“What should be done with the collected information?”

No answers were given when asked the following question: “What should be done with the collected information?”
The senate judiciary committee held a hearing on “National Security Letters (NSL): The Need for Greater Accountability and Oversight.” the witnesses present were James A. Baker, former council for Intelligence Policy at the Department of justice, Gregory T. Nojeim, director of the Freedom, Security and Technology project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and lastly Michael J. Woods, former chief of National Security Law Unit at the Office of the General Counsel, FBI.

The chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), introduced the guests after each Senator present delivered their remarks and their opinions on the issue. In his opening statement, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has introduced the National Security Letter Reform Act, blamed the Patriot Act for the misuse and abuse of the NSL by the FBi itself. He mentioned that the Patriot Act “expanded the NSL statutes to essentially grant the FBI a blank check to obtain sensitive information about innocent Americans.”

James Barker, in his remarks, distinguished between two different kinds of dat collection. He called the first one “metadata”, which is the collection of “non-content information”. Metadata is not protected by the fourth Amendment and focuses on the whereabouts of the criminal. Whereas the “content information” is the collection of the substance of the information and it is protected by the fourth Amendment. in Baker’s opinion, metadata is an important tool to start the investigation, rather than fully rely on it, in other words, it is the “bread and butter and not the main course or the desert.”

Gregory T. Nojeim mentioned that the NSL legislation is a one way spree and “self-policing does no work.” He continued by pointing that FISA is “quite permissive” of the FBI to act independently. Certain data are considered to be sensitive and others less sensitive, he highlighted the fact that there must be tools to protect the checks and balances.

Michael J. Woods offered his practical experience in the FBI and said that the development of technology has had a tremendous effect on the investigations and the handling of the Patriot Act.