditionally, for the pastthree reporting periods the serialized reports issued by NSA without United States personinformation has grown at a far greater rate than the number of serialized reports issued containingUnited States person information.

\SIfNF)..JI. Trends in FBI Targeting and MinimizationFBI reportsduring the reporting pe;noir::

Inc:re,,,e from the accounts d ; ( : ; ~ ~ : :electronic communications accounts for

for acquisition_accounts d e s i g n a t c ~ t h:!ix--mo,nth reportingSection 702 collection

Il.fst. NSA generatly "masks" United States person information by replacing the name or other identifying informationof the United States person with a generic term, such as '''United Slates person #1." Agencies may request that NSA"unmask" the United Stales person identity. Prior to such unmasking, NSA must determine that the United Statesperson ' s identity is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information.

17TOP SECKIiTNSIIINO.,OKN


19/52

TOP SIlCRETIISIIfNOFORN

13 ( ! ! ~ J F 1 Although FBI a c q u i r e d ~ pursuant to Section 702 prior to April 2009, statistics areprovided from April 2009 f o r w a r d ~ t r a c k i n g selectors designated and approved changed as of thisdate. The "2009 A verage" reflected in the table therefore reflect


20/52

l 'OP SECREl'HSIHNOFORN

(Sh'HF)-Figure 7 shows that the percentage o ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~ : : ~ : : ; ~has been consistently high. FBI may not approve thedesignated account for several reasons, including withdrawal ofdata to be acquired is no longer of foreign intelligence interest, or because FBI has uncoveredinformation causing NSA and/or FBI to question whether the user or users of the account are non-United States persons located outside the team notesthat for those accounts not approved by only a smallportion were rejected on the basis that they

(S"}IF) In October 2009, FBI began to retain Section 702-acquired data in its systems. FBIidentifies for the joint oversight team all disseminations ofSection 702 data containing UnitedStates person infonnation. Figure 8 below compiles the number of disseminated reports containingUnited States person infonnation identified for these reviews for the last six review periods.

19TOP SECREl'HSIHNOFORN


21/52

l 'OP SECRl'HSIHNOFOR."I

(I SIISI1ff:qfrA totalo. eports that were based at least in part on Section 702-acquiredperson informatIOn were disseminated during this reporting period. This representsincrease from the previous reporting period. During this reporting period, the DepartmentJU;;iIc,eOffice of Inspector General issued a report in which it described certain disseminations of

metadata made by the FBI. NSD and ODNI assess that some of these disseminations likelyincluded disseminations of United States person information which were not previously identifiedto NSD and ODNI, and thus are not included in the above Figure. An update regarding this issuewill be provided in the next Joint Assessment.(Sh'Nf) 111. Trends in CIA Minimization

4li1il'l'Ft- Like FBI, CIA only identifies for

20TOP SECRTHSI/INOFORN


22/52

iSlfliF) During th is reporting period, CIA identified. dis:selT,im,tionsacquired containing minimized United States person int:ation.

211'01' SECRETIlSIIIN0l10RN


23/52

l 'OP SECREl'IfSIIINOFORN

(U) SECTION 4: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - FINDINGS(U/lFOUO)-The joint oversight team finds that during the reporting period. the agencies

have continued to implement the procedures and follow the guidelines in a manner that reflects afocused and concerted effort by agency personnel to comply with the requirements of Section 702.The personnel involved in implementing the authorities are appropriately directing their efforts atnon-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for thepurpose of acquiring foreign intelligence infonnation. Processes have been put in place to

22l 'OP SECRETIISIHNOFORc'i


24/52

TOP SECRETh'SIIINOI'OItNimplement these authorities and to impose internal controls for compliance and verificationpurposes.

~ T h c compliance incidents during the reporting period represent a very smallpercentage of the overall collection activity. Based upon a review of the reported complianceincidents, the joint team does not believe that these incidents represent an intentional attempt tocircumvent or violate the procedures required by the Act.

(SNNF) As noted in prior reports, in the cooperative environment the implementingagencies have established, an action by one agency can result in an incident of noncompliance withanother agency's procedures. It is also important to note that a single incident can have broaderimplications.

( U I I ~ The compliance incidents for the reporting period are described in detail in theSection 707 Report, and are analyzed here to detennine whether there are patterns or trends thatmight indicate underlying causes that could be addressed through additional measures, and to assesswhether the agency involved has implemented appropriate procedures to prevent recurrences. Thejoint oversight team continues to assist in the development of such measures.

(U) l. Compliance Incidents General(U) A. Compliance Incident Rate

(SHNF) As noted in the Section 707 Report, there were a total incidentsthat involved noncompliance with the NSA targetmg or minimization p ~ : ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ :noncompliance with the CIA minimization procedures' and. v with FBItargeting and mimmlzanon procedures; for a total ofii l i ~ t s NSA, CIA or FBIprocedures. 14 Additionally, there were" n c j d e ~ ~ noncompliance by electroDiccommUDIcatlQn service providers i s s u e ~ r e c t i v e pursuant to Section 702(h) of FISA.

( T S h ' S ~ ~ [ f ) The following tables put these compliance incidents in the context of theaverage number of selectors subject to acquisition on any given day during the reporting period:

Compliance incidents during reporting period (June 1,2012 - November 30, 2012)

of selectors to

14 (Sffl


25/52

(TSI/SIIINF) The comolThe compliance incident raterate in the prior reporting OCinO,c[

TOP E C R E T H S I I I N O ~ O R Nrate continues to remain e l 1 below one percent.represents an increase from the_ compliance incident

( ' f S H S ~ l i i ) In . ofth. ncidents in this reporting period, however, the only incidentof noncompliance was the7'ailure to notify NSD and OONI of certain facts within the timeframeprovided in the NSA targeting procedures. IS The median length of these reporting delays is onebusiness day. The oversight team will continue to work with NSA to ensure that notifications aremade to NSD and DDNI within the time frame specified in the relevant procedures. A bettermeasure of substantive compliance with the applicable targeting and minimization procedures,therefore, is to compare the compliance incident rate excluding these notification delays. Thefollowing Figure shows this adjusted rate:

Figure 11: (UliFhYo) Compliance Incident Rate (as percentage of average selectorstasked), Not inc-lu-ding'Notification Delays

1.00%0.80%

0."'"0.40% 0.24% 0.20% 0.25% 0.21%0.20%

0.00%2nd

'"'4th 5th

Joint Assessment Period

As Figure II demonstrates, the adjusted compliance incident rate calculated without the notificationdelays is 0.20%, which is consistent with low compliance incident rates seen in prior reportingperiods.I ~ Specifically, NSA's targeting procedures require:

NSA Targeting Proceduresa.24

TOP 8 E C R E n ' 8 1 1 I N O ~ O R N


26/52

TOP ~ E C R E T I l S I / f N O f O R N

(U) 8. Categories of Compliance Incidents(Sh'P'W) Most of the compliance incidents occurring during the reporting period involvednon-compliance with the NSA's targeting or minimization procedures. This largely reflects thecentrality of these sets of targeting and minimization procedures in the Government's

implementation of the Section 702 authority. The compliance incidents involving NSA's targetingor minimization procedures have generally fallen into the following categories: (ShlNF) Tasking Issues. This category involves incidents where noncompliancewith the targeting procedures resulted in an error in the initial tasking of the selector. ( S H + ~ F ) Detasking Issues. This category involves incidents in which the selectorwas properly tasked in accordance with the targeting procedures, but errors in thedetasking of the selector caused noncompliance with the targeting procedures. (S/,q..,JF) Notification Delays. The category involves incidents in which a selector

was properly tasked in accordance with the targeting procedures, but a notificationrequirement contained in the targeting procedures was not satisfied. (S/fNF) Documentation Issues. This category involves incidents where thedetennination to target a selector was not properly documented as required by the. d 16targetmg prace ures . ~ Overcollection. This category involves incidents in which NSA's collectionsystems, in the process of attempting to acquire the communications of properlytasked selectors, also acquired data regarding untasked selectors, resulting in"ovcrcollection. " ~ / A ' 4 F r Minimization Issues. The sixth category involves NSA's compliance withits minimization procedures .

In some instances, an incident may involve more than one category of noncompliance.('fS/SJiifNF) These categories are helpful for purposes of reporting and understanding thecompliance incidents. The following chart depicts the numbers of compliance incidents in eachcategory that occurred during this reporting period.

I'(SHNl9-As described in the Section 707 Report, not all documentation errors have been $eparately enumerated ascompliance incidents.TOP SECRETllSI/INOfORN 25


27/52

TOP SECRETNSIi/NOFOItN

June 1, 2012 - November 30,2012

DTasklng n c : i ~ n t s

. Oetasklng Incidents

COvereollaction

DMlnlmization212 CDoc:umentaton

COther

DNotffication Delays

-rSfflJFt-As Figure 12 demonstrates, the vast majority of compliance incidents during thereporting period were notification delays. Tasking and detasking incidents often involve moresubstantive compliance incidents insofar as they can (but do not always) involve collectioninvolving a selector used by a United States person or an individual located in the United States.The following chart depicts the compliance incident rates, as compared to the average selectors ontask, for tasking and detasking incidents over the previous reporting periods.

26T O P S E C R E T # S W N O ~ Q R N


28/52

'fOP SECRE'fNSll/NOFORN

chart, the tasking and detasking incidentcompliance rate has varied by only fractions of a percentage point as compared to the average sizeof the collection. While tasking errors cover a variety of incidents, ranging from the tasking of anaccount that the Government should have known was used by a United States person or anindividual located in the United States to typographical errors in the initial tasking of the account,detasking errors more often involve a selector used by a United States person or an individuallocated in the United States, who mayor may not have been the intended target. 17 The percentageof compliance incidents involving such detasking incidents has remained consistently low.

( 8 1 T l ' ~ f ) With respect to the other targeting and minimization procedures,_incidents of noncompliance with the FBI's involved noncompliance w ~ n gprocedures. As discussed targeting errors resulted from unintentionalerrors in the targeting errors involved a facility used by anindividual located in the FBI targeting incidents occurred in the course

27TOP S E C R I H , q S I I / l > J O ~ O R I > I


29/52

TOP SECRETHSlIlNOfORN

tSHNF) II . Review of Compliance Incidents - NSA Targeting and MinimizationProcedures( / / ~ J F ) - The Section 707 Report previously provided to Congress and the Court discussed indetail every incident of non-compliance that occurred during the reporting period. This JointAssessment takes the broader approach and reports on the trends, patterns, and underlying causes ofthe compliance incidents reported in the Section 707 Report. The Assessment primarily focuses onincidents involving NSA's targeting and minimization procedures, the volume and nature of whichare better-suited to detecting such patterns and trends. The following subsections examine incidents

of non-compliance involving NSA's targeting and minimization procedures. The first subsectionexamines compliance incidents that have the greatest potential to impact United States persons'privacy interests, a particular focus of the joint oversight team. Subsequent subsections discussincidents caused by intra- and interagency communications (i.e., the ability of the agencies tocommunicate infonnation between and among themselves in a timely manner to avoid complianceincidents), technical and by human errors, and incidents involvingthe previously dis,cussed

(U) A. The Impact of Compliance Incidents on United States Persons( S ~ J y ) A primary concern of the joint assessment team is the impact of certain complianceincidents on United States persons. The Section 707 Report discusses every incident ofnoncompliance with the targeting and minimization procedures. Most of these incidents did not

involve United States persons, and instead involved matters such as typographical errors in taskingthat resulted in no collection, detasking delays with respect to facilities used by non-United Statespersons who had entered the United States, or notification errors regarding simi lar detaskings thatwere not delayed.(S/H4F) Several incidents, however, did involve United States persons during the recentreporting period. United States persons were primarily impacted by (I ) tasking errors that led to thetasking of facilities used by United States persons, (2) delays in detasking facilities after NSAdetennined that the user of the selector was a United States person, and (3) the unintentionalquerying ofSection 702 repositories using a United States person identifier. Due to theirimportance, these incidents are highlighted in this subsection.

of the tasking incidents described in the Section 707 report involved facilitiestaslki"ng the Government knew or should have users of

28TOP S6CR6TIISIIINOFORN


30/52

TOf ~ C ~ T I I S I I l P i O O A I ' J

was Security (DHS) that the target of apelnd ilng 702 tasking request was an LPR, but due to a lack of internal communication, NSAdid not prevent the pending tasking request from being In each of these incidents, allSection 702-acquired data was purged. Together, represent isolated instancesof insufficient due diligence that do not reflect of t3skings that occurredduring the reporting period .

( T S / / S I ~ J F ) The majority of e t a s k i n ~ n c i d e n t s involved non-United States persons whotraveled to the United States. 0 .1ne of the. detasking delays that occurred during thisreporting period, NSA Incident , is confinned to have involved a United States person.In this incident, NSA dctcnnine t at a targeted individual located outside the United States andpreviously assessed by NSA to be a non-United States person whom NSA had targeted pursuant toSection 702 and Executive Order 12333 was in fact a United States person. Based upon the revisedassessment, NSA immediately detasked several selectors used by this individual, but due to amiscommunication within an NSA targeting office, did not detask one of this individual's telephonenumbers that was tasked to Section 702 collection . The error was discovered three weeks later andthe telephone number was detasked. No data was acquired as a result of this detasking delay. As isdiscussed in Subsection ILC below, NSD and ODNI assess that better records and additionaldetasking procedures could help prevent detasking delays such as this one.

(TS/ISy,q.IF) Several other detasking incidents reported in the Section 707 Report may alsohave involved United States of Section but this has not been

29TOP SECAETHSIffNOFOAN


31/52

TOP SECRETHSItfNOI'ORN

r e [ ) o r t ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ! i n C i d e n t s ? f n o n - c o ~ p l i a n c e with e NSA's p r o c ~ d u r e s during this

andthe FISCapproved modifications to NSA's minimization query telephonyand non-upstream acquired electronic communications Section data using United States personidentifiers. Such queries must be designed to yield foreign intelligence infonnation and the queryterms themselves are required to be approved pursuant to NSA internal procedures. In each of the! incidents, an NSA analyst either conducted a query without realizing that NSA had previouslyetermined that the query term was an identifier of a United States person, or the NSA analystconducted a federated query using a known United States person identifier, but o t to filter outSection 702-acquired data while conducting the federated query.19 None of the. incidentsinvolved an intentional use of an unapproved United States person query tenn, nor did any of theincidents involve analysts being unaware that only approved United States person identifiers may beused to query Section 702-acquired data. As required by NSA's amended minimization procedures,the join[ oversight team continues to conduct oversight ofNSA's use of United States personidentifiers in queries.

~ B. Intra- and Interagency Communications(SH'-Nf) As noted in the prior report, communications between and among the agencies have

continued to improve, which enhances compliance. While communications issues continue to arisein the context of compliance incidents, the joint team assesses that these issues accounted for only ahandful of compliance incidents during this reporting period.

(#P'fFtFor example, as previously discussed, NSA Incident_ nvolved internalcommunications issues at ~ selector used by anLPR. Similarly, NSA involved internal .

~ S I ' , ) J F " A federated query is a query using the same tenn or terms in multiple NSA databases. 30TOP SECRETNSIIfNOI'ORN


32/52

TOP SECR,lbnlSl/.II>jOFORN

-(Sffl','fjThe joint oversight team has found that the agencies have established internal andexternal procedures to communicate information concerning a Section 702 user's travel to theUnited States or a change in the assessment of their citizenship status. The joint oversight teambelieves that agencies should continue their training efforts to ensure that these establishedprotocols continue to be utilized. The joint oversight team will continue to work with NSA, CIAand FBI to ensure that the agencies develop and improve efficient and effective channels ofcommunication.

(StfNF) C. Effect of Technical Issues on Conduct of Acquisition~ There were few compliance incidents resulting from technical issues during thisreponing period, but technical issues can have larger implications than other incidents because they

often involve more than one selector. As such, all agencies involved in the Section 702 programdevote substantial resources towards the prevention, identification, and remedy of technical issues.Collection equipment and other related systems undergo substantial testing prior to deployment.The agencies also employ a variety ofmonitoring programs to detect anomalies in order prevent orlimit the effect of technical issues on acquisition. Members of the joint oversight team participate intechnical briefings at the various agencies to better understand how technical system developmentand modifications affect the collection and processing of information. As a result of these briefings,potential issues have been identified, the resolution ofwhich prevented compliance incidents fromhappening and ensured the continued flow of foreign intelligence information to the agencies.

( T S H S l h ~ J F ) Nonetheless, changes in the global electronic communications environment,unforeseen consequences of software modifications, and system issues resulted in incidentsthat affected acquisition during the reporting period. For of the incidentsduring this reporting period resulted in NSA 's

collectionTOP S ~ C R E T h ' S I / 1 N 6 1 ' 6 R ! ' 1 1


33/52

(SHNF) Two systemfacilities. In NSA

TOP 8ECRETIISlffNOFORN

this reporting period resulted in delays in detaskingsystem during the transition

(Sffl.qF) All of the technical issues discussed in this subsection were discovered by agencypersonnel and each demonstrates the importance of agencies continually monitoring their collectionfor abnormalities, particularly following configuration and other software changes made tocollection and other related systems. The compliance incidents discussed in this subsection alsohighlight the complexity of the technical systems used to conduct Section 702 acquisition, as wellas the rapid pace of change in communications architecture, that can result in technical and systemrelated incidents. The joint oversight team assesses that agencies' regular monitoring ofrelevantsystems processing Section 702-acquired infonnation has led to fewer technical tasking anddetasking errors and the quicker identification and resolution of system errors that do occur.

32TOP SIlCRIlTh'SfflNOFOItN


34/52

TOP !If:CItI!'f,YSIIINOl'ORNiSh'NF) C. Effect of Human Errors on the Conduct of Acquisition

( 8 ~ J F ) As reported in previous Joint Assessments, human errors often cause many of thecompliance incidents. Some of these errors are isolated events that do not lend themselves tocategorization or development of standard processes?1 Other errors, however, do prescnt patternsthat could be addressed with new training or procedures. As was in the case in the last severalreporting periods, one of the most common errors in this reporting period involved situations wherea target who used multiple selectors tasked to Section 702 or Executive Order 12333 collection wasdiscovered to be in, or known to be traveling of the Section 702selectors were missed in the detasking process. detasking delays thatoccurred during this reporting period were the 22 Most of these detaskingdelays were quickly identified and remedied, but in NSA Incident_, an e-mail accountremained on collection for approximately five weeks after its user e r e d to have traveledto the United States because the analyst had inadvertently detasked only some of the facilitiesknown by NSA to be used by this individual.

i S ~ J l 4 - Ensuring that selectors are detasked when a target enters the United States re'luires

Pr


35/52

'l'OP SECItt:'ftlSIttNOFORN(SNNF) Both the joint oversight team and the internal oversight

their attention on human errors that are susceptible to retraining.

TOI' E C R E T l I & I / f I ' I ' O F O R N


36/52


37/52

TOP SEERETIISIIINOFORN

(SHNF) IV. Review ofCompliance Incidents FBI Targeting and MinimizationProcedures(M'!


38/52

TOP SI':CRETh'SIitNOFORN

(Sh'NF) Although the causes were different, in a11_ of these incidents,overproductions were identified by agency personnel, e i t h ~ g h automated systems or byagents and analysts properly reporting within their agencies that the acquired data did notcorrespond with the authorized scope of collection. The joint oversight team believes that thisdemonstrates a success in training and collection monitoring programs, and encourages agencies tomaintain their vigilance in identifying possible overproductions. The joint oversight team alsoassesses that the overall number of overproductions during this reporting period, and over thecourse of the entire ~ o t i ~ m

to ensuring"DrCWICIerS are NSD and ODNI will continue to assist theagencies in these efforts as collection activities expand and evolve.

(U) SECTION 5: CONCLUSION( u i 7 F b t j ~ D u r i n g the reporting period, the joint team found that the agencies havecontinued to implement the procedures and to follow the guidelines in a manner that reflects afocused and concerted effort by agency personnel to comply with the requirements of Section 702.As in previous reporting periods, the joint oversight team has identified no indications of any

intentional or willful attempts to violate or circumvent the requirements of the Act in thecompliance incidents assessed herein. Although the number of compliance incidents continued toremain small, particularly when compared with the total amount of collection activity. a continuedfocus is needed to address underlying causes of the incidents which did occur, includingmaintaining close monitoring of collection activities and finishing the implementation of personneltraining enhancements. The joint oversight team will continue to monitor the efficacy ofmeasuresto address the causes of compliance incidents during the next reporting period.37

TOP SI':CRT/fSlfINOFORN


39/52

TOP ~ E C R E T h ( S I i R ' i O f O R . ' 1

APPENDIX A

'f01' SIlCRIl'fNSllfNOFORN


40/52

I UP SCM!l'll'SllJNOFORNAPPENDIX A

(U) IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 702 AUTHORITIES - OVERVIEW"(SIINFj I, Overview - NSA

S l / l N ~ ) The National Security Agency (NSA) seeks to acquire foreign intelligenceinformation concerning specific targets under each Section 702 certification from or with theassistance of electronic communication service providers, as defined in Section 70 I(b)(4) of theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended (FlSA).1 As required by Section 702,those targets must be non-United States persons2 reasonably believed to be located outside theUnited States. During this reporting period, NSA conducted foreign intelligence analysis to identify

(Sh'NF) As affirmed in affidavits filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC), NSA believes that the non-United States persons reasonably believed to be outs ide the1 (U) Specifically, Section 70 I (b)(4) provides:

The term 'electronic communication service provider' means - (A) a telecommunications carrier, as that termis defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.c. 153); (B) a provider of electroniccommunication service, as that term is defmed in section 2510 oftilie 18 , United States Code; (C) a provider ofa remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18 , United States Code; (D) anyother communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as suchcommunications are transmitted or as such communications are stored; or eE) an officer, employee, or agent ofan entity described in subparagraph (A), (8 ), (C) , or (D).

2 (U) Section 101(i) of FISA defines "United States person" as follows:a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined insectionlOl(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. IIOI (a}(20)]), an unincorporatedassociation a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfullyadmitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does nolinclude a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (aX I), (2), or (3).

A- ITOP SI>CRI>TNSIlfNOFOR'"


41/52

TOP SI>CRI>TIISIIINOfi'OItNUnited States who are targeted under these certifications will either possess foreign intelligenceinformation about the persons, groups, or entities covered by the certifications or arc likely tocommunicate foreign intelligence information concerning these persons, groups, or entities. Thisrequirement is reinforced by the Attorney General's Acquisition Guidelines, which provide that anindividual may not be targeted unless a significant purpose of the targeting is to acquire foreignintelligence information that the person possesses, is reasonably expected to receive, andlor is likelyto communicate.

(,fSHSII!NE).,. Under the Section 702 targeting process, NSA targets persons by taskingselectors used by those persons to communicate foreign intelligence information. A selector is aspecific communications identifier or facility tasked to acquire information that is to, from, or abouta target. A "selector" could be a telephone .

pf()Vj,der, NSA uses as a starting point a selector to acquire the relevant communications, and, afterapplying the targeting procedures (further discussed below) and other internal reviews andapprovals, "tasks" that selector in the relevant tasking system. The selectors are in turn provided toelectronic communication service providers who have been served with the required directivesunder the certifications.

" " " ( S i / S I l ~ J f ) . Once information is collected from these tasked selectors, it is subject to FISCapproved minimization procedures. NSA's minimization procedures set forth specific measuresNSA must take when it acquires, retains, andlor disseminates non-publicly available information. . to NSA.

~ N S A ' s targeting procedures address, among other subjects, the manner in whichNSA will determine that a person targeted under Section 702 is a non-United States personreasonably believed to be located outside the United States, the post-targeting analysis conducted onthe selectors, and the documentation required.

unminimizedto and ongoing acquisitions from certain electronicin acquiring and transmitting raw,

TOP SI>CRI>Th'SIIfNOFORNA-2


42/52

TOP S ~ C R 1 : T I I 8 I I 1 N O " O I t N

(U) A. Pre-Tasking Location(81/NIi') 1. Telephone Numbers

(SHNf) 2. Electronic Communications Identifiers

(SHNFt Analysts also check this system as part of the "post-targeting" analysis described below.

A-3TOP " C R " T I / S I " ' N O F O R : ~


43/52

TOP SECRETIISI//NOFORN

(U) B. Pre-Tasking Determination of United States Person Status

(SllNFj- C. Post-Tasking Checks

I P r i o r Joint Assessments have stated that the automated notification and review process described in thisparagraph applied to all Section 702 acquisition. The past Joint Assessment stated that NSA and DONI were lookinginto this issue, and in June 2013 NSA reported that its automated notification system to ensure targeters have reviewedA-4TOP SECRETNSIIINOFOR!"


44/52

TOP SECRETh'SIIfNOflOItN

(U) D. Documentation( S / ~ J F ) The procedures provide that analysts will document in the tasking database acitation to the information that led them to reasonably believe that a targeted person is located

enablingli1sI!ier reasonable

belief. Analysts must also identify the foreign power or foreign territory about which they expectthe proposed targeting will obtain foreign intelligence information.

collection is currently i ~ ' r ~ ; ~ ~ ' : , ; ~ : ~ : ' i .attempting to develop a . NSA is currently

A-5TOP SECII,Ii;TNSIIfNOFORN


45/52

TOP Si;CRETIiSIilNOFORN

(SfR'W) The SOUTce recordsdata repositories. These records . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! ~ ~produced to verify de.:ennir.ations

(U) F. Internal Procedures

are contained in a variety ofNSArequested by the joint team, are

Other source records may consistInt,:lli!:enc:e reports.

fStlt4f') NSA has instituted internal training programs, access control procedures, standardoperating procedures, compliance incident reporting measures, and similar processes to implementthe requirements of the targeting procedures. Only analysts who have received certain types oftraining and authorizations are provided access to the Section 702 program data. These analystsmust complete an NSA Office ofGeneral Counsel (OGe) and Signals intelligence Directorate(SID) Oversight and Compliance training program; review the targeting and minimizationprocedures as well as other documents filed with the certifications; and must pass a competencytest. The databases NSA analysts use are subject to audit and review by SID Oversight andCompliance. For guidance, analysts consult standard operating procedures, supeIVisors, SIDOversight and Compliance personnel, NSA OGe attorneys, and the NSA Office of the Director ofCompliance .

(S4'I>IF) NSA's targeting and minimization procedures require NSA to report to NSD andODNI any incidents of non-compliance with the procedures by NSA personnel that result in theintentional targeting of a person reasonably believed to be located in the United States, the

A-6TOP SECRETHSI:I/NOFORN


46/52

TOP SI':CRETIIStflNOFORNintentional targeting of a United States person, or the intentional acquisition of any communicationin which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be locatedwithin the United States, with a requirement to purge from NSA's records any resulting collection.NSA must also report any incidents ofnon-compliance, including overcollection, by any electroniccommunication service provider issued a directive under Section 702. Additionally, ifNSA learns,after targeting a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States, that the person is insidethe United States, or if NSA learns that a person who NSA reasonably believed was a non-UnitedStates person is in fact a United States person, NSA must tenninate the acquisition, and treat anyacquired communications in accordance with its minimization procedures. In each of the abovesituations, NSA's Section 702 procedures during this reporting period required NSA to report theincident to NSD and ODNI within the time specified in the applicable targeting procedures (fivebusiness days) of learning of the incident.

(S,l,r)lf) The NSA targeting and minimization procedures require NSA to conduct oversightactivities and make any necessary reports, including those relating to incidents of non-compliance,to the NSA Office of the Inspector General (NSA OIG) and NSA's OGe. SID Oversight andCompliance conducts spot checks of targeting decisions and disseminations to ensure compliancewith procedures. SID also maintains and updates an NSA internal website regarding theimplementation of, and compliance with, the Section 702 authorities.

(S/fNF) NSA has established standard operating procedures for incident tracking andreporting to NSD and ODNI. The SID Oversight and Compliance office works with analysts atNSA, and with CIA and FBI points of contact as necessary, to compile incident reports which areforwarded to both the NSA OGe and NSA OIG. NSA OGe then forwards the incidents to NSDand ODNI.

(u/Fboo) On a more programmatic level, under the guidance and direction of the Officeof the Director ofCompliance (ODOC), NSA has implemented and maintains a ComprehensiveMission Compliance Program (CMCP) designed to effect verifiable conformance with the laws andpolicies that afford privacy protection to United States persons during NSA missions. ODOCcomplements and reinforces the intelligence oversight program ofNSA OIG and oversightresponsibilities ofNSA OGC.

(S,'lNf) A key component of the CMCP, is an effort to manage, organize, and maintain theauthorities, policies, and compliance requirements that govern NSA mission activities. This effort,known as "Rules Management," focuses on two key components: (I ) the processes necessary tobetter govern, maintain, and understand the authorities granted to NSA and (2) technologicalsolutions to support (and simplify) Rules Management activities. ODOC also coordinated NSA'suse of the Verification ofAccuracy (VoA) process originally developed for other FISA programs toprovide an increased level of confidence that factual representations to the FISC or other externaldecision makers are accurate and based on an ongoing, shared understanding among operational,technical, legal, policy and compliance officials within NSA. NSA has also developed aVerification of Interpretation (Vol) review to help ensure that NSA and its external overseers have ashared understanding of key terms in Court orders, minimization procedures, and other documentsthat govern NSA's FISA activities. ODOC has also developed a risk assessment process to assessthe potential risk of non-compliance with the rules designed to protect United States person

A-7'fOP SECRETHSIHNOFOR.'J


47/52

TOP SECRTHSIHNOI'ORN

privacy_ The assessment is conducted and reported to the NSA Deputy Director and NSA SeniorLeadership Team bi-annually.

tsHl'IF.}-.II . Overview - CIA

A-8TOP SECRETNSI/INOI'ORN


48/52

TOP S ~ ( ; I Q : T f . l S I , t , Q ! ; O ~ O R N

,Pr


49/52

TOP SECRETh'SIIfNOFORIS

A-IOTOP S E C R E T h ' S I I I N O F O ~


50/52

TOP SECRETiiSIIfNOFOR."

(U) C. Documentation

and culminatingprocedures calldepending on the circumstances,also retains with each checklist any relevant ..

_ infonnation. Additional checklists have been created~ a w n _ , or not approved by FBI.Caiiliiii : ~ ; ~ on requests

(U) D. Implementation, Oversight and Compliance(SI(J>ff) FBI's implementation and compliance activities are overseen by FBI's Office of

General Counsel (FBI OGC), particularly the National Security Law Branch (NSLB). as well asFBI's Exploitation Threat Section (XTS), fannerly the Communications Exploitation Section

A-I ITOP SECRETIISIIINOFORN


51/52

'fOI'SECItE'fWSIIiNOFORN(CXS)," FBI's DataDlTU personneltechnical ~ ~ ~ ~ : ; ! Jmust be cin FBI for

Division (INSD).as well as provideiiic:ations. All acquisitionshas the lead responsibility

XTS personnel are trained~ a l : i n g pro,cecluriiloa . With to

periodic reviews by NSD and ODNI, atof non-compliance with the FBI targeting

procedures to NSD ODNI within five business days of learning of the incident. XTS andNSLB are the lead FBI elements in ensuring that NSD and OONI received all appropriateinformation with regard to these two requirements.

(U) IV. Overview - Minimization(SffNf) Once a selector has been tasked for collection, non-publicly available information

collected as a result of these taskings that concerns United States persons must be minimized. TheFISC-approved minimization procedures require such minimization in the acquisition, retention,and dissemination of foreign intelligence infonnation. As a general matter, minimizationprocedures under Section 702 are similar in most respects to minimization under other FISA orders.For example, the Section 702 minimization procedures, like those under certain other FISA courtorders, allow for sharing of certain unminimized Section 702 information among NSA, FBI, andCIA. Similarly, the procedures for each agency require special handling of interceptedcommunications that are between attorneys and clients, as well as foreign intelligence informationconcerning United States persons that is disseminated to foreign governments.

(Sffl'4f) The minimization procedures do, however, impose additional obligations orrestrictions as compared to minimization procedures associated with authorities granted under TitlesI and HI ofFISA. For example, the Section 702 minimization procedures require, with limitedexceptions, the purge of any communications acquired through the targeting of a person who at thetime of targeting was reasonably believed to be a non-United States person located outside theUnited States, but is in fact located inside the United States at the time the communication isacquired, or was in fact a United States person at the time of targeting.

13 ~ The change of name was effective July 15 , 2012.A-12

TOP SIlCRETIISIIII'IOFOItN


52/52

l 'OP SECREl'JI'SIttNOf'OItN( S ~ \ ' f ) NSA, CIA, and FBI have created systems to track the purging of information from

their systems. CIA and FBI receive incident notifications from NSA to document when NSA hasidentified Section 702 information that NSA is required to purge according to its procedures, so thatCIA and FBI can meet their respective obligations.

august 2013 nsa compliance report

Documents