OT - NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls

[KWhit]

And even threatened to withhold future contracts from Qwest. That doesn't sound legal to me.

[SirFozzie]

Break the law, or you don't get any more business from us...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends. The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court. Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.

The laws on the books don't seem to be accomplishing anything in this case, as you yourself note. The FBI is not in question here, and the NSA programs are well off the FISA reservation. And members of Congress, who are supposedly monitoring this, appear to be anything but sanguine about this program. Whether or not the uses of the program legally should be within the domain of Congressional review, it seems obvious that they have not been privy to it (see Arlen Specter threatening to cut off funding for the NSA unless they inform Congress of what they're doing). The use or non-use of this information in court seems to be fairly irrelevant to the sorts of abuses that have occurred in the past. Used in court, judges could apply the necessary 4th amendment and due process scrutiny to the programs. It's the out-of-court uses that are problematic.

I don't think anything you said really answered my question.. The public has no way to monitor how this program is being used, and neither, apparently, does Congress. Historically programs of this sort have been consistently put to illegitimate uses. The structure of the program runs counter to all of our assumptions of how government should work. Why do you assume that the data will not be misused?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

a party that for decades swore to get government out of your life, the

When they said "your life" they meant their lives.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.

You're one person making 10 calls a day... I bet I make fewer than 5 calls a week on averageI imagine there is still a decent number of those 270,000,000 people who don't own a phone and/or are too young to even make calls. That's why its called an average. AT&T's web page posted above by someone else claims they service 300,000,000 million calls day... my 50/month estimate would make for 450,000,000 calls a day. I don't know what percentage of calls are handled by AT&T, but I stand by my estimate as being in the ballpark and even doubling it doesn't affect the point of my post.

As for AT&T's database I'm sure they're collecting much more data then what the NSA database will need because they probably use it for troubleshooting purposes.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

You're one person making 10 calls a day... I bet I make fewer than 5 calls a week on averageI imagine there is still a decent number of those 270,000,000 people who don't own a phone and/or are too young to even make calls. That's why its called an average. AT&T's web page posted above by someone else claims they service 300,000,000 million calls day... my 50/month estimate would make for 450,000,000 calls a day. I don't know what percentage of calls are handled by AT&T, but I stand by my estimate as being in the ballpark and even doubling it doesn't affect the point of my post.

As for AT&T's database I'm sure they're collecting much more data then what the NSA database will need because they probably use it for troubleshooting purposes.

OKAY. I make 10 calls a day. My wife makes at least that many while I'm at the office. You still aren't coming close to the phone call volume of businesses. The call centers at my office take more than 2500 calls a day. The rest of the departments average more than 800 calls a day combined. I still don't think you are close.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

In no way was I equating them as being equally bad. You might have read that into it, but it was more of an argument against "the ends justify the means" when there is more than one possible "end".

Fair enough, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer the question ('cause I really wasn't sure whether that's how you meant it or not).

[molson]

There's no constitutional expectation of privacy in your phone records (what numbers you call, and when). That's a 20-year old Supreme Court case - under the constitution, the government can get those records without a warrant, and without a supoena. The idea is that you don't have an expectation of privacy in information you freely disclose to phone companies.

Congress then put some very, very loose restrictions on these records, here my knowledge of it gets a little blury, but I imagine the Patriot Act ended those minor restrictions for record gathering based on general terrorism investigations.

My point is, this isn't the shocking disregard of the Constitution that some people in this thread are making it out to be. The Constitutionality of this kind of thing has long been determined - it's a pure political/policy issue now.

[sabotai]

You guys are missing the big picture here.

The terrorists attacked us because, according to Bush, they hate our freedoms. So the President is fixing that. He's taking away our freedoms. Then the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us, so then we'll be safe from terror.

[SirFozzie]

*laughs*

[Schmidty]

[Schmidty]

By the way, that wasn't meant to be a trolling post, it just fit my feelings of the admistration over the past few years.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

By the way, that wasn't meant to be a trolling post, it just fit my feelings of the admistration over the past few years.

I must say, for a Sparty, that pic was pretty witty

[SirFozzie]

agreed, well done Schmidty.. sums up what some think of El Presidente Bush

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You guys are missing the big picture here.

The terrorists attacked us because, according to Bush, they hate our freedoms. So the President is fixing that. He's taking away our freedoms. Then the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us, so then we'll be safe from terror.

This is the best post ever on FOFC. Hands down.

[Buccaneer]

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats. Did you really mean it when you said you didn't want 9/11 to happen again? Ok, you really want it to work within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. How do you know if it does or not? How do you know if the federal govt have not pissing on the Constution (whatever that means) for 200 years now? Let's say another 9/11 hits in the next administration, who gets the blame? Let's say it doesn't, who gets the credit? Did you do anything differently today than you did yesterday?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

This is the best post ever on FOFC. Hands down.

Too bad it's wrong. As someone stated earlier, no one is entitled to a freedom of phone records.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Too bad it's wrong. As someone stated earlier, no one is entitled to a freedom of phone records.

That's not entirely true either. You make it sound like phone records are public domain, when that is absolutely NOT the case. If an agency wants the records, they still have to explain what the purpose for obtaining the records will be. They don't have to get a search warrant, but the courts have established they have to provide a valid reason for requesting phone records.

[Flasch186]

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's not entirely true either. You make it sound like phone records are public domain, when that is absolutely NOT the case. If an agency wants the records, they still have to explain what the purpose for obtaining the records will be. They don't have to get a search warrant, but the courts have established they have to provide a valid reason for requesting phone records.

I can understand why you would say that, but it wasn't my intent. What has been alluded to earlier is that phone records are protected as a right under the Constitution, specifically under the right to privacy. My point was that it wasn't protected in that fashion.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

That the Al Franken Alert, or did Mr Giggles tell you in a PM?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

Haha, don't tell Glen it was a political ploy, he thinks the fact that the GOP introduces this stuff right before elections and then drops it right after is proof that it ISN'T a political ploy!

[MrBigglesworth]

Turns out the NSA, with the collaboration of every phone company except Qwest, is monitoring all of our calls -- not to listen in to what's being said, but simply to gather data about the calls and draw inferences from that. It's important to link this up to the broader chain. One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/...36.html#002317

Glen, is that just the NSA 'identifying threats'? Is this really what you want America to be? Or only for the people we just know are 'evil'?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'll be ok. I'm going to put myself on the government's "do not catologue my call" list.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Here's the part I love.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

FISA won't rubber stamp us and might say no.., so we won't ask em. Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it, so should you.

and they wouldn't even go to the AG (who's a Bush yes-man) to get a letter to say it was ok!

Way way out of bounds

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That the Al Franken Alert, or did Mr Giggles tell you in a PM?

Saw it on CNN, John Roberts report from the White House.

[Subby]

While I think what they are doing isn't a huge deal, does anyone see it as a slippery slope towards future erosion of our privacy and civil liberties? Over time, standards change and it seems like the public's and government's standards for what is acceptable in this area is slowly moving in the wrong direction.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Subby

While I think what they are doing isn't a huge deal, does anyone see it as a slippery slope towards future erosion of our privacy and civil liberties? Over time, standards change and it seems like the public's and government's standards for what is acceptable in this area is slowly moving in the wrong direction.

But hasn't been going on for a long time now, like 40 years or so? While the slope may be gradual, it's still downward. It's the only was the fed govt can function among voters that expect them to do something or a lot of things.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats. Did you really mean it when you said you didn't want 9/11 to happen again? Ok, you really want it to work within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. How do you know if it does or not? How do you know if the federal govt have not pissing on the Constution (whatever that means) for 200 years now? Let's say another 9/11 hits in the next administration, who gets the blame? Let's say it doesn't, who gets the credit? Did you do anything differently today than you did yesterday?

Amen.

I was going to type out a longer reply, but it Bucc summed it up perfectly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats.

I can't speak for others, but what I asked for was tha the various intelligence agencies to step up and start acting like professionals. I, for one, want(ed) to see the idiotic turf wars stop, the continual stalling over sharing information stop, and the President take some steps to make sure these agencies work in harmony to more accurately and more quickly identify and act on threats. Faced with the most significant intelligence failure in American history, Bush had a golden opportunity to bash some heads together and get these turkeys working more effectively and efficiently.*

What I got was the President expanding the authority and remit of these various agencies exponentially, on the basis, apparently, that approximating a police state guarantees our safety from terror.

There's a big difference between the two.

*And, for the record, I'm being charitable and not assuming (for the moment), that they did in fact provide this intel and he just ignored it.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

You seriously should not underestimate the power this holds in politics today. This lone topic won Bush Ohio, which won him the last election. Ohio was hemorrhaging jobs, their local economy was in the toilet, but who really cares about that stuff as long as we make sure those gay folk can't marry.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've always assumed that every phone call could be eavesdropped on.

This is definitely true. The only thing remarkable about this story is that they haven't gotten to this yet. I would have assumed something like this already existed.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I can't speak for others, but what I asked for was tha the various intelligence agencies to step up and start acting like professionals. I, for one, want(ed) to see the idiotic turf wars stop, the continual stalling over sharing information stop, and the President take some steps to make sure these agencies work in harmony to more accurately and more quickly identify and act on threats. Faced with the most significant intelligence failure in American history, Bush had a golden opportunity to bash some heads together and get these turkeys working more effectively and efficiently.*

What I got was the President expanding the authority and remit of these various agencies exponentially, on the basis, apparently, that approximating a police state guarantees our safety from terror.

There's a big difference between the two.

*And, for the record, I'm being charitable and not assuming (for the moment), that they did in fact provide this intel and he just ignored it.

There is a big difference between hearing that something is going to happen, and knowing when and where things are going to happen.

Hearing that terrorists are going to start flying planes into buildings is one thing. All you can do is try to beef up security.

Knowing that on 9-11 terrorists are going to board planes in Boston and fly them into buildings in NYC is a completely different thing, and information you can really take steps to act and prevent the event from occurring.

[SirFozzie]

Well, apparently a majority of Americans just don't give a fuck about what civil liberties (or even laws) are trashed as long as the magic words "To Fight Terror" are attached, 37% have significant concerns about this plan, 63% do not, in an overnight poll.

(BTW, before someone says I'm lying about the breaking of laws.. the information in this case, phone records, was NOT supposed to be released by the phone company without a court order, and has huge fines for those who release the records improperly)

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth's Quote

One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself.

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

Which would you like me to show you the link for?

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

Dude, it came from an internet blog, it must be true.

[flounder]

Interestingly, this seems to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act which could force the telephone companies to pay up to $1000 to each customer affected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Which would you like me to show you the link for?

The part where the Whitehouse plans on using the data for any of the above. Your earlier assertion.

[Flasch186]

BTW Ive thought about this a lot today and Im okay with datamining for patterns of calls, if thats a flip-flop so be it. Listening to the actual calls I have a problem with but the mining from the sidelines I view as a necessary evil after 9/11. Im okay with the mining, anyhting more than that would require a warrant IMO.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flounder

Interestingly, this seems to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act which could force the telephone companies to pay up to $1000 to each customer affected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

Ha ha. I totally see the feds saying, "sorry, we can't help you now", to the telecoms if and when the fines start hitting...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

I agree that MrBigglesworth's claims are over-the-top, but some of them do seem to follow from this administration's interpretation of Article II. Their actions in this case (even moreso than the FISA case) are more directly in conflict with other statutes (I think it will be clear in the next week or so that this program is clearly in conflict with several statutes). The administration's position has been that Article II trumps all of these statues. I expect a similar defense in this case. Such a broad reading of Article II powers means that the administration can do a lot of very ugly things (albeit not to the level MrBigglesworth talks about because the Bill of Rights overrides Article II even under the administration's current view) that we would find very distasteful. The greatest threat here is this administration takes signing statements and a bizarre Article II theory to mean that only the Constitution is a check on executive actions. That is historically unprecedented and VERY dangerous, IMO. It also prevents prior executives (by signing laws) from restraining themselves. It is even more of a concern because the progressive interpretations of the many Bill of Rights provisions adopted by the Warren Court are slowly being eroded. That means Constitutional checks on the executive are also decreasing. Things like having the phone companies tape all of your calls and turning that over to the NSA without a warrant may be Constitutionally supportable these days. And if there is a colorable argument (even a bad one), I think this administration will use it. And that is just the tip of the iceberg using the Article II theories offered by the DOJ nowadays.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Such a broad reading of Article II powers means that the administration can do a lot of very ugly things (albeit not to the level MrBigglesworth talks about because the Bill of Rights overrides Article II even under the administration's current view)

The administration HAS done all of those things that I mentioned. So while I agree that the Bill of Rights overrides Article II, how do you make the assertion that that is what the administration believes?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The part where the Whitehouse plans on using the data for any of the above. Your earlier assertion.

First of all I never said that that is what they will do. I said that they have 'asserted the right' to do that. Secondly, when someone has already held someone indefinitely without trial, and already listened in to phone calls without a warrant, and already illegally taken information to get a pattern of phone calls, I don't see how it is out of the realm of possibility that they would connect the three. After all, they can't use anything from the phone calls in court, so what do they do with the bad guys they catch from it? They can't go to trial, because it will get thrown out. So their options are to let them go, detain them indefinitely, or ship them off to a secret prison.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BTW Ive thought about this a lot today and Im okay with datamining for patterns of calls, if thats a flip-flop so be it. Listening to the actual calls I have a problem with but the mining from the sidelines I view as a necessary evil after 9/11. Im okay with the mining, anyhting more than that would require a warrant IMO.

Assuming this datamining has no oversight, are you still ok with it? What if the datamining was used to determine who leaked the information about the secret prisons from the CIA? What if the datamining is used to sabotage a political opponent? How do we know that ISN'T what it is being used for? Isn't that why we need a court order in the first place, to prevent such abuses that history has shown will happen when someone is given unfettered power?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The administration HAS done all of those things that I mentioned. So while I agree that the Bill of Rights overrides Article II, how do you make the assertion that that is what the administration believes?

A lot of the things you listed were done to enemy combatants (and in one fairly unique case a U.S. citizen). While you and I may feel that is wrong, it is not fair YET to say that this administration would contemplate torturing you or me or sending us to another country to do the same. Believing that the Bill of Rights does not apply to a class of people is not the same as saying Article II overrides the Bill of Rights. There are other ways the Bill of Rights can be eroded (especially since balancing tests are used for a variety of important Constitutional protections), but the administration is still a long way from throwing it out entirely where U.S. citizens are concerned. So, I prefer to speak about the exact ugly things this administration has done rather than blurring over distinctions that do matter.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Assuming this datamining has no oversight, are you still ok with it? What if the datamining was used to determine who leaked the information about the secret prisons from the CIA? What if the datamining is used to sabotage a political opponent? How do we know that ISN'T what it is being used for? Isn't that why we need a court order in the first place, to prevent such abuses that history has shown will happen when someone is given unfettered power?

I would LOVE to see Congressional oversight, but with the political arena the way it is im not sure it would do any good. But yes, id love to see oversight and some guidelines...I do not think that the collection of data and stats needs a warrant but this is all new to me so my opinion is evolving as I learn more and discuss/debate more.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

A lot of the things you listed were done to enemy combatants (and in one fairly unique case a U.S. citizen).

The first three steps (datamining, listening in, and detaining indefinitely) were all employed already against US citizens. John, you are a lawyer I think, so you probably know this better than me, but what happens when the administration uses datamining illegally obtained, to listen in to conversations without a warrant, to arrest a US citizen? It's my understanding that the case would be thrown out of court. So what to do then? You have this person in custody and he can't go to trial. Does he go free? Or does he get detained indefinitely? Or does he disappear, like people have off of the street in Italy?

Furthermore, with all the lines that the administration has already crossed, is it really that outlandish and over-the-top to think that they will send American citizens to prisons in eastern Europe instead of foreign nationals?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I do not think that the collection of data and stats needs a warrant but this is all new to me so my opinion is evolving as I learn more and discuss/debate more.

I'm not completely sure either, but with Qwest saying that the NSA refused to talk to the FISA court and also refused to get a letter from the AG, I think that speaks volumes to how they view the legality of it.

[flere-imsaho]

Hey folks, this is the same government whose "No Fly" lists flagged up Sen. Ted Kennedy as a possible threat (which may not have been a mistake, but I digress). Can we trust them to not draw false conclusions from data-mining and mistake your 10 tech support calls to India as evidence of your cooperation with Al-Qaeda?