# DOJ’s Oversights in Data Acquisition: A Summary of the Inspector General’s Report
An official report from the government has unveiled notable procedural shortcomings by the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Trump administration concerning the collection of customer call and message records from major technology firms, including Apple. These revelations have raised profound worries about the tension between national security inquiries and the safeguarding of press freedoms.
## Background
The issue dates back to 2017, when multiple media outlets disclosed interactions between Trump associates and Russian officials during the 2016 election cycle. Some of the materials referenced in these reports were classified, prompting the DOJ to initiate an investigation. As part of this effort, the DOJ employed various compulsory measures—such as subpoenas, search warrants, and judicial orders—to acquire call and message data from journalists, congressional aides, and even two congressional members. Apple was one of the companies that faced demands to provide this sensitive information, under stringent gag orders that forbade any disclosure of the requests.
These gag orders were especially alarming, as they were prolonged several times, in some cases lasting as long as four years. Considering the possible conflicts that may arise between such investigations and press freedom, established policies necessitate high-level approvals before data acquisition and the enforcement of gag orders.
## Findings of the Office of the Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) undertook an oversight review to assess whether the DOJ complied with the requisite procedures during these data demands. The report determined that the DOJ did not obtain the necessary authorizations before requesting data and enforcing gag orders on Apple and other firms.
The OIG pointed out several major lapses:
– The DOJ failed to assemble the News Media Review Committee to assess the authorization requests for compulsory processes.
– In one case, the DOJ did not secure the essential certification from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
– There was ambiguity about whether the DNI certification from another investigation was shared with the Attorney General before receiving authorization.
– The DOJ did not obtain the Attorney General’s explicit approval for the Non-Disclosure Orders (NDOs) tied to the compulsory processes.
The OIG expressed serious concern over these deficiencies, stressing the necessity for corrective actions to avert similar issues in the future.
## Apple’s Reaction and Commitment to Transparency
In light of the DOJ’s requests, Apple enacted measures to protect its users’ information. The company established a new policy that restricts the number of identifiers—such as phone numbers and email addresses—that it would disclose in response to governmental inquiries. Apple clarified that it did not provide photographs or the content of emails during this process.
Additionally, Apple has pledged to be transparent concerning governmental data requests. The company periodically releases transparency reports that outline the data it has shared in response to requests from governments across the globe. This initiative aims to enhance trust and accountability in its interactions with law enforcement.
## Conclusion
The insights from the OIG’s report highlight the vital importance of adhering to established procedures when government entities seek access to personal data, especially regarding journalists and congressional members. The equilibrium between national security and press freedom is fragile, and the shortcomings highlighted in the DOJ’s conduct during the Trump administration underscore the necessity for vigilance and reform. As tech firms like Apple navigate these intricate challenges, their dedication to transparency will be crucial for upholding public trust and protecting individual privacy rights.
