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

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yes, we can.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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?

To answer your first hypothetical, the person would go free. There is little doubt on that one.

One danger of the datamining to me is that it could be used for probable cause to get a warrant (still unlikely to happen) or reasonable suspicion to get an administrative subpoena from the FBI or another organization (much more likely to happen). If the datamining starts creating profiles and flags (which is the intended purpose), then you may able to use that to get legal searches (which won't be thrown out in court). Once you have a legal search, it does not matter that much what evidence you turn up (even if it has nothing to do with terrorism). So, law enforcement gets a new tool that wouldn't normally be constitutional if not for the terrorism excuse. This is a dangerous step, IMO, in undermining the 4th Amendment.

Yes, I still think your scenario is outlandish because habeas relief has not been suspended for U.S. citizens. If habeas is ever suspended again (as it was during the Civil War by Lincoln), then we are in a whole new world. Until then, people should be given access to the courts and to due process. Until we have a verified case that this administration has denied habeas access (and admittedly we probably won't know until many cases have already happened), I think your claims are alarmist.

This administration has done enough scary things that I think creating extreme hypotheticals only distracts us from the ugliness that is already happening. It's like Hannah Arendt's theory of the "Banality of Evil" - truly bad stuff is dangerous precisely because it looks so ordinary and bureacratic to us.

[ISiddiqui]

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/

SWEET! Someone HAS to get a class action started on this .

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

SWEET! Someone HAS to get a class action started on this .

I think the EFF already has.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

...

One danger of the datamining to me is that it could be used for probable cause to get a warrant (still unlikely to happen) or reasonable suspicion to get an administrative subpoena from the FBI or another organization (much more likely to happen). If the datamining starts creating profiles and flags (which is the intended purpose), then you may able to use that to get legal searches (which won't be thrown out in court). Once you have a legal search, it does not matter that much what evidence you turn up (even if it has nothing to do with terrorism). So, law enforcement gets a new tool that wouldn't normally be constitutional if not for the terrorism excuse. This is a dangerous step, IMO, in undermining the 4th Amendment.

...
This administration has done enough scary things that I think creating extreme hypotheticals only distracts us from the ugliness that is already happening. It's like Hannah Arendt's theory of the "Banality of Evil" - truly bad stuff is dangerous precisely because it looks so ordinary and bureacratic to us.

I guess the reason I'm not too concerned with this is because I sincerely believe that this information will specifically NOT be available for domestic law enforcement purposes.

As for the what if scenarios others have brought up regarding the use of this data for political means, I really think that the people capable of doing such things are well aware that the risks and punishments don't come close to outweighing the gains.

I do appreciate that you, JG, see the outlandish claims as being counter productive to the causes of those making them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with this administration without making stuff up.

By citing the "Banality of Evil" theory you did run across the one fear I do have about this event. It is strictly an argument based on privacy concerns. I fear that after using this as an anti-terror technique for a period of years that someone will get an idea to use this data as the means to achieve some other end desired by the government. Say the government bans iPods. I wouldn't want the government to be able to identify all of the folks who called Apple for technical support, and then pay them a visit to collect possible contraband(or illegally dowloaded music in Sir Fozzie's case).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I guess the reason I'm not too concerned with this is because I sincerely believe that this information will specifically NOT be available for domestic law enforcement purposes.

I'm really not sure why you are at all optimistic on this point. I've never known any member of law enforcement that wouldn't use any tool they thought they could get their hands on.

The database starts by flagging a whole bunch of people. Those people then get heightened scrutiny and monitoring. Under surveillance, the investigators find out all sorts of domestic crime occurring. But at first, they tow the line and don't turn over the evidence. But sooner or later, they start hearing some serious shit and they drop a line to the FBI.

Truthfully, if this monitoring is legal under the administration's arguments for fighting terrorism there is no LEGAL reason it isn't also legal for domestic law enforcement. Once you accept the administration's Article II arguments, the line between terrorism and crime is lost. It certainly isn't a domestic/foreign distinction anymore (a line lots of people defended after the FISA thing came out).

So, with no legal prohibition in giving a tip to the FBI, it only seems like a matter of time before the line is crossed. Even if Congress passes a law to stop it, this administration will issue a signing statement limiting the law so that it wouldn't matter.

Given this program has been going on since soon after September 11, I would bet money it has already been used to get warrants in domestic operations. I just don't see what would have stopped well-meaning law enforcement officers from doing it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm really not sure why you are at all optimistic on this point. I've never known any member of law enforcement that wouldn't use any tool they thought they could get their hands on.

The database starts by flagging a whole bunch of people. Those people then get heightened scrutiny and monitoring. Under surveillance, the investigators find out all sorts of domestic crime occurring. But at first, they tow the line and don't turn over the evidence. But sooner or later, they start hearing some serious shit and they drop a line to the FBI.

Truthfully, if this monitoring is legal under the administration's arguments for fighting terrorism there is no LEGAL reason it isn't also legal for domestic law enforcement. Once you accept the administration's Article II arguments, the line between terrorism and crime is lost. It certainly isn't a domestic/foreign distinction anymore (a line lots of people defended after the FISA thing came out).

So, with no legal prohibition in giving a tip to the FBI, it only seems like a matter of time before the line is crossed. Even if Congress passes a law to stop it, this administration will issue a signing statement limiting the law so that it wouldn't matter.

Given this program has been going on since soon after September 11, I would bet money it has already been used to get warrants in domestic operations. I just don't see what would have stopped well-meaning law enforcement officers from doing it.

My thought is that the fact that this information can't normally be obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. With no warrant, and the only probable cause to base a warrant on, coming from information obtained without a warrant, I'd think the case would be thrown out before it started. This may be an overly simplistic view, but I honestly believe they couldn't/wouldn't use this in domestic law enforcement.

I don't believe that the administration would issue a signing statement allowing this data to be used against American citizens in domestic criminal cases. That isn't what they are collecting the data for. Even in the "wire tapping" case, when the FISA judge ruled that nothing obtained using those techniques would be admissible in court, even if he did issue a warrant. When the Admin/NSA/whoever got that news, they still pressed on with the program because they said they weren't doing this for law enforcement reasons. They were trying to prevent terror attacks on US soil.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My thought is that the fact that this information can't normally be obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. With no warrant, and the only probable cause to base a warrant on, coming from information obtained without a warrant, I'd think the case would be thrown out before it started. This may be an overly simplistic view, but I honestly believe they couldn't/wouldn't use this in domestic law enforcement.

I don't believe that the administration would issue a signing statement allowing this data to be used against American citizens in domestic criminal cases. That isn't what they are collecting the data for. Even in the "wire tapping" case, when the FISA judge ruled that nothing obtained using those techniques would be admissible in court, even if he did issue a warrant. When the Admin/NSA/whoever got that news, they still pressed on with the program because they said they weren't doing this for law enforcement reasons. They were trying to prevent terror attacks on US soil.

The FISA court did say that although that is a pretty unique case. Most courts don't have that power. If you aren't aware, let me introduce to the world of confidential informants (CIs).

In today's world of law enforcement a great many (if not most) warrants are issued on the information of CIs. Usually the warrant reads something like, "Based upon information for a confidential informant, who is reliable and we have received reliable information from in the past . . ." A judge then signs the warrant and the search is executed. Often these CIs are totally not credible in a conventional sense. Since most searches are for drug cases, the CIs are usually junkies. Nonetheless, warrants are issued on the word of an unnamed junkie on a regular basis.

Now imagine your CI is an NSA agent. That's a credible source. You get the warrant and the search is executed. Because the case only get prosecuted if the search turns something up, the CI looks credible in hindsight. Despite what they show in Law & Order, searches like this almost never get suppressed. When they do, it's often because of scope issues. The CI never has to testify and no one ever need know where the information came from. And people rarely even ask anymore.

The Patriot Act took the world of CIs one step further. It allows some agencies like the FBI (notably Congress did not trust the NSA with this authority) the power to issue administrative subpoenas. This subpoenas act like warrants but you need only show reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. These subpoenas since the Patriot Act are relatively new in America, but they seem to be virtually unreviewable. As a result, an FBI agent can get information from the NSA, issue an administrative subpoena and the searching begins. And the search does not have to have anything to do with terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Based on that, I think the NSA information has already been used in domestic law enforcement.

Now, you raise one other point about signing statements. This administration pretty much takes any law that has anything remotely to do with Article II powers and says they accept the law insofar as it doesn't intrude on the president's Article II powers. They don't have to actually say what they are doing in conflict with the law under their interpretation of Article II. Consequently, even if Congress passes a law saying the NSA information can't be used for domestic law enforcement, the normal signing statement can be issued, and the information can continue to be used. A veto would be proper, but signing statements have essentially become the line-item veto of the Bush administration. And they never have to say what the scope of the Article II exception is.

And all of the above I described doesn't assume people are intentionally abusing the system. This is all legal if you accept the administration's Article II arguments. If you throw in all the history showing abuse of similar information along with the corruption we are finding out about in the CIA, Congress, and elsewhere, and I think you are looking at a VERY strong potential for dirty tricks Nixon style or worse. But again, what I've outlined is not even a form of abuse or illegality, but still scares me a lot.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I do appreciate that you, JG, see the outlandish claims as being counter productive to the causes of those making them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with this administration without making stuff up.

What's outlandish here? A year ago you would have told me that secret prisons and spying on American citizens without a warrant is outlandish.

Gonzales has stated that Bush "wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department." In March of '04 the Justice Department drafted a memo authorizing the CIA to secretly transport prisoners to other countries, ie rendition. They have asserted their right to detain any US citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). This isn't science fiction that I am talking about, this is what they say they can do. You could say, "They can't, that's against the law," but the law to them is what Bush says it is. A couple years ago you would have told me that they can't torture prisoners.

The most dangerous thing here isn't me pointing out what the administration is saying, it is people that slowly allow this to happen. Each step is seen as 'outlandish' until it actually happens, then it is necessary for national security. Then the process repeats itself.

Again, I'm not saying that we have done all those things to American citizens, just that the administration has asserted the legal right to do so. That is in black and white, whether or not you agree that they will eventually do that is another story.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Defend it?

Hell, I'm amused as all get out that there are people so naive about the world we live in that they try to attack it.

I'm in favor of it, should have been done a long time ago.

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

Wow, and folks were accusing ME of being a dick yesterday.

I bow to your superior Asshole-Fu!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

anus

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

anus

See how easy that was? At least it wasn't totally random nor are you a noob that inspires a "Who?" response when your name comes up.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

Great, just what I always wanted, an assumption that a low number of posts equals a "fuckin noob".

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See how easy that was? At least it wasn't totally random nor are you a noob that inspires a "Who?" response when your name comes up.

Yeah Jon, you're the man alright. Over 9000 posts on a message board qualifies you as what exactly? An authourity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Great, just what I always wanted, an assumption that a low number of posts equals a "fuckin noob".

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 53

Umm ... that leaves a fairly limited number of possibilities
1) You abandoned a previous monicker for legitimate reasons.
2) You're trolling under a pseudonym.
3) You're a noob.

[Flasch186]

i believe its Athoritay!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i believe its Athoritay!!

Splelchcek courtsey of Daivd's awesome Mackseemum Fotobawl?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Splelchcek courtsey of Daivd's awesome Mackseemum Fotobawl?

Sounds funnier if you read this with a Daffy Duck voice... just FYI...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Sounds funnier if you read this with a Daffy Duck voice... just FYI...

Or Porky Pig for that matter.

[SirFozzie]

Yor All Dithpicable... (taking fingers and puts out singed hair)

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 53

Umm ... that leaves a fairly limited number of possibilities
1) You abandoned a previous monicker for legitimate reasons.
2) You're trolling under a pseudonym.
3) You're a noob.

Or More Politely

1-2) If you've been here a while, you know Jon has his point of view on things, and what he does feel about things, he feels very strongly, so attempting to cheap shot him with such a "devestating" one-liner will do nothing more then make him feel even stronger about what he believes in, cuz "witty" one liners like the one advanced above in lieu of an actual argument make his point.

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

Check his post history (won't take long to review 'em) he's either a legit noob or a non-noob who has created a quasi-troll duplicate ID. (And, IIRC, the latter would be a bannable offense, so he really ought to stick with the "I'm a noob" defense).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Or More Politely

1-2) If you've been here a while, you know Jon has his point of view on things, and what he does feel about things, he feels very strongly, so attempting to cheap shot him with such a "devestating" one-liner will do nothing more then make him feel even stronger about what he believes in, cuz "witty" one liners like the one advanced above in lieu of an actual argument make his point.

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

Or, more realistically:

1.) Anyone with less than 1,000 posts had better not mouth off, especially in a politically or morally charged thread.

2.) Ditto anyone who's a Vikings fan.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Or, more realistically:

1.) Anyone with less than 1,000 posts had better not mouth off, especially in a politically or morally charged thread.

2.) Ditto anyone who's a Vikings fan.

You know, FN, I was gonna make a joke that with your persecution complex, it must be hard to carry that cross around, but I'm afraid you'd take it as blasphemous..

So.. instead

[SirFozzie]

BTW Jon, would it kill you to tidy your PM box?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW Jon, would it kill you to tidy your PM box?

Nah, not now that I realize it was full.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

...

Based on that, I think the NSA information has already been used in domestic law enforcement.

Now, you raise one other point about signing statements. This administration pretty much takes any law that has anything remotely to do with Article II powers and says they accept the law insofar as it doesn't intrude on the president's Article II powers. They don't have to actually say what they are doing in conflict with the law under their interpretation of Article II. Consequently, even if Congress passes a law saying the NSA information can't be used for domestic law enforcement, the normal signing statement can be issued, and the information can continue to be used. A veto would be proper, but signing statements have essentially become the line-item veto of the Bush administration. And they never have to say what the scope of the Article II exception is.

And all of the above I described doesn't assume people are intentionally abusing the system. This is all legal if you accept the administration's Article II arguments. If you throw in all the history showing abuse of similar information along with the corruption we are finding out about in the CIA, Congress, and elsewhere, and I think you are looking at a VERY strong potential for dirty tricks Nixon style or worse. But again, what I've outlined is not even a form of abuse or illegality, but still scares me a lot.

FIrst, if you turn out to be correct about how this information is being used, then I'll stand up and agree with you that this is a HUGE abuse of power, and should be stopped. If the scope of use of this data is limited to anti-terrorism, then I will continue to have no trouble with it.

On the signing statement bit. I heard an interview on NPR a while back, the guy being interviewed was some poli-sci constitutional lawer mucky muck, who was addressing the constitutionality of the domestic wire-tapping scandal. He was no fan of the Bush administration, and pretty well mocked their "use of force" assertion. He did point out that the admin had far stronger ground to stand on with its assertion that the executive's duty to protect the United States outweighed the requirement that the office follow the laws laid out by congress. He also mentioned that the last several presidents had issued statements to that effect. He listed them by name, and I can't recall if it was specifically all of them, or how far the list went back, but I reasonably recall Reagan, I'm not sure if Carter was on there, but it might have even gone back further as well.

I'm not certain that what this administration is doing, when viewed from the standpoint of protecting the nation from terror attack, is all that scandalous. I do see that there is a huge difference between other presidents asserting they have this power, and actually laying claim to it as Bush has. I'm not really honestly comfortable with the ability of the executive branch to declare that its powers exceed the legislative branch's ability to check them. At the same time I believe that assembling a call database and performing somewhat limited recording of phone calls aren't entirely too onerous steps, given that their use is limited to anti-terrorism.

[MrBigglesworth]

And the hits just keep on coming:

Originally Posted by CongressDaily

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. …

[Tice] 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. … “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 they’ll 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. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

[Dutch]

I'm don't see what the big deal is.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And the hits just keep on coming:

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What's outlandish here? A year ago you would have told me that secret prisons and spying on American citizens without a warrant is outlandish.

...

Hey if JG says it's outlandish, that's good enough for me. The two of us agree on so few things, we must both be correct when we do.

[Flasch186]

it is kind of alarming that this stuff keeps getting revealed and opening up the onion seems to show more dirtiness and ore dirtiness. While Dutch may not be surprised I am. Taken on its own datamining doesnt seem like a big deal, but as Glen said they probably arent using it for domestic law enforcement issues....

....but coupled with everything else that they are doing, without any permission or oversight, how can we trust what they are doing with the information. I mean considering that they tried to kidnap people in other countries without a warrant, have secret prisons set up, secret plane flights, secret programs. I must say that I think oversight is sorely needed by this rogue, and I said rogue due to their behavior, administration.

[Buccaneer]

Now you are beginning to distrust the federal govt?!?!? Why? Because now we have the internet and 24-hr "news" channels? Go read a book on J. Edgar Hoover. Or about Kennedy and the Mob connections. Or Master of the Senate (LBJ). Or about the Nixon administration. Or if you really want to get repulsed, about the US Congress under Tip O'Neil.

It's a bigger deal now because we have the internet and 24-hrs media trying to get ad revenues and eyeballs, which not altogether a bad thing. But don't be naive to think past administrations/congresses were pure - they had people killed, maimem, shut away, harassed, followed and with dossiers the size of dictionaries. We just didn't know a lot of what was happening back then.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Now you are beginning to distrust the federal govt?!?!? Why? Because now we have the internet and 24-hr "news" channels? Go read a book on J. Edgar Hoover. Or about Kennedy and the Mob connections. Or Master of the Senate (LBJ). Or about the Nixon administration. Or if you really want to get repulsed, about the US Congress under Tip O'Neil.

It's a bigger deal now because we have the internet and 24-hrs media trying to get ad revenues and eyeballs, which not altogether a bad thing. But don't be naive to think past administrations/congresses were pure - they had people killed, maimem, shut away, harassed, followed and with dossiers the size of dictionaries. We just didn't know a lot of what was happening back then.

wasnt good then, not good now.

ignorance of an act does not make an act ethical.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Hey if JG says it's outlandish, that's good enough for me. The two of us agree on so few things, we must both be correct when we do.

Can you tell me then, if someone gets caught from the datamining, from listening in to phone conversations without a warrant, what happens to them?

[SirFozzie]

Yup, here's the lawsuit.. any guess on how soon the government attempts to quash it by saying NATIONAL SECURITY! (ad nauseum)

Verizon sued for $50 billion over wiretap program
By Leslie Wines, MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:31 AM ET May 13, 2006

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - AT&T Corp., BellSouth Corp and Verizon Telecommunications are facing lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the decision to turn over calling records to the government, the New York Times reported Saturday.

A federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan yesterday seeking as much as $50 billion in civil damages against Verizon on behalf of its subscribers.

Under telecommunications law, the phone companies are at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order, according to Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University

The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records, without warrants, to increase its surveillance capabilities after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

AT&T (T: news, board) , BellSouth (BLS: news, board) and Verizon Communications (VZ: news, board) have insisted that they were vigilant about their customers' privacy, but did not directly address their cooperation with the government effort, the report said.

Verizon said it gave customer information to a government agency "only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes," but declined comment on any relationship with a national security program that was "highly classified."

"Verizon does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition," the company said in a statement on Friday.

A fourth telecommunications company, Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q: news, board) , rebuffed government requests for the company's calling records after 9/11 because of "a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," according to a statement released by an attorney on behalf of the company's former chief executive, Joseph Nacchio.

The legal experts said consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

The law governing the release of phone company data has been modified repeatedly to grapple with changing computer and communications technologies that have increasingly bedeviled law enforcement agencies, the report said.

Wiretapping has been tightly regulated by these laws. But in general, the laws have set a lower legal standard required by the government to obtain what has traditionally been called pen register or trap-and-trace information -- calling records obtained when intelligence and police agencies attached a specialized device to subscribers' telephone lines.

The restrictions still hold, said a range of legal scholars, in the face of new computer databases with decades' worth of calling records, according to the newspaper.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it is kind of alarming that this stuff keeps getting revealed and opening up the onion seems to show more dirtiness and ore dirtiness. While Dutch may not be surprised I am. Taken on its own datamining doesnt seem like a big deal, but as Glen said they probably arent using it for domestic law enforcement issues....

....but coupled with everything else that they are doing, without any permission or oversight, how can we trust what they are doing with the information. I mean considering that they tried to kidnap people in other countries without a warrant, have secret prisons set up, secret plane flights, secret programs. I must say that I think oversight is sorely needed by this rogue, and I said rogue due to their behavior, administration.

I'm not surprised for many reasons. First and foremost is because we are at war. I wonder if the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would have been okay with this effort by the NSA to prevent shit like that happening again?

But regardless of what the NSA is fighting to prevent, let me ask you a question. Because this really bugs me about some of the comments I am seeing here. Who do you think works at the NSA? Meaning, what is your vision of the kind of person that actually works there? In your view, is the NSA comprised of Bush/rogue administration lackeys that are eager to find out which Pizza Hut Bob Jones calls? Do you think there is a room in the back where rogue elements of the Bush administration sit around and listen in to Mary Smith phone conversations to see if she's calling a secret boyfriend?

What if I told you the NSA is made up of an equal representation of American society? More specifically, made up of people from the northeast? Closer to Maryland maybe, even? Is that part of the country filled to the brim with criminals eager to destroy America? I'd hazzard to say it is not. In fact, I would suggest that many of the people hired by the NSA might be people who might be labelled as Republicans or liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Libertarians even. I would also suggest that it's probably close to a 50/50 split between "your side" and "my side".

In addition, the people who work there were not hired post Clinton. There are actually employees that have been in the NSA during the Clinton administration. The leadership has probably been around since the Reagan and Bush Sr timeframe. And senior leadership from (25+ years of service) have been around since Carter and earlier.

So what the heck are these people blindly following the "rogue administration" for? Because they want to spy on Bob Jones and Mary Smith? Or is there some other reason. Are they taking these numbers and looking for calling patterns perhaps? Are they tagging questionable numbers in Pakistan or Bangledesh or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Are they keying in on which stateside numbers are calling these questionable world-wide locations? Should we be doing that? Does that provide some value to us as Americans? It seems like a decent way to provide support to the fight against global terrorism and espionage.

If it's simply a big joke set up to spy on Americans, shut it down. But if the mission is really to protect us from enemies that would attempt another 9/11 attack then we do not shut that mission down. Ever. Those people at the NSA are not just working for "my side" or "your side". They are Americans that are working for Americans. Don't ever forget that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not surprised for many reasons. First and foremost is because we are at war. I wonder if the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would have been okay with this effort by the NSA to prevent shit like that happening again?

But regardless of what the NSA is fighting to prevent, let me ask you a question. Because this really bugs me about some of the comments I am seeing here. Who do you think works at the NSA? Meaning, what is your vision of the kind of person that actually works there? In your view, is the NSA comprised of Bush/rogue administration lackeys that are eager to find out which Pizza Hut Bob Jones calls? Do you think there is a room in the back where rogue elements of the Bush administration sit around and listen in to Mary Smith phone conversations to see if she's calling a secret boyfriend?

What if I told you the NSA is made up of an equal representation of American society? More specifically, made up of people from the northeast? Closer to Maryland maybe, even? Is that part of the country filled to the brim with criminals eager to destroy America? I'd hazzard to say it is not. In fact, I would suggest that many of the people hired by the NSA might be people who might be labelled as Republicans or liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Libertarians even. I would also suggest that it's probably close to a 50/50 split between "your side" and "my side".

In addition, the people who work there were not hired post Clinton. There are actually employees that have been in the NSA during the Clinton administration. The leadership has probably been around since the Reagan and Bush Sr timeframe. And senior leadership from (25+ years of service) have been around since Carter and earlier.

So what the heck are these people blindly following the "rogue administration" for? Because they want to spy on Bob Jones and Mary Smith? Or is there some other reason. Are they taking these numbers and looking for calling patterns perhaps? Are they tagging questionable numbers in Pakistan or Bangledesh or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Are they keying in on which stateside numbers are calling these questionable world-wide locations? Should we be doing that? Does that provide some value to us as Americans? It seems like a decent way to provide support to the fight against global terrorism and espionage.

If it's simply a big joke set up to spy on Americans, shut it down. But if the mission is really to protect us from enemies that would attempt another 9/11 attack then we do not shut that mission down. Ever. Those people at the NSA are not just working for "my side" or "your side". They are Americans that are working for Americans. Don't ever forget that.

Dutch you have absolutely no understanding of the situation. At all.

And I didn't realize you were a totalitarian.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch you have absolutely no understanding of the situation. At all.

And I didn't realize you were a totalitarian.

I actually think Dutch hit it pretty much on the head. You see it as some vast conspiracy against the American public, while the truth is right where Dutch is saying.

[JPhillips]

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

All of these will make it less likely for a terrorist to perpatrate an attack, but where is the line drawn? At what point do you see our basic right to be free of government intrusion?

Every time we agree to give away some protection from government its likely gone for good. I'm certain the next president will expand on these programs, afterall what's it matter if the government listens to every phone call? At some point we need to define what basic liberties we won't give away, ever. There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

[Flasch186]

Dutch

There is a balance though which you fail to see. You think it should be roughshod over civil liberties because were at war. I would venture to guess that in our history at every moment we have been at war either declared on undeclared with someone at all times, and will continue to be forever. Thats just the way it will be.

I believe in the constitutional purposes behind the 3 branches of gov't. that have equal powers via checks and balances. Should any one of these branches usurp this system than I think that that is a very bad thing. even when we are at war.

On the spectrum, you fall on one side that while we are at war, the Republican party and this admin have done all of their actions, above and below board in an effort to protect us. I agree with you that at no point has their intentions for the greater good of our people been at the forefront of their minds, regarding the war on terror. sometimes this gets blurred by the fact that they do things that clearly favor one sector of society over others, ie. the most recent tax cuts, the bankruptcy laws, the student loan debacle, medicare, prescription drug plans, etc. but regarding the war What they have done has been in an effort to reduce the chances of an attack on us.

Have they done enough? quickly enough? Most agree not. Immigration at the border is a clear example of the sieve they have left down there. The number of cans scanned coming into our ports, etc.

However, when the govt has a SOP set up to allow them much wiggle room regarding clandestine behavior, yet they even skirt or scoff at that, it raises questions as to the why? For example, when they dont go to the FISA courts even when they have time AFTER they have already acted one asks why? then when they say they are collecting data but assures us that they are following the law not to listen to those calls without a warrant....a normal citizen might ask..."well if they didnt go back to FISA to get a warrant to act before, why would they feel so compelled to get a warrant now?" Then add the Qwest execs statement to the fold and any non-partisan spinser would at least be able to see where the other side is coming from and that perhaps, perhaps, your staunch backing of the admin. might be based in faith...which like religion varies widely.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

Those are protected under the 4th Amendment; there is no protection of your phone number or records. There is no expectation of privacy of phone records according to the Supreme Court. Big difference between what they're doing and what you mentioned above.

Everyone on the left is screaming "this is ILLEGAL!!! Violation of our Rights!!" of which NONE is true. Even local law enforcement does not have to get a warrant to retreive phone numbers or records.

There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

How do you know it wasn't? Unlike today, at those times the media respected the words "national security" and for the most part did not disclose classified programs even if they found out about them. This was a classified action, and should have never been made public. It's entirely possible something similar DID occur during the Cold War -- you just never knew.

Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

Fear is a part of war, and we are at war. If Clinton would have done his job, maybe we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I actually think Dutch hit it pretty much on the head. You see it as some vast conspiracy against the American public, while the truth is right where Dutch is saying.

Are you kidding? This is crazy. I feel like I'm no longer living in America. I believe that unlimited power can be corrupted, and all of a sudden I am believing in vast conspiracies against the American public? That's insane. OF COURSE if you give someone unchecked power it is going to be abused. OF COURSE you shouldn't let the administration break the law at will. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

All of these will make it less likely for a terrorist to perpatrate an attack, but where is the line drawn? At what point do you see our basic right to be free of government intrusion?

Every time we agree to give away some protection from government its likely gone for good. I'm certain the next president will expand on these programs, afterall what's it matter if the government listens to every phone call? At some point we need to define what basic liberties we won't give away, ever. There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

Which answer will he give?

A) We are at war
B) I have nothing to hide
C) Something to do with 9-11
D) A combination of the three talking points above


The administration broke the law again? We are war since 9-11, so I don't mind strip searches everyday when I leave my house. Do you have something to hide?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Everyone on the left is screaming "this is ILLEGAL!!! Violation of our Rights!!" of which NONE is true.

You are useless to have a discussion with. If you want to argue the legality of it, fine, but you have given ABSOLUTELY NO reason why it would be legal, while your opponents have shown portions of the US Code that makes it illegal. Plus, at least one telecom is facing a multi billion dollar lawsuit for its conduct. Yet you still say that nothing illegal was done. It's mind boggling.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are you kidding? This is crazy. I feel like I'm no longer living in America. I believe that unlimited power can be corrupted, and all of a sudden I am believing in vast conspiracies against the American public? That's insane. OF COURSE if you give someone unchecked power it is going to be abused. OF COURSE you shouldn't let the administration break the law at will. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So, were you bitching to high heaven during Clinton's adminstration while Project ECHELON was going on? After all, they were spying too. Unchecked balance and all, or are you complaining because it's Bush that's doing this?

Look, it's a general disagreement on the fundamental principles of things -- you seem to think your rights are being taken away -- I don't see that. I don't feel I've lost ANY rights at all since Bush took office. You seem to think Bush should disclose all actions the government is taking to fight terrorism. I think if I know everything the government is doing, they're not doing their job right.

That's my only complaint about the whole NSA deal -- that I even know about it. That someone in government is traitorous enough to reveal this sort of CLASSIFIED program to a newspaper, and that the newspaper has so little regard for this country that they make it public.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So, were you bitching to high heaven during Clinton's adminstration while Project ECHELON was going on? After all, they were spying too. Unchecked balance and all, or are you complaining because it's Bush that's doing this?

Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are useless to have a discussion with. If you want to argue the legality of it, fine, but you have given ABSOLUTELY NO reason why it would be legal, while your opponents have shown portions of the US Code that makes it illegal. Plus, at least one telecom is facing a multi billion dollar lawsuit for its conduct. Yet you still say that nothing illegal was done. It's mind boggling.

Ok, once again, it's not protected under the 4th Amendment due to Smith v Maryland, which stated, in fairly plain language, that phone records are not protected as one of your privacy rights.

You countered with the Comm Act, which still doesn't make it illegal, since the Comm Act only covered Names and addresses of phone records, OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT COLLECTING. You can twist the wording of the Act however you like, but in no way, shape or form is PHONE NUMBERS protected. You say it's "communications", but it's not. Communications, or the words spoke in the conversation, IS protected, but, again, that's not what they're collecting.

So, you then countered with "a phone number can lead to the name and address of the number", which is true, and it's still not protected. If I had your phone number, any rational, intelligent person could retrieve the name and address. Bill Collectors do it all the time. Still, it's not protected.

And as for your lawsuit argument, as everyone knows, anyone can sue for any reason. Doesn't mean they'll win.