NSA wants database of every phone call made in the US

[raggie33]

i agree empath .but im glad he did.perhaps the time has come to aloow the president to do such things in times such as the 911 attacks. but i can see where we should be concenred about 1 man haveing that much power

 

[gadget_lover]

I work with information. I write programs, some of which have manipulated lareg quantities of data. I've also worked at the Phone Company, where the bottom line was that you'd be summarily fired if you disclosed the fact that person A called person B.

So I'm saddened that the buffoons in Homeland Security (of which NSA is part) have asked for such a huge amount of personal data. They can't possibly sift it. There's just too much data. They will be able only to investigate targets of interest. They can start with your phone number and chek who you've called, or they can start with a suspect to see who has called them.

It can also be used quite effectively for those pesky white house leaks. Isn't it USA Today that refused to provide their phone logs to federal investigators? Now the NSA has a list of every call placed to the USA today offices. How convenient.

Many administrations have misued the investigative power of the CIA and FBI to target political enemies. I can see where this can be misused. Late night calls from Senator X? Hmmm.... Could be a terrorists. Oops. Just his mistress. Oops. How did that leak out?

The data is not anonymous. They don't need a warrant to cross reference names woth phone numbers.
They have access to all the commercial credit reporting databases as well as the IRS and Soc Sec data, so they have your address and phone number and financial records.


I fear the night when two big NSA agents appear on my doorstep. I answer the door and they look down on me menacingly. They silently flash their badges, then one of them hands me a note. I can barely read it for the trembling.

It says: We've analyzed your calling patterns, and did you know that you could save big bucks by switching to AT&T?

 

[Silviron]

Oddly, a lot of the folks most vocally upset today's situation weren't so loudly upset about Carnivore, Echelon, DCS 1000 or the even earlier programs that could achieve the same things.

In general, I guess outrage varies by whether the person in the White House has a D or an R after his name. Seems like only Libertarians and libertarians are the only ones that are consistent on issues like this.

 

[paulr]

People did get upset about Carnivore/DCS1000 (same thing) and Echelon (sort of different than the current situation since it was deployed overseas and made at least some fig-leaf gesture towards legality). However, you pointed out the big difference between Carnivore and the current problem with the words "COULD achieve the same things". That's just like saying that the handguns issued to police officers COULD be used for armed robbery or murder. COULD is a lot different from DID. Carnivore may have been controversial for good reason, but its intended use was legal, and I haven't heard any serious claims of the govt having used it to acquire information illegally.

When we are talking about the supposed NSA database getting this call detail info supplied illegally by AT&T, Verizon, etc., we are talking about DID, not COULD. The govt is not supposed to receive this type of info except under specific legal processes that were apparently not followed. This is a completely different situation from Carnivore, which was objectionable because it was easy to hypothetically misuse, regardless of whether the misuse actually occurred. The NSA database (as reported) is not hypothetical.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Silviron,

Nice use of the 'L' word. Excellent.

 

[Lightmeup]

I think one of the main problems with these kinds of programs is that there is no realistic oversight of the organizations collecting the data and how it is being used. This always leads to abuse of the data for various corrupt purposes. Also, there is never really any justification that the whole scheme actually serves a worthwhile purpose or is worth the time and money spent on it. Too many hair-brained plans and laws get implemented for the catch-all reason "national security" and are never questioned or justified on a needs/results/costs basis. Just because the program "might" identify a terrorist plot doesn't mean it will and that it is worth doing at any cost, in money or loss of freedoms.

 

[BB]

The real issue here is not whether you are ok with the government doing this because it a) might catch terrorists b) doesn't bother you because you have nothing to hide. It is a violation of a 1934 law (sorry, can't get link to the exact one right now cato.org is down at the moment.)

That is why not all the phone companies have complied with the governments order and provided the records.

Just because terrorists attacked us on 9/11 does not mean we elected G.W. to be our King. He still has to follow the law, well, he is supposed to anyway.

Did you find the 1934 law? There are other sections in the US Code that appears to make it quite legal for anyone in the FBI at the local head of the FBI field office and above to demand the records (no warrant required)...

From a right wing lawyer's blog:

Powerline "Is it Legal?":

There has been a lot of discussion about the legality of the NSA's telephone data collection and analysis program, most of it not very illuminating. I haven't had an opportunity to form an opinion, and I'm not an expert in telecommunications law. In my quick review of what seems to be the relevant law, I've encountered several puzzling provisions. But one section I haven't yet seen cited, which seems relevant, is Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought...

...

UPDATE: Maybe I'm the only one who didn't already know this, but I was astonished to learn that there is no expectation of privacy in telephone records at all. Section 2702(c) sets out the circumstances in which a telecom provider can disclose phone records, not including the contents of communications. So this would cover the call information at issue in this program. 2702(c)(6) says that such phone records may be freely disclosed, at the company's discretion:

(6) to any person other than a governmental entity.

As far as I know, there is no law that supports the expectations of any privacy of phone records--and you can read the rest of the code above--which in no place requires a warrant for disclosure to the government (as opposed the telephone conversations themselves which do require either notification or warrants for calls carried on domestic networks only).

And, if the phone company wishes too--it can post this data to the web for everyone to see.

If you want to see what connecting the dots could have found outside of the US--from the UK:

Mark Steyn "To Connect the Dots, You Have to See the Dots:

The second story comes from the United Kingdom and what with Lauer's hyperventilating you may have missed it. It was the official report into the July 7 bus and Tube bombings. As The Times of London summarized the conclusions:

"Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the bomb cell, had come to the attention of MI5 [Britain's domestic intelligence agency] on five occasions but had never been pursued as a serious suspect . . .

"A lack of communication between police Special Branch units, MI5 and other agencies had hampered the intelligence-gathering operation;

"There was a lack of co-operation with foreign intelligence services and inadequate intelligence coverage in . . ."

So, the system has, many times, identified some of the players in these major plots (9/11, 2005/7/7, etc.).

It is pretty hard to argue that the efforts probably won't work, when it is clear that they do and have been thwarted by some (often misguided) ideal of "playing fair". The terrorists are not worried about playing fair, just winning (or in many cases, other people--not the terrorists--just don't want to person from the opposite political persuasion to win anything--neglecting the irksome fact that if, in this case, Pres. Bush or Tony Blair loses, we all lose too because the terrorist did win the battle).

-Bill