Surveillance court judges oppose White House group’s NSA proposals

Current and former judges on the nation’s secret surveillance court said in a letter that several recommendations made by a White House review group would significantly increase the court’s workload and undermine its effectiveness.

The letter, written by the court’s former chief judge, John D. Bates, was released by the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee three days before President Barack Obama is due to give a major speech outlining his reforms for US surveillance policies -- some of which, the intelligence community has argued, could harm national security. The judges’ principal objections focused on recommendations to appoint an independent privacy advocate to represent the public’s interests before the court and on a proposal that administrative subpoenas, known as national security letters, be approved by the court before being issued. They also objected to a recommendation to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of data on Americans’ phone calls. Bates said a public interest advocate would not be in the court’s interest. “The participation of a privacy advocate is unnecessary — and could prove counterproductive — in the vast majority of [court] matters, which . . . typically implicate the privacy interests of few persons other than the specified target,” wrote Bates, who said he was representing the views of current and former judges on the FISC as well as on the panel that hears any appeals of its rulings. Bates said an independent advocate appointed at the discretion of the courts “is likely to be helpful,” whereas a standing advocate with authority to intervene at will could hamper the court’s work.