◆ SpookStack

1] would say it's perhaps slightly more nuanced than that. On grand jury subpoenas, there are cases where we don't have a criminal case open, so a grand jury subpoena is not an option. Further, the whole philosophy of making sure that you're thinking -- we're thinking from an intelligence perspective rather than immediately cutting to the chase ofa criminal investigation encourages ageuts to use national security tools versus criminal lools. The grand jury subpoena is a criminal tool. KELLER: All right, let me follow up, because the challenge we have is getting this in the strike zone. We want you to have this information that you need as an investigative tool, but we want there to be some sort of check on your authority. And if you use the grand jury subpoena, for example, to get my phone records, I have the ability to move to quash that subpoena and have a judge hear it, correct? CAPRONI: You only have the ability to do so if someone tells you that the subpoena has been served, which is not the typical route of a grand jury subpoena. KELLER: OK, or if you went before a FISA Court, you have a set of eyes through the FISA Court judge looking at it, correct? CAPRONI: That's correct. KELLER: Tn terms of using the national security letter, let's say you served it on my phone company, the phone company's not necessarily looking out for my personal privacy interests, and so there's not a set of eyes looking at it, at least from an individual's perspective, right? CAPRONI, And, again, that's the same as with a grand jury subpoena, that's correct. KELLER: So all we have really is our inspector general as a check on the controls to make sure that you're applying it in an appropriate way. CAPRONI: Well, again, [ think this report has told us we internally have to do a far better job at making sure thal we are maintaining internal controls over the use of this tool. CAPRONE: