Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA to challenge upstream mass surveillance

Photo of Lady Justice by Roland Meinecke, licensed under Free Art license.
Justice presides with her scale and sword at Frankfurt am Main.
Photo by Roland Meinecke, licensed under a Free Art license.

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation is filing suit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the United States [1]. The lawsuit challenges the NSA’s mass surveillance program, and specifically its large-scale search and seizure of internet communications — frequently referred to as “upstream” surveillance. Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world. We are joined by eight other organizations [2] and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The full complaint can be found here.
“We’re filing suit today on behalf of our readers and editors everywhere,” said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. “Surveillance erodes the original promise of the internet: an open space for collaboration and experimentation, and a place free from fear.”
Privacy is the bedrock of individual freedom. It is a universal right that sustains the freedoms of expression and association. These principles enable inquiry, dialogue, and creation and are central to Wikimedia’s vision of empowering everyone to share in the sum of all human knowledge. When they are endangered, our mission is threatened. If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.
When the 2013 public disclosures about the NSA’s activities revealed the vast scope of their  programs, the Wikimedia community was rightfully alarmed. In 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation began conversations with the ACLU about the possibility of filing suit against the NSA and other defendants on behalf of the Foundation, its staff, and its users.
Our case today challenges the NSA’s use of upstream surveillance conducted under the authority of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (FAA). Upstream surveillance taps the internet’s “backbone” to capture communications with “non-U.S. persons.” The FAA authorizes the collection of these communications if they fall into the broad category of “foreign intelligence information” that includes nearly any information that could be construed as relating to national security or foreign affairs. The program casts a vast net, and as a result, captures communications that are not connected to any “target,” or may be entirely domestic. This includes communications by our users and staff.
“By tapping the backbone of the internet, the NSA is straining the backbone of democracy,” said Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “Wikipedia is founded on the freedoms of expression, inquiry, and information. By violating our users’ privacy, the NSA is threatening the intellectual freedom that is central to people’s ability to create and understand knowledge.”
The NSA has interpreted the FAA as offering free rein to define threats, identify targets, and monitor people, platforms, and infrastructure with little regard for probable cause or proportionality. We believe that the NSA’s current practices far exceed the already broad authority granted by the U.S. Congress through the FAA. Furthermore, we believe that these practices violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
Additionally, we believe that the NSA’s practices and limited judicial review of those practices violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A specialized court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), hears issues related to foreign intelligence requests, including surveillance. Under U.S. law, the role of the courts is to resolve “cases” or “controversies” — not to issue advisory opinions or interpret theoretical situations. In the context of upstream surveillance, FISC proceedings are not “cases.” There are no opposing parties and no actual “controversy” at stake. FISC merely reviews the legality of the government’s proposed procedures — the kind of advisory opinion that Article III was intended to restrict.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a previous challenge to the FAA, Amnesty v. Clapper, because the parties in that case were found to lack “standing.” Standing is an important legal concept that requires a party to show that they’ve suffered some kind of harm in order to file a lawsuit. The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures included a slide from a classified NSA presentation that made explicit reference to Wikipedia, using our global trademark. Because these disclosures revealed that the government specifically targeted Wikipedia and its users, we believe we have more than sufficient evidence to establish standing.

Spread the word about inappropriate surveillance. Art by Rich Black, CC BY 3.0.

Wikipedia is the largest collaborative free knowledge resource in human history. It represents what we can achieve when we are open to possibility and unburdened by fear. Over the past fourteen years, Wikimedians have written more than 34 million articles in 288 different languages. Every month, this knowledge is accessed by nearly half a billion people from almost every country on earth. This dedicated global community of users is united by their passion for knowledge, their commitment to inquiry, and their dedication to the privacy and expression that makes Wikipedia possible. We file today on their behalf.
For more information, please see our op-ed, Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users, by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and Wikimedia Foundation executive director Lila Tretikov, in the March 10 edition of The New York Times. [3]
Michelle Paulson, Senior Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation *
Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

* The Wikimedia Foundation and its co-plaintiffs are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in this suit. We would like to thank them, in particular Patrick Toomey, Ashley Gorski, and Daniel Kahn Gillmor for their work and dedication throughout this process.
 
References

  1. Other defendants include: Michael 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 Clapper, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; and Eric Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.
  2. Today, we’re proud to bring this lawsuit alongside a coalition of organizations from across the ideological spectrum, including The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America. We believe the wide variety of perspectives represented in this lawsuit demonstrates that the defense of privacy and freedom of expression and association is not defined by partisanship or ideology.
  3. To read more about our opposition to mass government surveillance, please see our previous blog posts on PRISM, opposing mass surveillance on the internet, and transparency in the use of surveillance.

 


Frequently Asked Questions

 
Q: What does this lawsuit challenge?
A: Our lawsuit challenges the NSA’s unfounded, large-scale search and seizure of internet communications, frequently referred to as “upstream” surveillance. Using upstream surveillance, the NSA intercepts virtually all internet communications flowing across the network of high-capacity cables, switches, and routers that make up the internet’s “backbone.” This backbone connects the Wikimedia global community of readers and contributors to Wikipedia and the other the Wikimedia projects.
Q: What is the U.S. government’s legal justification for this program?
A: The U.S. government has used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) (see 50 U.S.C. § 1881a) to justify broad, “upstream” mass surveillance. Under the FAA, “the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to one year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of [non-US] persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The statute only requires “reasonable belief” that a non-US person is located outside the United States. There is no need to show that target is a foreign agent, much less a terrorist. The purpose of the statute is to acquire “foreign intelligence information”– a very general concept. We believe the broad interpretation of this statute that allows for upstream surveillance is unconstitutional.
Q: How does surveillance or the fear of surveillance affect readers and editors of Wikipedia and its sister projects?
A: Mass surveillance is a threat to intellectual freedom and a spirit of inquiry, two of the driving forces behind Wikimedia. Wikipedia is written by people from around the world who often tackle difficult subjects. Very frequently they choose to remain anonymous, or pseudonymous. This allows them to freely create, contribute, and discover, without fear of reprisal. Surveillance might be used to reveal sensitive information, create a chilling effect to deter participation, or in extreme instances, identify individual users. Pervasive surveillance undermines the freedoms upon which Wikipedia and its communities are founded.
Q: How does surveillance affect Wikipedia as a knowledge resource?
A: Wikipedia is a living resource for knowledge. It is written by volunteers around the globe, in hundreds of languages. It reflects the world around us and changes to embodies current events, notable individuals, evolving theories, emerging art, and more. Wikipedia relies on the contributions of editors and the support of readers to evolve and grow. If readers and editors are deterred from participating in Wikipedia because of concerns about surveillance, the health of Wikipedia as a resource to the world is jeopardized.
Q: What kind of Wikimedia communications could the NSA be intercepting?
A: Wikipedia and its sister projects is created entirely by volunteer editors. More than 75,000 editors each month edit Wikipedia, amounting to more than 33 million articles. These editors not only contribute content, but also discuss and share information on discussion pages and elsewhere within the project. Privacy and free expression are core values of the Wikimedia community. When volunteer editors contribute to Wikipedia, they expect it to be a safe, open space in which creativity and knowledge can thrive.
Q: Why is it important that the Wikimedia Foundation ensures privacy and anonymity for its users?
A: Privacy is a core value of the Wikimedia movement. From the beginning, Wikipedia has allowed for users to maintain private identities through the use of anonymous or pseudonymous editing. This has been reinforced by the Wikimedia Foundation’s firm commitment to protecting the privacy and data of its users through legal and technical means.
Privacy makes freedom of expression possible, sustains freedom of inquiry, and allows for freedom of information and association. Knowledge flourishes where privacy is protected.
Q: Why is the NSA interested in the communications of innocent Wikimedia users?
A: You would have to ask them. One could guess, however, that they are trying to amass as much information as possible into their databases, and, as with other websites, they may believe there is value in the data, conversations, and personal information on Wikipedia and in the Wikimedia community.
Q: How do you know Wikimedia has been singled out for surveillance by the NSA?
A: One of the NSA documents revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden specifically identifies Wikipedia for surveillance alongside several other major websites like CNN.com, Gmail, and Facebook. The previously secret slide declares that monitoring these sites can allow NSA analysts to learn “nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet.”
Q: Has the Wikimedia Foundation taken any measures to protect its users’ privacy?
A: The Wikimedia Foundation takes privacy very seriously, which is why we find the NSA’s upstream mass surveillance so troubling. You do not need to create an account or login to read or edit Wikipedia or the other Wikimedia sites. If you do decide to create an account, you can choose any username you like — we don’t require real names, email addresses, or any other personally identifying information, and we never sell your data.
Q: Why did Wikimedia join this lawsuit against the NSA?
A: Our role at the Wikimedia Foundation is to protect Wikipedia, its sister projects, and the Wikimedia community of users. This means providing our users with the right conditions to facilitate their work, and protecting them when necessary. Defending the privacy of our editors, readers, and community is paramount to us. We believe privacy is essential to facilitating and advancing free knowledge.
You can also find this FAQ here on Wikimedia.org.

Archive notice: This is an archived post from blog.wikimedia.org, and as such was written under a different editorial standard than Diff.

42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good. Pretty much due, but now more real.
I’m curious to see if the suit will mention the costs of encryption, which are not only financial. It took a while but https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/HTTPS is finally progressing, in the last few weeks; benefits of encrypting the WMF backbone are more concrete and faster than any lawsuit.
P.s.: Ugh the -NC-ND license; it’s easier to link the FAL instead for that file. P.p.s.: “(FAA) (s” link leak.

Sue the bustards . The NSA has become to big to be . Yes we need security , but not at the expense of our constitution and rights . Gorge Orwell’s 1984 seamed far fetched in the 1970’s but today it should be read by everyone . We let the bad guys win when we give up our rights in a false hope of safety . The protection we think the NSA will bring are not worth the loss of the bill of rights . How to fix it ( NSA AND ALL DATA COLLECTORS) My data should have my… Read more »

On one hand, I’m happy to see this– on another I can’t help but think: “If you don’t like people looking why not try putting on some pants?” To this day, Wikipedia still does not default its ordinary readers to using HTTPS. HTTPS is the only widely deployed mechanism we have to protect reader confidentiality and HTTPS provides protection even against parties that break the law, not just governments but ISPs, employers, spammers, organized crime, and anyone else who might violate the readers privacy. No amount of asking nicely (or insistently via the courts) can protect readers in the manner… Read more »

Regarding motivation for the lawsuit. the post says, “Q: How do you know Wikimedia has been singled out for surveillance by the NSA? A: One of the NSA documents revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden specifically identifies Wikipedia for surveillance alongside several other major websites like CNN.com, Gmail, and Facebook.” See https://www.aclu.org/files/natsec/nsa/20140722/Why%20Are%20We%20Interested%20in%20HTTP.pdf [PDF] It merely shows a bunch of logos for websites accessible via HTTP, with MySpace just above the Wikipedia logo. Is this the ONLY reason for the lawsuit? I think there must be more to it. If HTTP is the problem, I don’t understand why WMF/ Wikipedia’s (mostly successful)… Read more »

I think it is great someone is challenging it, although concerning that you have had knowledge since 2006 and have not defaulted to HTTPS (for all we know they have broken TLS…At the least, they will hack to obtain private keys anyway). But what if this case only stops upstream surveillance of Wiki sites, not the rest of the Internet? What if they just install software (using their ability to alter information) on everyone’s computer instead, which listens for activity they are interested in and reports it? And what about agents using Wiki and social media to spread misinformation? I… Read more »

But the danger of terrorism is not a fiction. What do you think are the proper ways for NSA and other security agencies to free citizens from terrorist attacks? If terrorist are randomly distributed among citizens, communicating through internet and the NSA doesn’t sure who is the terrorist, what do they suppose to do?

Great, now just get the bastards convicted.
It was not about terrorism. Very quickly after 9/11 the NSA found these programs to be useless against terrorists, because they are paranoid and write their own software. Yet they kept doing it, for things like economic benefit and controlling the population.
Accountability is the biggest difference between the west and oppressive regimes like, North Korea, Isis, Islamic totalitarian states, Russia, etc…

It seems to me that the massive and seemingly escalating expansion of the US and other governments, is more about creating jobs than anything else. And once those jobs are created, they don’t easily go away. Congress is worried about appearances, and being “soft on crime, drugs, terrorism, etc.” can easily be portrayed as bad, so they never vote to get rid of these programs that are usually hastily created by people who don’t even read what they are voting for or signing in the first place. These 3-letter agencies are doing “busy work” to keep themselves in the chips… Read more »

Please let us know how we can donate to support this cause

I applaud you for taking this action, because clearly the spying on users effects what information that people are willing to contribute to Wikipedia.
It does make me wonder why https/SSL isn’t enabled by default on the Wikipedia websites. This would also make a clear statement on web security.

Put a banner up to raise awareness; millions will see it. One of the largest motivators in the ACTA/SOPA/PIPA fight was Wikimedia participation in the Black Out. This success and level of support can be replicated. The media will cover this but, many do not read the media or have grown apathetic, which is a driving factor for the stagnation we currently see. The readers will support you in this fight, they just have to be aware there is one to begin with. I thank the Foundation for their strong stance and actions to drive change. ~~~

Very good, a nonprofit standing up for users when for profits work, scumbag spies need to be drawn and quartered

Bravo from Europe

Without the institutions of technocratic individualism, humans are just apes. Technocratic individualism (i.e. the idea that happiness is to create and appreciate) needs protection from moralism (i.e. the idea that happiness is to serve) and gangsterism (i.e. the idea that happiness is to be served). The United States provides such protection. It is not a perfect guardian, but nothing is perfect. Therefore I support the efforts of the American and Western security apparatus, including the NSA. This lawsuit will only promote benighted anarchy and tyranny. I expected something like this from Noam Chomsky, not from the Wikimedia Foundation. You see,… Read more »

The American public has arguably lost a lot of the protections of law (“Equal time” and the “Fairness doctrine” spring to mind), and there is important new ground that needs to be established in applying the provisions of the US constitution to the modern world (Riley v. California, for example, and the provisions against general warrants applied to electronic devices). And it is clear that the work of the intelligence agencies of the US and her allies (and sometimes even enemies) has been used to circumvent – or in some cases drive a Sherman tank – through them. Nonetheless,it is… Read more »

And now Wikimedia. Too many organizations lose their focus. They become successful at what they do and then it goes to their heads. They start branching out, thinking that they matter beyond their core competency. They start getting involved in issues and in places that have little or no relation with their core mission. And now it is Wikimedia’s turn.
And of course they sue the U.S. Federal Government. Have they gone after China? Cuba? Iran? North Korea? No
Wikimedia should stick to Wikimedia business and leave politics to others.

This is not why I donated to Wikimedia. How do I get my donations back?

One more thing…I feel betrayed. Wikimedia was always about the various Wiki projects. That’s why I supported them for years. But now they have used the Wiki name — that I helped promote — for a non-Wiki agenda. I’ve been betrayed.

Because of such policy of Wikimedia I make donations to Wikipedia fund. Guys, you are awesome!

More like this!
Wolf
Best regards from Dresden/Saxony

Rick, I totally agree with you. Dura lex, sed lex :
American’s organisations must respect their own laws !
Furthermore, the scenario of 1984 is much more possible today with this powerful (it’s insane) organisation than It hadn’t ever been before.
Continue, Wikipedia, I totally agrees with you !
Congratulations from a French reader !

DONATING RIGHT NOW!!!
thank you!!!

How may I lend support? I’ll donate, but what else?

Awesome news.
WIkimedia holding a candle in the fight for freedom once again.

Thank you for standing up for what is right and constitutional. What has been happening over the last several years has put our democracy in peril and places an enormous amount of power in the hands of the few (intelligence agencies). There is a rule of law for a reason and for those who represent the law to break it routinely is not healthy for any of us. The public trust is not something to take for granted. Our government and intelligence agencies should realize that in their unconstitutional actions they risk the loss of that trust and making a… Read more »

Hurray! Thanks for taking this brave stand for human rights.

Isn’t it time for Wikimedia to use encryption via an external proxy located outside USA and using algorithms (or encryption keys) not tapped by the NSA for the communication between users and the proxy (the proxy using then an anonymization mechanism between the proxy and the server in US? I have serious doubt that even the PKI providers themselves (that provide the security certificates) are not monitored by the NSA, or that their keys are generated using a really secure and private random generator (it seems that really random generators such as those using atomic decay sources or temperature noise… Read more »

Note that France is currently in the process of adopting a system similar to the NSA, by placing the surveillance under the direct autority of the government, without real control by the justice. There will be NO parties in a judiciary suite, so nobody will be able to defend his case. Everyone will be monitored for various purposes and not just for national security : it will include spying on commercial communications, profiling any one on any communication network (whever in France or abroad), by wiretappinbg also directly on the backbones and in all internal network of network providers or… Read more »

This is very good news! And a surprise too. Congratulations, and all my support, from Argentina.

[…] sued the US’s National Security Agency to challenge its mass surveillance practices, an announcement that had over 70,000 views, by far […]

[…] NSA, filing a reply brief answering the government’s response to our opening brief. This lawsuit, filed in March, 2015, challenges the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA)’s Upstream mass surveillance […]

[…] the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a notice of appeal in Wikimedia v. NSA. We filed this suit in March, 2015 to challenge the United States’ National Security Agency’s Upstream mass […]

[…] Friday, September 25, 2015, the first hearing in Wikimedia v. NSA took place in Alexandria, Virginia. Both sides presented oral arguments regarding the […]

[…] v. NSA originally began in March, when the Wikimedia Foundation and our co-plaintiffs challenged the United States National Security […]

[…] Wikimedia v. NSA – 69k views […]

[…] Iraq. Avion solaire : article BBC, article metronews, blog Solar Impulse. Wikimedia, 10 Mars 2015. Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA to challenge upstream mass surveillanc…. Monedero, J. et al (2015) Interactive Video Game Cycling Leads to Higher Energy Expenditure and Is […]

[…] Wikimedia v. NSA […]

[…] filed this case in March 2015, to challenge mass surveillance practices that violate the privacy and free […]

[…] Security Agency took place before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. We filed this lawsuit in March 2015, to protect the free expression and privacy rights of Wikimedia users. […]

[…] a recent blog post the foundation […]

[…] l’une des principales et des plus secrètes agences de renseignement au monde. D’où le dépôt d’une plainte au printemps 2015 visant à la fois la NSA et le département de la justice des États-Unis pour […]

[…] For the last two years, the Wikimedia Foundation has been fighting in the United States federal courts to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Wikimedia users from overly-broad government  surveillance. We challenged the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) “Upstream” mass surveillance of the internet, which vacuums up international text-based online communications without individualized warrants or suspicion. Now, in the wake of an important court ruling in our favor, we take a closer look at Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA. […]