NSA keeping track of every phone call Americans make

[IglooDame]

This is precisely my point. If correcting terrorism requires similar measures because of it's ever-changing nature, ability to change jurisdictions, etc. would you consider it any more reasonable? Personally, I look at many of our counterterrorism elements (particularly those involving electronic surveilence) the same as I do searching a vehicle during a traffic stop. It has to happen now or you lose your chance.

This goes back to the question of why they weren't going through the FISA court which had a fast-track option for their wiretapping. But if we're going to maintain the comparison, this sort of data warehousing is probably most closely akin to having a GPS/sat tracker on every vehicle maintaining records of where everyone drives. Then, if someone is driving through a bad neighborhood and it looks like they're making drug buys, a cop hunts them down, pulls them over, and based on the fact that there's an odor of marijuana coming out of the window searches the car.

My point being, the tracking of every car's movements is the part that is not currently considered constitutional (AFAIK), the searching based on probable cause after the traffic stop is. Likewise, the mass call record accumulation may not be constitutional, getting a warrant to tap into phone lines is.

What the heck is the SCOTUS and why can't we just write it out instead of using bogus acronyms?

Supreme Court Of The United States, and we're okay using acronymic shorthand Because everyone learns what it is pretty quick.

 

[IglooDame]

I hardly see how it's "privacy infringement" for the government to see whether you happen to call Saudi Arabia every week.

Credit card companies already evaluate your buying patterns so they can figure out when your card has been stolen; is that privacy infringement?

First off, there's a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing something. We hold the government to a more narrow standard on a lot of things, mostly because of the force that the government has available.

Second, we're now talking about purely domestic surveillance here. Police don't tail everyone around checking to see if they go into red light districts. I'd sit a lot easier if the NSA was requiring the telcos to give them the call records only for numbers that were dialing Saudi Arabia weekly, rather than giving them everything so that they can comb through them on their own.

 

[Uiler]

It strikes me as a bit odd because it seems to me like those that are arguing against this would in any other circumstance be most in favor of nationalizing the telephone companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but just wanted to get that observation out of the way.

It appears that the government is collecting a database of telephone numbers that interact with other telephone numbers. I can see where this would be useful in connecting anyone to potential terrorists or what have you, but I don't know in detail the program. It would seem irresponsible to criticize the program when you don't even know what exactly it is.

You are completely right rmsharpe. But you know what one of the major problems have been? The Bush administration have fought nail, tooth and claw to prevent people knowing what the details are. It's only because of whistleblowers with a conscious that any sort of details are known at all.

If the best we can do is speculate, blame the Bush administration. People have continuingly asked for information on the program and Bush has continuingly refused to give it.

 

[Uiler]

But the government is only looking for one specific category of "something." And, as far as I understand this program, the people they search are narrowed down significantly: first, because they called or were called by someone outside the US; then, because they said certain words.

You could be a drug peddler, child pornographer, adulteress, and this program wouldn't find what you want to hide. (Granted, this is an assumption. The government could use this for other crime-fighting purposes, but that would be a pretty big story, and if they're doing it it's either covered up or I really missed out.)

No, that's incorrect. The warrantless eavesdropping is to do with international calls connecting with the US. This new information is concerning calls starting in and ending in the US. Neither are they to do with key words. The NSA asked the phone companies for *all* of their records.

 

[Kayak]

But the government is only looking for one specific category of "something." And, as far as I understand this program, the people they search are narrowed down significantly: first, because they called or were called by someone outside the US; then, because they said certain words.

If this government had a better history of openness I might be more sanguine about all of this. To me it is not the collecting of info for aspecific purpose that is the problem, rather it is the use that info will be put to at some other time. What if this info was DNA of individuals going abroad say? It would take very little for that DNA info to end up with the DPH and from there, private insurance companies.

It appears that the government is collecting a database of telephone numbers that interact with other telephone numbers. I can see where this would be useful in connecting anyone to potential terrorists or what have you, but I don't know in detail the program. It would seem irresponsible to criticize the program when you don't even know what exactly it is.

And it is had to find out if an illegal program is going on if the administration lies about it and prevents any investigation.

 

[Uiler]

Clearly, the "cover reason" for this program doesn't hold up in the slightest.

The purpose is on the contrary, very clearly to track the communications of people who:

1) are already within the country, and making calls here
2) already are being "traced"
3) are perceived by the executive as posing a threat but
4) cannot be legally arrested and thus taken care of less circuitously

in other words, protestors.

Again, Republican or Democrat, as long as you aren't an idiot you've got to be worried about the potential for abuse here.

PP, I agree with you completely on this. Data mining in the phone connections of aggregate of large groups is completely useless for anti-terrorism. Think about the number of phone calls made per day. How will they be able to tell which ones are terrorists or not? What's going to distinguish them?

Even better yet - if they are pattern matching, they should have a pattern to match to! That is, they must be able to test their pattern matching to real events to see if their model can accurately predict real-world data. And this takes a lot of test data - in this case, a lot of terrorist events in the US, for any hope of accuracy. For data-mining for anti-terrorism, this is completely useless!

Note in the article it says that though the NSA did not ask for personal information it can easily obtain this by cross-referencing other databases.

Hence the only logical reason for this database is if you already have someone under suspicion for something, or is a political opponent, you can *without getting a warrant or going to any court* obtain their entire history of communications and use this information against them.

It's quite simple really.

 

[IglooDame]

Hence the only logical reason for this database is if you already have someone under suspicion for something, or is a political opponent, you can *without getting a warrant or going to any court* obtain their entire history of communications and use this information against them.

It's quite simple really.

Indeed, the NSA could have gone to FISA for this, but did not, and if it would have been a slam-dunk, they'd have Qwest's call records now as well.

 

[Uiler]

Indeed, the NSA could have gone to FISA for this, but did not, and if it would have been a slam-dunk, they'd have Qwest's call records now as well.

I read that they didn't go to the FSA because they were afraid that their application would be denied.

That says it all I'm afraid.

 

[MobBoss]

Hmmm, I saw a state senator (I forget which) talking about this last night. His take on it was that the actual content of the phone conversations was not recorded or being tracked, but only the phone numbers called by the traced phone in question. Like the itemized statement portion of your phone bill.

So, if all this is, is the government identifying a possible terrorist and tracing all his phone calls to other numbers and then identifying those numbers without monitoring the actual content of the call why is that a big issue? That sort of thing has been done for years and years already.

 

[IglooDame]

Hmmm, I saw a state senator (I forget which) talking about this last night. His take on it was that the actual content of the phone conversations was not recorded or being tracked, but only the phone numbers called by the traced phone in question. Like the itemized statement portion of your phone bill.

So, if all this is, is the government identifying a possible terrorist and tracing all his phone calls to other numbers and then identifying those numbers without monitoring the actual content of the call why is that a big issue? That sort of thing has been done for years and years already.

That sort of thing has been done for years by who, exactly?

 

[MobBoss]

That sort of thing has been done for years by who, exactly?

Any court/prosecutor/investigator that has used someones phone records to determine who was called and at what time the call was placed. Done all the time with 9/11 calls.

You know..the old.."why did you call X prior to calling 9/11 to save your wife" type of thing.

Also, as the exact content of the call is not being monitored, I think the question of privacy is possibly moot. The senator on the TV last night mentioned that courts had apparently previously ruled that simply knowing who you call and at what time is not a breach of your privacy. I would have to look that one up tho.

 

[downtown]

Don't courts have to get warrents to get that infomation though? This is taking it from millions of people who have committed no crime

 

[IglooDame]

Don't courts have to get warrents to get that infomation though? This is taking it from millions of people who have committed no crime

I think it requires at least a subpoena in those cases.

 

[MobBoss]

Don't courts have to get warrents to get that infomation though? This is taking it from millions of people who have committed no crime

I dont think a warrent is required for the simple reason is there is not breach of privacy.

Think about it. If who you called or is calling you is a privacy issue there would be no such thing as caller ID. The phone company knows who you call and the patterns you call in. I dont think that data is considered private. Now the actual content of your calls I agree. They need a court order to tap your phone and listen in to your private conversation.

Once again, I think this is more alarmist over-reacting over something thats been routinely done for decades.

FYI, in my legal office we have requested and received phone records before for government employees. No court order needed.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I dont think a warrent is required for the simple reason is there is not breach of privacy.

Think about it. If who you called or is calling you is a privacy issue there would be no such thing as caller ID. The phone company knows who you call and the patterns you call in. I dont think that data is considered private. Now the actual content of your calls I agree. They need a court order to tap your phone and listen in to your private conversation.

Once again, I think this is more alarmist over-reacting over something thats been routinely done for decades.

FYI, in my legal office we have requested and received phone records before for government employees. No court order needed.

Pardon me, but that's BS.

The phone company needs that information to route your call, and it is not a breach of privacy to give that information to the person on the other end through caller ID because, well, they're going to pick up the phone and talk to you.

Does that mean there is not an expectation of privacy? Does that mean the router of the call can share information with third parties like the gov?

Of course there is an expectation of privacy in a phone call, you fool; it is a private conversation between two people. That's why we have phone booths not phone pedestals.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MobBoss]

Pardon me, but that's BS.

The phone company needs that information to route your call, and it is not a breach of privacy to give that information to the person on the other end through caller ID because, well, they're going to pick up the phone and talk to you.

Does that mean there is not an expectation of privacy? Does that mean the router of the call can share information with third parties like the gov?

Of course there is an expectation of privacy in a phone call, you fool; it is a private conversation between two people. That's why we have phone booths not phone pedestals.

First of all have the decency to not call me a fool. Secondly, phone booths are designed as much to eliminate background noise as provide privacy, but to allege you have a right to privacy simply because the phone company made a phone booth instead of a pedestal is just silly.

I believe that the expectation of privacy covers the actual content of the call, not necessarily who was called or when. This isnt a medical record. The phone company can turn that stuff over to whoever they wish, its their data, over their network.

PP, you do acknowledge that this current "hot issue" is simply about contact phone numbers and not the content/conversations of the actual phone calls involved?

 

[zulu9812]

Speaking of NSA phonetapping, MSNBC has an interesting piece about the NSA effectively delivering a KO to the body investigating them. In some bizarre twist, a government inquiry into the mass phone taps has not been given the security clearnce it needs to properly investigate the situation. Thus the NSA prevent any investigation of its actions.

 

[IglooDame]

I believe that the expectation of privacy covers the actual content of the call, not necessarily who was called or when. This isnt a medical record. The phone company can turn that stuff over to whoever they wish, its their data, over their network.

According to the article, you are incorrect:

Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

IglooDude is hereby awarded the Good Article Reader award.

 

[MobBoss]

IglooDude is hereby awarded the Good Article Reader award.

From this story today in forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/11/nsa-wiretap-bush_cx_jh_0511NSA.html

Section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act forbids phone companies from giving out data on the calling patterns of their customers. But telecom experts say the law wasn't designed to address national security issues.

"There were large competition concerns over how the Bell companies might misuse that information," says Larry Strickling, former chief of the common carrier bureau of the Federal Communications Commission.

Sounds like there may be a national security based exemption to this somewhere doesnt it? and:

Any congressional inquiry into the call database is unlikely to yield much. The NSA is likely to characterize its call database as part and parcel of its routine data-mining activities. When grilled about its failure to ask for court approval, "they'll argue that they bought the data from the companies and used it for statistical analyses," said Lewis.

It is also unlikely the Federal Communications Commission will investigate or fine the telcos for handing over the data. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a loyal Republican, will be hard-pressed to buck the Bush administration on the issue. In any event, polls have shown that the public overwhelming supports the administration's wiretapping for counterterrorism purposes.

And this new revelation brings up fewer privacy concerns: There is a big distinction between eavesdropping on private conversations and analyzing call traffic for patterns. As one Washington telecom lawyer put it, "It's a nonstarter."