◆ SpookStack

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CONYERS: Thank you very much, The gentleman from New Y ork, Jerry Nadler? NADLER: Thank you. Ms. -- well, Mr. Fine, I suppose: You stated in your report that there were no intentional violations of NSL policy procedure; that these were basically carelessness, but there were no intentional violations. No crimes. FINE: Correct. NADLER: OK, But we also read in the report that agents intentionally went around the statute to provide phony information requests to telephone companies based on false statements. For example, the FBI's Communications Analysis Unit went around the NSL statute because it felt that the statute was insufficient, and contracted with the telephone conipanies to access information directly. These contracts were approved by the Office of General Counsel and exploited by issuing exigent or emergency letters which -- well, Jet me ask the general counsel. What is the statutory basis for an exigent letter? As far as I can tell, there is no basis for it. CAPRONI: Well, under 2702, we have the authority to get records from a phone company in an emergency circumstance without a national security letter. The exigent letters were undoubtedly an inappropriate shortcut to the process, though. NADLER: Well, under 2702, if you were going to get information in an emergency, what do you have to do? CAPRONI. You simply have to tell the carrier that there's an emergency, explain -- we recommend that you explain to the carrier what the emergency is. CAPRONI: And it’s then up to the carrier to decide whether or not to provide us records. So it’s not a compulsive system. NADLER: