NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

[zimv20]

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?csp=34)


The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country —to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

[...]

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

(more)

tens of millions, with the goal of capturing all domestic phonecalls. warrantless. no probable cause.

this doesn't sound like the country *i* grew up in.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This isnt the America my grandparents fought world wars to have, lets throw all these guys out now! Contact your congressman and demand action! Demand it! This President isnt above the Law!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Macheads get off your butts and contact your representitives herehttp://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Let them know how you feel about everything this president is doing.

[joepunk]

Looks like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth are the governments B*t*h now.

[Thomas Veil]

I know you can't tell from the topic title, but this is the exact same subject being discussed in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=199951).

[zimv20]

yeah, i wish i had put up mine, the one with the descriptive title, first.

oh wait -- i did.

;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

NSA means Now Spying on Americans. The American People are becoming the enemy it seems. Guess thats a lot easier then stopping the Mexican invasion.

[zimv20]

jack cafferty's nice and pissed. direct video link here (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Cafferty-Dictatorship.mov).

he dropped the D word.

[Thomas Veil]

yeah, i wish i had put up mine, the one with the descriptive title, first.

oh wait -- i did.

;)And so you did. My apologies.

I've been making a habit of putting my foot in my mouth lately. I've really gotta stop that. :o

[solvs]

Spying is perfecting legal... with a warrant. That means there's a reason, or at least a suspicion. With that many calls being tracked, no wonder they didn't want to go through the trouble of doing things legally. And yet people who support them still don't have a problem with it because they mention terrorism, or sometimes kiddie porn. Even though the way they've done this is completely overkill (I've used the hitting a fly with a mallet term before for good reason), and unConstitutional for a reason because of the obvious potential for abuses, it doesn't actually even help against terrorism either. According to both the FBI and the CIA, they waste their time on all of these leads to nowhere, that they can't even prosecute because the evidence was obtained illegally, it makes it harder to go after the real threats.

Not to mention all of the harm it does to our reputation, or at least, what's left of it.

[Desertrat]

Kim duToit has an excellent clarifying essay, "Database Cluebat" at his website:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/

One of the responsive comments speaks to a pertinent court decision.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Kim duToit has an excellent clarifying essay, "Database Cluebat" at his website:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/

One of the responsive comments speaks to a pertinent court decision.

'Rat
So I assume this means you've changed your mind about whether government should be able to keep a record of your guns?

I mean, if you've nothing to hide, why oppose it, right?

Nice how the guy calls me clueless, Terminally Stupid, and evil too. Makes me want to believe his analysis isn't tainted by partisanship. :D What was that mantra the conservatives kept saying after the '04 elections? Oh yeah, calling your opposition stupid isn't likely to win you a lot of support!

And he's SOOOOO sure we're not being recorded. I mean, the government wouldn't LIE to us about that, right?

[Desertrat]

If Kim is correct, they're not listening to the calls. They're logging phone numbers and looking for a pattern. After the weeding out process shows some pattern, and there is some cause to suspect wrongful activity, investigators then get a warrant for actual wiretap listening.

The response likened this to pen registers, which federal courts have held are legal.

That's what I read from the essay and that one response.

Show me where I'm wrong, fine. Show me where Kim's analysis is incorrect. Name-calling isn't necessary, regardless of who started it. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Certainly the comment about gun registration is way out in left field...

'Rat

[mactastic]

If Kim is correct, they're not listening to the calls. They're logging phone numbers and looking for a pattern. After the weeding out process shows some pattern, and there is some cause to suspect wrongful activity, investigators then get a warrant for actual wiretap listening.
They've lied to you every step of the way. What gives you confidence they are finally coming completely clean now?

The response likened this to pen registers, which federal courts have held are legal.
Legal with a warrant is my understanding. Show me the warrant.

That's what I read from the essay and that one response.

Show me where I'm wrong, fine. Show me where Kim's analysis is incorrect.
Give me an investigation with subpoena power and I will.
Name-calling isn't necessary, regardless of who started it. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
In all fairness, he did leave out 'unhinged' and 'moonbat'.
Certainly the comment about gun registration is way out in left field...

'Rat
Really? Replace 'phone calls' with 'guns' and see if you feel the same way about the program. If the government was secretely keeping records of not only your firearms purchases, but also your ammunition and shooting/hunting supplies, would you argue that you're cool with that? Come on 'Rat, it's all about privacy. You've argued that the government has no right to invade the privacy of a law-abiding citizen who wishes to purchase a firearm. Yet suddenly you claim that very same concept - magnified immensely - applied to phone calls of law-abiding citizens is fine with you? Would you trust Hillary with that power? Think she might be tempted to use her powers for evil?

I'd like to know how big Kim's database was that he managed versus how big one would be that kept track of every phone call made over five years.

Average person maybe makes 5 calls a day 7 days a week, 280 million people, for five years? That is 2,548,000,000,000 records with what Kim describes as only 4 or 5 fields per record. That's only some 12 trillion bits of data. Yet the claim has been made that this is the largest database in the world. I know people who work for companies that maintain larger databases. So something doesn't add up here.

Do the math. Kim's admitted database is larger than what he says the feds have. That doesn't raise any red flags to you?

The phrase 'tip of the iceberg' comes to mind...

[Dont Hurt Me]

jack cafferty's nice and pissed. direct video link here (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Cafferty-Dictatorship.mov).

he dropped the D word.
I saw it, he has every right to be pissed at the federal govt just as every American should be pissed at our Govt for not upholding our laws and border. Congress & this president are guilty of treason.

[mactastic]

Since we're linking to snarky blogs to prove whether or not this program is legal, I submit this excellent essay (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/legal-issues-governing-administrations.html) by an actual lawyer - who just might have a little more insight into the legality of this program than a gun-fancying ex-grocery store employee.

[zimv20]

from Daily KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/12/123644/354):


The NSA, the Database and YOU
by SusanG

Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

Awakening this morning to the astounding news that nearly two-thirds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html?nav=rss_email/components) of Americans are A-OK with being spied upon, I hastily threw together a Top Ten list of talking points as to why average citizens should worry about this. The NSA's logging of millions and millions of phone calls has many more drawbacks, I'm sure, than I'm listing here. But off the top of my head, here are obvious and fundamental problems that all Americans should worry about with this program:

1. It's inefficient. As networking analyst Valdis Krebs said, as reported on defensetech.org (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002399.html), "If you're looking for a needle, making the haystack bigger is counterintuitive. It just doesn't make sense."

2. It's costly. It is, according to William M. Arkin of the Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/nsas_multibillion_dollar_data.html), a "multi-billion dollar program, which began before 9/11 but has been accelerated since then." An exact cost, of course, will never be pinned down because it's operating in the shadows. But it's safe to assume with this administration's track record that it's in mind-blowing, borrowed from your great-grandchildren funding territory.

3. It's been lied about. Repeatedly. This fact alone should give pause to all Americans. Common sense should tell us that you only lie if you suspect you're doing something wrong; otherwise, come clean on the extent of the program and justify it to citizens. We can live without details of specific operations that would alert the "evil-doers." But we should not be asked to accept this level of intrustion without a full - and truthful from the beginning - account of who is being spied upon and why.

4. It's illegal, according to constitutional scholars (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650). And last time I checked, the president was not above the law. Setting a precedent of approved lawbreaking by any citizen - no matter how powerful - is bad for the nation.

5. The information is not only available to the government, but to all the subcontractors involved in the program, which Arkin estimates is at least more than 100. What level of employees at each subcontracting company has access to your records and could sell the data is unknown because there is no oversight of the program.

6. Given the state of one-party rule in this country, in which lobbyists write their own legislation (http://www.citizen.org/documents/050406PandemicFinal_1.pdf) (warning: PDF) and the president signs it, it seems not unlikely this data is being shared with corporations. Letting health insurers know how often you call your doctor, your pharmacy, your physical therapist, your mental health counselor seems ripe for a situation of coverage denial.

7. Businesses should worry that logging of phone calls to, say, a company under consideration for buy-out would be shared with a bigger GOP donor who is a competitor. Same with R & D research. Same for calls to limousine services and hookers.

8. Given the fact that it's being touted as the largest database in the world, it's highly unlikely we're simply talking about logs of phone calls made. It's probably not targeting just who you called and who called you. Emails, instant messaging and text messaging are also possible data being tracked, according to AP (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002988722_nsadata12.html).

9. Blackmail opportunities are ripe. Government employees, politicians, employees of subcontractors - all could conceivably have information, not necessarily on you, but on ... say ... your Congressional rep that would guarantee votes and legislation not in your best interest.

10. It's "un-American." This level of spying is just gut-level creepy, especially since there's no oversight. When people and agencies as disparate as Joe Scarborough, the ACLU and the conservative Chicago Tribune are up in arms together, there's something wrong at the basic level with such a program, and it's crying out for oversight.

[Desertrat]

mac, how long back was it that "Echelon" was first discussed? About the recording of every electronic emission made (I guess excepting TV)? Three listening stations, one here, one in the UK and one in New Zealand. The UK data is sent to the NSA in the U.S., getting around the deal about the NSA monitoring US citizens.

For years, the sequential process has been discussed: The computers search for key words and phrases. If certain combinations appear, further processing leads finallly to some human checking it out.

I have not a clue whether the explosion in the numbers of telephones has created problems of database size. I don't know. But it might be that there is as much good to be derived from gathering patterns of phone numbers as actually recording conversations or emails as admittedly was done in the past (and might be continuing). Maybe such things a PGP have had an effect; I don't know. But it certainly would require less space to store phone numbers than it would entire conversations.

Stipulating that Kim is not lying about his own background--and there's no reason for him to lie--then his argument has an internal logic that makes sense.

And SFAIK, no warrant is needed for a pen register. That's what the lawsuit was all about.

'Rat

[atszyman]

...Certainly the comment about gun registration is way out in left field...

'Rat


I'll admit that the gun registry is not a great comparison since a gun registry would me more analogous to a phone book, showing who owns what guns instead of who owns which phone numbers.

The phone number database is akin to the government requiring you to file papers every time you want to use your gun that states where you are going to use it and who with.

If they are keeping audio as well it would be as if the government had to video tape you every time you use your gun.

It's not like these databases would not exist if the government weren't compiling them. I have no doubt that my phone company has a record of all of my calls over the years (I see them on my monthly bills). However the government is supposed to get a warrant to get the information, just like they would have to get a warrant to get the records of a gun store owner to see who they've sold to.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Spying on your own people doesnt make us secure, doesnt give us liberty nor freedom. Its a tool of a oppressive govt that has shown they are capable of anything, even torture,secret prisons and who knows what else in the false war on terror. If this was a real war they would have closed our borders and inspect every cargo container coming into the U.S on the first day of this so called war. Its a pure Power Grab by the Federal Govt and are simply using the terrorist as an excuse for this fascist march.

Looks like the young people of this country seem to take real Freedom for granted,clueless and blind to where Bush's policies are taking this country. They just may wake up tomorrow with no voice,no liberty and no freedom just like in Nazi Germany,Communist Russia and todays Communist China.

Turn off your ipods for a moment and pay attention. Our forfathers didnt fight all those wars just to let a nut & his crazy we worship the dollar party take away everything we gained.

[mactastic]

Eschelon was about non-US communications, no? Kind of 'out in left field' in relation to this, don't you think?;)

[mactastic]

USC 3121 (http://www.cybercrime.gov/pentrap3121_3127.htm)
(a) In general.--Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

(b) Exception.--The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply with respect to the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device by a provider of electronic or wire communication service--

(1) relating to the operation, maintenance, and testing of a wire or electronic communication service or to the protection of the rights or property of such provider, or to the protection of users of that service from abuse of service or unlawful use of service; or

(2) to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of service; or (3) where the consent of the user of that service has been obtained.

(c) Limitation.--A government agency authorized to install and use a pen register or trap and trace device under this chapter or under State law shall use technology reasonably available to it that restricts the recording or decoding of electronic or other impulses to the dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information utilized in the processing and transmitting of wire or electronic communications so as not to include the contents of any wire or electronic communications.

(d) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

§ 3122. Application for an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device


(a) Application.--(1) An attorney for the Government may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device under this chapter, in writing under oath or equivalent affirmation, to a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Unless prohibited by State law, a State investigative or law enforcement officer may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device under this chapter, in writing under oath or equivalent affirmation, to a court of competent jurisdiction of such State.

(b) Contents of application.--An application under subsection (a) of this section shall include--

(1) the identity of the attorney for the Government or the State law enforcement or investigative officer making the application and the identity of the law enforcement agency conducting the investigation; and

(2) a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency.

I've highlighted relevant portions for the Clueless and Terminally Stupid among us. Call it my own Cluebat.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Hey Mactastic what does all that Lawyer gobblygook doubletalk mean in laymans terms?

[Desertrat]

I wuz gonna say, "Thank you," but "I've highlighted relevant portions for the Clueless and Terminally Stupid among us. Call it my own Cluebat." has me hoping it was also helpful to the writer. :D

mac, you follow a common Internet flaw: If somebody does not fulminate against some action, you automatically assume they're a proponent. When someobdy merely seeks information, or offers an example of a differing view of events as I did, you go to name-calling and harumphing.

The kicker in this, though, is, "(a) Application.--(1) An attorney for the Government may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title..." "extension of an order" seems to me to allow a lot of extra-curricular activity.

Questions: Could one warrant or order cover ALL phone numbers? Or must there be one warrant or order for every telephone number in existence? If this latter, how do you ever find out what telephones are being used in a plan for some terrorist act? Or should we assume that if we do no monitoring whatsoever, nothing bad will happen? Other means to avoid bad events are sufficient?

Separately: Echelon's intake in the UK (of US-origin transmissions) was sent to NSA in the US--which is what led to the first go-'round of notice and discussion. Are we to believe that such relaying no longer occurs?

'Rat

[mactastic]

Hey Mactastic what does all that Lawyer gobblygook doubletalk mean in laymans terms?
First let me talk about what 'Rat seems to be trying to argue (via duToit's website). His argument is limited to whether there was a 4th Amendment violation by using a pen register without a warrant - which was deemed legal by the SCOTUS in 1979. The court at that time held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy - in large part because the pen register only captured a limited amount of data.

So while 'Rat may be correct that the 4th amendment has not been violated here (or not - more on that below), there are still other issues in play. The first is that the NSA likely violated the FISA Act which requires warrants when electronically monitoring US citizens, and that such warrants may only be issued when there is reason to believe that the information gained will be relevant to an ongoing investigation.

Another issue is that the Telecoms likely violated the Stored Communications Act at the behest of the NSA, which prevents the Telecoms from providing such information except under subpoena or court order.

Finally I would point to USC 3121 which I posted above, which was apparently written precisely because of that 1979 decision - and which has yet to be tested in court AFAIK.

Now, whether or not Article II trumps all law is another matter...

[mactastic]

I wuz gonna say, "Thank you," but "I've highlighted relevant portions for the Clueless and Terminally Stupid among us. Call it my own Cluebat." has me hoping it was also helpful to the writer. :D
You're welcome. Hope it didn't hurt when it hit you upside the head.

mac, you follow a common Internet flaw: If somebody does not fulminate against some action, you automatically assume they're a proponent. When someobdy merely seeks information, or offers an example of a differing view of events as I did, you go to name-calling and harumphing.
Now now... you're the one who posted the 'excellent essay' that contained the name calling which I simply recycled. Another case of the guy who dishes it out who can't take it?

And secondly, let's just get it out in the open. Do you or do you not support the collection of all phone and data communications in the US without a warrant? No weaseling, just answer the question. Yes or no. For the moment we'll assume that a. No warrant was granted, and b. No audio was captured.

Yes or No?

The kicker in this, though, is, "(a) Application.--(1) An attorney for the Government may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title..." "extension of an order" seems to me to allow a lot of extra-curricular activity.

Questions: Could one warrant or order cover ALL phone numbers? Or must there be one warrant or order for every telephone number in existence? If this latter, how do you ever find out what telephones are being used in a plan for some terrorist act? Or should we assume that if we do no monitoring whatsoever, nothing bad will happen? Other means to avoid bad events are sufficient?

Separately: Echelon's intake in the UK (of US-origin transmissions) was sent to NSA in the US--which is what led to the first go-'round of notice and discussion. Are we to believe that such relaying no longer occurs?

'Rat
See my previous post as to why your duToit argument is less than convincing. And let's leave Echelon out of this for the moment.

BTW, good to see you again.

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join? ;)

I don't frankly understand this debate. The FISA law provides a mechanism, and a secret mechanism at that, for the President and the intelligence agencies to obtain warrants for this sort of information. And apparently all they need to do is ask, and their wish is commanded, almost 100% of the time. A secret court with secret judges meeting in secret that almost always says yes. What else does this administration need? Apparently any oversight, no matter how perfunctory, is too much for them to bear. They believe that their powers are unlimited and without any checks, or any need for checks.

All legalist debates aside, this is the real issue for many people; at least, it is for me. The President has become imperial. If any argument has been made in favor of an imperial presidency, then I've yet to hear it. So forget the legal arguments, which as we all know, will never be fully resolved -- which means they can be debated until the end of time. Think instead about what kind of government we want -- one that respects our rights, or one that seeks every dark legalist back alley to detour around them. Because in the end, what we want, is what we get.

[zimv20]

an interesting historical note found here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.analysis12may12,0,2605696.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines):

After World War II, the NSA's predecessor, the Army Signal Security Agency, sent representatives to the major telegraph companies and asked for cooperation in getting access to all telegraph traffic entering or leaving the United States. The companies complied, over the objections of their lawyers. When these practices came to light as part of a 1976 investigation into intelligence abuses, President Gerald R. Ford extended executive privilege, which shielded those involved from testifying publicly, to the telecommunications companies on the recommendation of then chief-of-staff Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the Project on Government Oversight.

[mactastic]

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[zimv20]

link (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/12/19380/1332)


NSA Whistleblower: There's More, People Are "Going To Be Shocked"

From the subscription-only Congress Daily, Chris Strohm reports that NSA whistleblower Russell Tice will make some on bombshell revelations on Capitol Hill next week:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. Russell Tice, who worked on what are known as "special access programs," has wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December that he had secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order.  In an interview late Thursday, Tice said the Senate Armed Services Committee finally asked him to meet next week in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

Tice was fired from the NSA last May. He said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden, who has been nominated to become director of the CIA. Tice said one of his co-workers personally informed Hayden that illegal and unconstitutional activity was occurring. [...] "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they¹ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now." [...]

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. "It's an angle that you haven't heard about yet," he said.

(emphasis supplied previously)

[blackfox]

I don't envy Tice. I am sure many will do their upmost to drag him through the mud.

It should be interesting to see what charges are leveled at him.

[jefhatfield]

ordinary citizens? who are we to bush and company?

it must be a huge temptation to listen in on key democratic leaders...to basically spy on them...and we have been down that road before

nixon had a 62 percent approval rating when he decided to get at the heart of what the dems were planning in the early 70s, and saying, and thinking

...but bush jr. has a 29 percent approval rating and he has more incentive than nixon did

[mactastic]

link (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/12/19380/1332)


(emphasis supplied previously)
The reason I don't buy 'Rat's argument that everything is hunky-dory, legally speaking, with the NSA programs is that I don't think the agency has come clean with us about what they are doing. Every 'Terminally Stupid' right wing 'bloviator' (to recycle some terms of the debate) has opined that the NSA spying is perfectly legal because they know that the scope of the program has been revealed to them (by God?) and that they are convinced that there is nothing more that the NSA is doing.

They said that about the warrantless wiretapping of 'al-Queda suspects only'. I argued that the government was data-mining. Nonsense, they replied. The government is only monitoring the calls of people who want to harm the US they said.

Now it turns out that the NSA is indeed data-mining innocent US citizens. No big deal, the borrow-and-spenders argue, it's not like they're recording our calls.

And my question is: What makes you so sure the full scope of the program is NOW known? You don't think the NSA keeps secrets? You don't suppose they're doing more than they're saying? And you're sure, you're POSITIVE, that no misuse of this database is occurring? Even though there is no oversight?

The righties don't think that Hillary Clinton would be tempted to use a national database like this to further her own interests? Would they be comfortable allowing her to be the keeper of these secrets?

The funny thing (and not funny HA HA) is that were political parties reversed, and Democrats were in power and had created a program like this, the righties would be screaming bloody murder about invasion of privacy and impeachment and violations of law -- the only difference is that I would be joining them.

[Thomas Veil]

There is more to tell. Don't forget, the "cancelled" TIA (Total Information Awareness) program has moved deep underground...and IIRC, Poindexter is still running it. Perhaps this NSA phone database is only a small part of TIA, or the Thing as it's now sometimes called.

[Thomas Veil]

Hmm. Despite Bush's unpopularity, this news analysis (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1958134) reveals some disturbing trends:

Criticism that the administration is undermining privacy rights of Americans has failed to generate wide opposition from the general public. In an ABC-Washington Post poll taken late last week, almost two-thirds of Americans said it was acceptable for the NSA to collect phone records.

Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in repeated polls taken since Sept. 11, 2001, "a solid plurality, around 50 percent" continues to say they would rather the government went too far in restricting civil liberties than not going far enough in protecting the country. (My bold.)

*Sigh.* :(

[zimv20]

Hmm. Despite Bush's unpopularity, this news analysis (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1958134) reveals some disturbing trends:

a newsweek poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/) got different results:

Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

[zimv20]

e&p (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002502415)


Sibling Rivalry: 'Wash Post' and 'Newsweek' Polls Clash on NSA

They may be owned by the same company, but two polls commissioned by The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine on the important issue of public approval of the National Security Agency's gathering of phone records produced quite different results

[...]

So what happened? Most likely views changed that much in one day after more negative media reports (including many from conservative commentators such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) surfaced. The Washington Post survey took place before many Americans had heard about, or thought about, the implications. The Newsweek Poll also reached twice as many Americans.

The Washington Post/ABC survey was conducted Thursday, just after the NSA news broke via USA Today, and reached just 502 citizens. Newsweek polled 1007 Americans on both Thursday and Friday. It found that even 27% of Republicans voiced disapproval of the phone records program.

The Newsweek results were pretty stark: 57% of Americans say the administration has gone too far in expanding presidential power, while only 38% say they have not. The president's job approval rating in this poll declined one point to 35%.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, I feel better now. And Editor & Publisher is probably correct in their reasoning for the discrepancy.

[Desertrat]

In no way do I support unrestricted snooping of whatever sort--electronic, postal, whatever. In no way do I think that TPTB are "above the law", although there are arguments as to how and when the law applies to the position of Commander in Chief. I guess it's fair to say that no civilian is above the law. IANAL.

What is difficult for me is to separate accusations based on a political view, or "spin", from "real" accusations based upon what actually was done that may or may not be legal.

When Democrat lawyers start arguing the meaning of laws with Republican lawyers, I figure both sides usually are lying like dogs and both sides are overloaded with fecal material.

So, when I run across something like duToit's analysis of HOW a systematized data-gathering system works, or is used, I don't pay attention to emotion-laden words. Me, I generally don't use them in discussion. Still, if there is internal logic to some line of argument, I'm more interested in the argument.

Anyway: I have had the belief that the use of pen registers did not require a warrant. mac's "Finally I would point to USC 3121 which I posted above, which was apparently written precisely because of that 1979 decision - and which has yet to be tested in court AFAIK." seems pertinent to this entire discussion, as to the legality or illegality of what seems to have been done.

Now, if the NSA folks indeed went beyond the pen-register actions, shame on 'em.

'Rat

[Dont Hurt Me]

There is no reason this should be acceptable to the American People, afterall this same govt let the 911 folks into this country, and the same govt ignored this threat, this same govt has ignored 10 million Mexicans and most likely terrorist walking into this country and then are going to use this as an excuse to spy on every American??? BS!

[mactastic]

In no way do I support unrestricted snooping of whatever sort--electronic, postal, whatever. In no way do I think that TPTB are "above the law", although there are arguments as to how and when the law applies to the position of Commander in Chief. I guess it's fair to say that no civilian is above the law. IANAL.
Glad we're on the same page there.

What is difficult for me is to separate accusations based on a political view, or "spin", from "real" accusations based upon what actually was done that may or may not be legal.
Believe me, I'm partisan, but I try to keep that separate from my analysis of the legal standing. What is frustrating is when people like duToit come out within hours of a new revelation and claim that they 'know all the facts'. Seriously, how can that be possible?

When Democrat lawyers start arguing the meaning of laws with Republican lawyers, I figure both sides usually are lying like dogs and both sides are overloaded with fecal material.
Did you mean Democratic? Or are you being deliberately insulting?

So, when I run across something like duToit's analysis of HOW a systematized data-gathering system works, or is used, I don't pay attention to emotion-laden words. Me, I generally don't use them in discussion. Still, if there is internal logic to some line of argument, I'm more interested in the argument.
His logic is (mostly) sound ONLY if you believe the government. If you accept the Republican talking points, it's perfectly logical. The problem is, I've been lied to so many times by this and other administrations that I'm not in a charitable mood when they say 'trust us'. I have little patience for those who accept 'trust us' on blind faith. You know the saying... fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice uhh err... well we won't get fooled again.

Anyway: I have had the belief that the use of pen registers did not require a warrant. mac's "Finally I would point to USC 3121 which I posted above, which was apparently written precisely because of that 1979 decision - and which has yet to be tested in court AFAIK." seems pertinent to this entire discussion, as to the legality or illegality of what seems to have been done.
That is the crux of the matter. We have an admission that activities are taking place that appear to be outside the law, and we have no mechanism to investigate. If the administration is so sure they are on solid legal ground, why not let some oversight take place? To me that is an indication that things aren't what they seem, and that some abuses are taking place, or are likely to.

Now, if the NSA folks indeed went beyond the pen-register actions, shame on 'em.

'Rat
And how bad do you want to find out if they went beyond pen-register type activities? How bad does the rank-and-file of the Republican party want to find out?

[IJ Reilly]

Phone Firms Questioned

Legal experts say the divulging of records to the government is prohibited by a 1986 law.

WASHINGTON — While Capitol Hill debated the issue Friday, many lawyers voiced surprise that three major telephone companies had agreed to make available to the National Security Agency the phone records of tens of millions of Americans.

That's because Congress made it illegal 20 years ago for telephone companies and computer service providers to turn over to the government records showing who their customers had dialed or e-mailed.

"I would not want to be the general counsel of one of these phone companies," said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former Justice Department lawyer who has worked on electronic surveillance.

Kerr was referring to the disclosure Thursday that the Bush administration has been secretly collecting the domestic phone call records of millions of Americans. The government reportedly obtained the records from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth but was turned down by Denver-based Qwest Communications.

The law doesn't make it illegal for the government to ask for such records. Rather, it makes it illegal for phone companies to divulge them.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was passed when cellphones and the Internet were emerging as new forms of communication. Section 2702 of the law says the providers of "electronic communications … shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer … to any government entity."

Companies that violate the law are subject to being sued and paying damages of at least $1,000 per violation per customer.

The first such lawsuit was filed Friday against Verizon in New Jersey.

"It is simply illegal for a telephone company to turn over caller records without some form of legal process, such as a court order or a subpoena," said James X. Dempsey, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology.

The 1986 law "was Congress' effort to create a comprehensive privacy right and to apply it to all forms of electronic communications," said Dempsey, who at the time of the law's passage was a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

Both Kerr and Dempsey said it was hard to analyze the legal situation since neither the Bush administration nor the phone companies had explained the legal basis for divulging the records. But under the law as written, "it looks like the disclosure is not allowed," Kerr said.

The Supreme Court and Congress have taken turns defining the privacy rights of Americans involving phone calls.

The 4th Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. But until 1967, a search was generally limited to the police entering a home.

That year, the court said a government agent listening to a private phone call was the equivalent of a search. That ruling, in Katz vs. United States, required police and federal agents thereafter to obtain a search warrant from a judge before they wiretapped a phone.

Still, phone records are not the same as phone conversations, and the high court refused to extend the privacy protections of the 4th Amendment to a list of dialed phone numbers.

"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the [phone] number they dial," the court said in the 1979 case of Smith vs. Maryland. This ruling gave the police freedom to obtain phone records without a warrant.

To close that loophole, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, forbidding the phone companies to divulge phone records.

The law includes several exceptions. For example, phone records may be disclosed "with the lawful consent of the customer." Another exception involves "any emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury." In such a situation, the "provider in good faith" may give the requested phone records to a government official.

Bush administration officials may have argued they faced such a national emergency after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Many people feared another terrorist attack within the United States, and officials were anxious to quickly gather information.

"You can see how they could say that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," Dempsey said. "I don't understand how that could serve as a 'good faith' defense for years afterward."

USA Today, which disclosed the program this week, reported that Qwest had refused to turn over its phone records because it believed it would be illegal. Qwest urged the NSA to get a court order, but the agency refused, the newspaper reported.

In a statement Friday, the attorney for former Qwest Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio said the government approached the company in the fall of 2001 seeking access to the phone records of Qwest customers, with neither a warrant nor approval from a special court established to handle surveillance matters.

"Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act," attorney Herbert J. Stern said.

"If they did not have a court order, this is clearly illegal," said Kate Martin, a lawyer and director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

A separate provision of the law says the FBI director may demand the phone "billing records of a person" if the director "certifies in writing" that these records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism."

Some lawyers speculate the administration may have citied this provision in Section 2709 in seeking the phone records. But Martin noted it applied only to the FBI, not the NSA. Moreover, it focuses on those connected to a criminal investigation.

"How would that apply to tens of millions of telephone records?" Martin asked. "The NSA is more like a vacuum cleaner than an investigative agency."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nsa13may13,0,7842766.story

Is that clear enough?

[Desertrat]

Democrats of the Democratic Party; Republicans of the Republican Party. Simple enough. Ain't no "Democratics". :)

"If the administration is so sure they are on solid legal ground, why not let some oversight take place?"

Agreed. Oversight, ombudsmen, oversight with non-government people somehow involved. But the pols hate those notions.

IJ, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that ""You can see how they could say that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," Dempsey said. "I don't understand how that could serve as a 'good faith' defense for years afterward."" is what's "operative".

We'd agree with Dempsey's second sentence; the snoops wouldn't.

A year or so back, when there first was concern expressed about spying on anybody and everybody, I saw an interview with somebody high up in some investigative agency. He posed a realistic scenario and raised a good question:

First off, it takes time to get a warrant. The scenario is that a legally-espied foreign phone call is made to a US number. The US phone is only of short-term use, or is movable, as in a cell phone. By the time a warrant is executed, the user has moved on or the cell phone is discarded and a new phone is put into use for further communication. A conflict between law and technology. How do we deal with this sort of situation? I don't know.

'Rat

[skunk]

First off, it takes time to get a warrant. The scenario is that a legally-espied foreign phone call is made to a US number. The US phone is only of short-term use, or is movable, as in a cell phone. By the time a warrant is executed, the user has moved on or the cell phone is discarded and a new phone is put into use for further communication. A conflict between law and technology. How do we deal with this sort of situation? I don't know.What's wrong with using the Constitutional Method? Outdated, I know, but you could change the law - subject to the usual debate. Is that too radical?

[zimv20]

with concerns like net neutrality and the last mile, i'm starting to wonder what the telecoms were promised in return. in addition to any outright payment for the data.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that ""You can see how they could say that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," Dempsey said. "I don't understand how that could serve as a 'good faith' defense for years afterward."" is what's "operative".

Hardly matters. It seems unambiguously illegal, no matter how you slice and dice it.

[Desertrat]

.

[Desertrat]

I'm fully in favor of changing the law as might be appropriate, but I'm not sure how you address the time factor. I want to see warrants, but I rather doubt that pre-signed "John Doe" warrants are the proper answer.

'Rat

[skunk]

I'm fully in favor of changing the law as might be appropriate, but I'm not sure how you address the time factor.You address the time factor by changing the law before you act, so you don't have to bend it, break it or ignore it. That's democracy.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm fully in favor of changing the law as might be appropriate, but I'm not sure how you address the time factor. I want to see warrants, but I rather doubt that pre-signed "John Doe" warrants are the proper answer.

'Rat

Changing it how? These requests can already be made to the secret FISA court, which rarely says no. The only reason I can imagine for bypassing the FISA court is because the administration knows that they're out of line.

[mactastic]

with concerns like net neutrality and the last mile, i'm starting to wonder what the telecoms were promised in return. in addition to any outright payment for the data.

Well there's always the net neutrality thing, with the big players wanting the laws changed so that they can favor certain websites over others in terms of access speeds, for reasons of money, politics, religion, etc.

Those debates are ongoing, but I don't know if that was an issue five years ago.

I would imagine that threats/carrots of "we'll never let/we'll assist legislation favoring you pass" were thrown in to sweeten the deal/assure compliance.

[zimv20]

Those debates are ongoing, but I don't know if that was an issue five years ago.
dunno about neutrality (though i suspect it was an issue then), but telecoms have long wanted to be the sole providers on their own physical lines.

[solvs]

What's wrong with using the Constitutional Method? Outdated, I know, but you could change the law - subject to the usual debate. Is that too radical?
Are you guys forgetting that they did try to change the law after 9/11 to give you more time to get a warrant afterward and make it even easier and quicker, but still secret? As it is, you can get a secret warrant 3 days afterwards that are almost always granted. Even if they aren't, there's nothing more anybody can do about it other than log it in some book/database no one can read. They are granted almost instantaneously in most cases, faster than normal warrants, which the police and FBI still require. Pesky little thing in this country about rights so King George (also ironic, no?) can't just kick down your doors and do as he pleases. Still holds true today. Terrorism and kiddie porn are just strawmen, and I can't believe people still fall for it. Spying without a warrant wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and if people are really doing stuff with kids, they could easily get a warrant. What they are doing is illegal. That's all there is to it. Even worse, not too long ago they said they weren't.

So why didn't the law change? The Bush administration didn't want it to. They said it was unnecessary to change the laws. Now we know why. They were just going to bypass it and say they weren't. And everyone who's ok with it, or even lackadaisical about whether or not it's technically illegal or not, are not seeing the bigger picture.

[FFTT]

I was just trying to imagine what the NSA has In their satellite photo archives.

They can literally see through walls and scan for life forms within any normal
house. They can read the license plate on your car, so what else might they
have on anyone of interest.

[skunk]

They can literally see through walls and scan for life forms within any normal house. They can read the license plate on your car, so what else might they have on anyone of interest.Reading a photo of the average car taken from vertically above is unlikely to give much information on the license plate, whether or not you can theoretically resolve the detail. Don't print your license number on the roof of your car and you'll be OK. Trust me.

[FFTT]

That assumes the photo was taken from directly above.

Someone I work with was shown a demo of just how much detail they can see on command. The demo showed that the satellite could be controlled from
his lap top. His car was found in a large shopping center parking lot live.

My comment about seeing through walls is based on infrared capabilities.
They can literally scan a house and find where someone might be hiding,
which can be used in situations like a SWAT raid.

[solvs]

You guys remember when this stuff was just a crazy conspiracy theorists tin foil hat induced paranoid fantasy? Member that? Not really crazy anymore. Well, I mean it's still crazy... but now it's true.

[zimv20]

as was done in the run up to the iraq war, i believe bush is picking his words veeeerrrrrry carefully. for example, this statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060513.html) has been bugging me:

We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.
at first read, it seems like he's denying that the rights of the citizenry at large are being violated. however, the statement becomes true so long as more than two million americans, declared innocent by executive fiat, are left alone. two million party faithfuls, for example.

meaning that the other 293 million of us have something to worry about. or just us democrats, independents and dirty liberals. see how he hasn't lied?

[pseudobrit]

as was done in the run up to the iraq war, i believe bush is picking his words veeeerrrrrry carefully. for example, this statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060513.html) has been bugging me:

at first read, it seems like he's denying that the rights of the citizenry at large are being violated. however, the statement becomes true so long as more than two million americans, declared innocent by executive fiat, are left alone. two million party faithfuls, for example.

meaning that the other 293 million of us have something to worry about. or just us democrats, independents and dirty liberals. see how he hasn't lied?

That's awesome, and I could see him using it. Sort of an inverse way of saying, "there are millions of Americans whose personal lives we aren't trolling through."

2,000 troops didn't die in Iraq. Oh, what's that? Those 2,000 troops? Yeah, they're dead, but I wasn't talking about them.

[zimv20]

wellll... it didn't take very long for abuse story #1 (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/) to come to light...

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I was just trying to imagine what the NSA has In their satellite photo archives.

They can literally see through walls and scan for life forms within any normal
house. They can read the license plate on your car, so what else might they
have on anyone of interest.
And yet not a clue of where those WMDs were that were preached about by our Govt.:confused:

[iGary]

I'm sure they got a kick out of my roommate who had a phone-sex fetish.

[pseudobrit]

wellll... it didn't take very long for abuse story #1 (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/) to come to light...

Let's see if it passes muster with Bush's phrasing:

a) not millions of people
b) liberal media and traitorous leaker hardly qualify as "innocent Americans".

He's still safe. And so are we, from terror.

[IJ Reilly]

Well so long as they're only intimidating the media, it's all right then. I mean, who likes the media?

[mactastic]

This actually brings up a good point about the duToit article 'Rat so nicely linked to for us. One of duToit's reasons for not worrying about the NSA database was that it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to care enough to look at your information. He goes to great length to explain that when he was managing a database he rarely had any reason to look at an individual customer's file because it simply wasn't interesting enough.

More to the point, in all that time, I can count on two hands the number of times each year that I ever looked at any single customer’s purchases—and even then, it was to check the data, or for a merchandising purpose.

...

As far as the vast majority of us are concerned, there’s not much to worry about. Nobody at the NSA is interested in the call you made to your Mom, or even to the call you made to your mistress. Don’t kid yourself: you’re not that interesting.

But what if you become interesting? Are there any protections to safeguard someone from misuse of that data? That is just one unanswered question about this program that I'm just too Terminally Stupid to understand I guess.

Being uninteresting is not enough protection in my book.

[pseudobrit]

But what if you become interesting?

And who is defining what's interesting? I'm going to be working to unseat a prominent Republican later this year.

Will I be interesting then?

Why should I even have to seriously ****ing worry about that kind of gestapo **** in the Goddamned United States of America?

[mactastic]

And who is defining what's interesting?
Exactly my point.

A judge should define interesting IMHO. No warrant, no peeking.

[Dont Hurt Me]

And who is defining what's interesting? I'm going to be working to unseat a prominent Republican later this year.

Will I be interesting then?

Why should I even have to seriously ****ing worry about that kind of gestapo **** in the Goddamned United States of America?I agree and its not like they are catching these guys everyday with a phone. This is simply a power grab by a govt bent on more and more say into everyones life even to the point of monitoring every persons phone call? This has a lot of potential for abuse and hasnt done much to get Bin Laden has it. Pure lies by the govt control freaks in the police state. Instead of spying on Americans how about not letting these bastards in the country in the first place? That wouldnt grow the police state now would it.

[zimv20]

from Feb 2005, regarding the safety of NYT's reporter judith miller's phonecalls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html):

Reporters' Phone Records Are Protected, Court Rules
U.S. Attorney Can't Force N.Y. Times to Supply Documents

The New York Times has a qualified right under the First Amendment and federal common law to protect the identity of its confidential sources by refusing to release telephone records to a prosecutor, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that a federal prosecutor in Chicago cannot compel the newspaper to turn over records of two Times reporters' phone calls in 2001 as part of an investigation into possible government leaks. The effort by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald came in the cases of two Muslim charities accused of possible ties to terrorists.

Yesterday's decision runs counter to a ruling issued in Washington last week. A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided on Feb. 15 that reporters for the New York Times and for Time magazine can be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions about their confidential sources before a grand jury. The grand jury is investigating whether an administration official knowingly revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

Lawyers for the Times welcomed yesterday's decision, but some First Amendment experts said Sweet's decision may have little sway in freedom of the press cases outside of New York.

John Harrison, an expert on the First Amendment at the University of Virginia law school, said yesterday's ruling -- from a lower court judge in a separate circuit -- is unlikely to influence the full D.C. Circuit next month, when it is expected to hear an appeal by Time and the Times.

(more)

[zimv20]

wellll... it didn't take very long for abuse story #1 (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/) to come to light...
no rumor or conjecture here. the fbi has confirmed it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html).

FBI Acknowledges: Journalists Phone Records are Fair Game

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters’ phone records in leak investigations.

“It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,” said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being “tracked.”

“Think of it more as backtracking,” said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

“The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information,” the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

secret warrants. nice. real nice.

[FFTT]

I have been corrected that the NSA may be using satellite data, but it's the

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency that does the nifty satellite stuff.

Anyway unless this goes to a full congressional investigation with the power
to subpoena NSA records, our government within the government says we'll just have to trust them.

[zimv20]

i don't yet know if these AT&T envelopes are for real, but i look forward to receiving my next bill from them.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/attlistenx.jpg

[blackfox]

wow, zim...a giant black box on every envelope - that is ominous. Those bastards.

[Desertrat]

Just a little passing comment: I've seen no concerns raised here that haven't been common among folks of the gun-fraternity since 1968. But, only the BATF was seen as The Hazard.

Now, the same sort of us vs. them is hitting on everybody, regardless of race, creed, religion, political view, sexual preference, whatever. Hey, give 'em credit: They're equal opportunity folks!

Remember when RICO came to be? And the "mission creep" that started applying "conspiracy" to all manner of trivial stuff? Same sort of problem with all these anti-terror laws and interpretations of laws. The definition of "terrorist" is subject to change.

What additional powers of the Patriot Act were really beneficial to finding/catching terrorists? Did it really take 1,200 pages' worth?

zim's post about the FBI's doings showed two conflicting judicial decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA snooping didn't wind up with a favorable court finding.

solvs said, "...you can get a secret warrant 3 days afterwards that are almost always granted." Wouldn't that be a likely tack for NSA and the Administration to take? That they can follow the pen register style and pattern seeking effort and then if they find probable cause, get a warrant?

I hate to talk about the law in a deal like this, because I figure any of us can find a lawyer who'll support whatever view any of us have. Heck, I never figured that the 2st Amendment part of the campaign finance reform law would get past SCOTUS, but dumb me. So who knows what a judge will decide?

To me, the biggest fly in the ointment in all this anti-terror stuff is the difficulty in getting out of some mess involving "Ya got the wrong guy!" Regardless of party affiliation, Congress folks have never made any serious efforts towards taking care of "just us folks" via ombudsmen or oversight with neutral or non-government people in some position of authority. A wrongful accusation is even more of a life-wrecker now than ever in the past.

Pardon the ramble. Hope some of it makes sense.

'Rat

[FFTT]

You know when a young child discovers a new word and then suddenly that new word pops up in nearly every thing they say?

Well our esteemed President reminded me of this,
the last few times he has addressed the public on the whole warrantless spying issue.

I can't ever remember him using the words "legal", "legally" or "within the law" so many time since he took office.

[pdham]

I don't know if anyone has posted this... I must admit I didn't carefully read every comment. But, moral or not, ustified or no. Precendent was set by the supreme court in 1979 (Smith V. Maryland). Essentially what happened in the case was this: To catch a robber police put a pen register (a device to intercept phone numbers) at a local phone routing place without obtaining a warrant. They tracked calls and arrested the criminal. The criminal appealed. Both the state and the supreme court held that because every phone number called is automatically shared with the phone company with the full knowledge of the caller, it would be unreasonable for the caller to expect it to remain private beyond that, thus a warrant is not needed to record phone numbers. Therefore, IF the gov is only recording numbers as they claim to be. The act would most likely enjoy the protection of the Smith precedent.

[zimv20]

AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_phone_records;_ylt=Apjnm3M.jnIhFKJ0ct8aKOyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)


Hatch: Court Briefed on Bush Surveillance

WASHINGTON - Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

[...]

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of White House-approved National Security Agency monitoring operations.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, a member of a special Intelligence Committee panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.

Hatch made the comment in answering a question in an interview about recent reports of the government compiling lists of Americans' phone calls. When pressed later, Hatch suggested he was also speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring.

Asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

[...]

The court is charged with secretly considering individual warrants for physical searches, wiretaps and traces on phone records when someone is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power. Making such requests to a regular court might reveal highly classified information.

(more)

i'm getting confused -- the FISA court was informed, did not issue warrants, but were okay with that. further, that's not their job? i thought that was exactly their job.

[solvs]

But what if you become interesting? Are there any protections to safeguard someone from misuse of that data?
You don't have clearance for that information. Answer your question? We should be scared. Legalese or not, the implications are the scary part at this point, not the implementation (yet).

solvs said, "...you can get a secret warrant 3 days afterwards that are almost always granted." Wouldn't that be a likely tack for NSA and the Administration to take? That they can follow the pen register style and pattern seeking effort and then if they find probable cause, get a warrant?
My point exactly. Then why didn't they? It's not even as hard as what the police have to do go through with just cause and reasonable evidence. All they need is a reason, and can even apply long after the fact. Their only excuse is that they didn't want to. Yeah, that bothers me.

[pseudobrit]

Their only excuse is that they didn't want to. Yeah, that bothers me.

Their excuse is that they don't have to.

Their reason is that they don't want to leave a paper trail, secret or not. Paper trails open the possibility that abuse will be uncovered.

Which means they're either abusing the system or simply wish to retain the option.

[solvs]

Their excuse is that they don't have to.

Their reason is that they don't want to leave a paper trail, secret or not. Paper trails open the possibility that abuse will be uncovered.

Which means they're either abusing the system or simply wish to retain the option.
Kinda my point, but thank you for fleshing it out. ;) I simply cannot understand why there are still people who are ok with this. If this was really what they said it was, they wouldn't have lied and they'd just use warrants. Even if they haven't actually done anything illegal, they are walking a fine line (or they've already crossed it). Are there really people who are ok with being spied on, or is this one of those "it couldn't happen to me" things? Nothing to hide? Then why should they be able to look?

This is just disturbing on so many levels.

[mactastic]

Remember, every chance this administration has had to get a judicial ruling on their power grabs, they've fought tooth and nail.

Those aren't the actions of innocent people, or ones with supreme confidence that their actions are lawful.

[zimv20]

wsj (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114808152438358490-d2afgc_Jjqve_55Tj_bHj_iNCu4_20070519.html?mod=rss_free)


Requests for Corporate Data Multiply

Businesses Juggle Law-Enforcement Demands For Information About Customers, Suppliers

WASHINGTON -- Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement efforts to secure corporate information about clients and suppliers have reached such levels that some companies have had to create special units that do nothing but deal with these demands, a process often called "subpoena management."

Banks, Internet-service providers and other companies that possess large amounts of data on their customers say that police and intelligence agencies have been increasingly coming to them looking for tidbits of information that could help them stop everything from money launderers to pedophiles and terrorists.

"Corporate counsel that used to see law-enforcement-related requests five times a year are now getting them sometimes dozens of times a day," says Susan Hackett, a senior vice president and top attorney for the Association of Corporate Counsel, which represents the legal departments of leading U.S. companies.

In short, phone companies currently caught up in a controversy over reports that they gave the National Security Agency access to records of customers' calls are hardly the only businesses fretting over how to cooperate with the government in the war on terror. Internet and financial companies also are frequently targeted by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, forcing them into situations where they must choose between customers' rights to privacy and their own corporate desire to help the government without being seen as agents of the government.

The situation is made even more complicated when the companies are government contractors, vying for federal business or in an industry subject to complicated regulation.

Time Warner Inc.'s America Online Inc. employs more than a dozen people, including several former prosecutors, handling almost 12,000 requests a year from federal state and local police agencies. The unit works 24 hours a day, seven days a week and maintains a special hotline that police or federal agents can call to help them with their queries and tailor their requests. For the last five years the company has published a "Law Enforcement Training Manual" complete with information about how long the company retains basic subscriber information and unread email, to sample subpoena and court-order wordings to speed processing of the police demands.

According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography. Close behind are cases dealing with identity theft and other computer crimes.

(more)

Total Information Awareness?

[IJ Reilly]

Total Information Awareness?

Total information, but I don't know about the awareness.

[FFTT]

I am also not aware of this awareness. :eek:


I am however aware of a large scale lack of awareness.

[solvs]

According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography.
Does anybody think this has anything to do with kiddie porn or terrorism? It's the lack of warrants people have a problem with. With either issue, warrants would be required, or else you couldn't prosecute if you did catch somebody. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it seems to me they just mention terrorists and child abuser, and they expect logic to go out the window.

Which, of course, somehow will mean I'm advocating terrorism and child abuse by pointing this out.

[zimv20]

wired (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70944-0.html) breaks the story wide open by publishing some internal AT&T docs.


Whistle-Blower's Evidence, Uncut

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications company, which alleges that AT&T cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

In a public statement Klein issued last month, he described the NSA's visit to an AT&T office. In an older, less-public statement recently acquired by Wired News, Klein goes into additional details of his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T building in San Francisco.

Klein supports his claim by attaching excerpts of three internal company documents: a Dec. 10, 2002, manual titled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco," a Jan. 13, 2003, document titled "SIMS, Splitter Cut-In and Test Procedure" and a second "Cut-In and Test Procedure" dated Jan. 24, 2003.

Here we present Klein's statement in its entirety, with inline links to all of the document excerpts where he cited them. You can also download the complete file here (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf) (pdf). The full AT&T documents are filed under seal in federal court in San Francisco.

some excerpts:

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

In San Francisco the "secret room" is Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T.

[FFTT]

You know someone is trying to cover their a$$ after Wired and EFF ignored
a direct court order not to publish the contents of the pdf.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70947-0.html

Inside the Secret Room

Courtroom Clash!
A federal judge refuses to give AT&T back its internal documents, but orders the EFF not to give them out.

AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.



Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.

As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein --

We are filing a motion to intervene in the case in order to request that the court unseal the evidence, joining other news and civil rights organizations that have already done so, including the EFF, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Associated Press and Bloomberg.

Before publishing these documents we showed them to independent security experts, who agreed they pose no significant danger to AT&T. For example, they do not reveal information that hackers might use to easily attack the company's systems.

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.

:D