NSA tracks phone calls?

[puglover]

FOXNews.com

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor also criticized the Justice Department for failing to respond to the legal challenge, The Detroit News reported Friday.

The NSA and the Justice Department declined immediate comment. The Bush administration has said that hearings would reveal state secrets that affect national security.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Detroit and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York filed lawsuits against the program in January, saying it violates Americans' rights to free speech and to privacy.

In March, the plaintiffs asked the judge to declare the National Security Agency's program illegal. They said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires that the spy agency go to a secret court in order to spy within the United States.

The government filed a motion saying that no court can consider the issues because of a privilege against revealing state secrets, if doing so harms national security. The judge said she will hear the government's motion only after proceeding with a June 12 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to summarily declare the spying illegal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197925,00.html

Personally I think this is a minor violation of American privacy, after all, the NSA only tracks numbers and doesn't actually listen to calls. But I would speak against it, as it doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything against terrorism anyway. The media is certainly making too big a deal out of it though, especially the rumors of some big Bush-led "Big Brother" society taking over America.

Opinions? Discuss.

 

[Tulkas12]

With you pretty much 100 %.

Story defintely blown out of proportion.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Well, a lot of Americans are living under the illusion that the administration really cares for them and protects all their little rights.

Here we know different. All you got to do is say the words "national security" and there is no discussion of the issue.

Waking up to reality is such a drag. Best done than not though.

 

[Turner]

Duplicate thread, sort of.

It's my understanding (and I haven't looked into this too closely) that they track the pattern of calls, via which number calls another number. Not listening in.

Is it a violation of privacy? Sure, but a minor one. I'm not going to fall back on the old "Don't call the wrong people, you won't have a problem" mindset. But I don't really have a problem with it.

Now, listening in, yeah, that would be a major breach and should not be allowed. Like most things, it's how much you're willing to let them get away with.

 

[IglooDame]

The government filed a motion saying that no court can consider the issues because of a privilege against revealing state secrets, if doing so harms national security.

This is an interesting statement: Activities conducted by the executive branch targeted at the civilian citizenry of the United States are immune to judicial oversight if the executive branch declares the judicial involvement to harm national security.

Is everyone truly prepared to let that precedent stand?

Mindful, these activities were conducted by an agency that refused security clearances requested by the Justice Department in the process of making sure the JD's own lawyers were ethically and properly giving legal advice to that agency.

 

[skadistic]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

 

[Che Guava]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

???? the bill of rights....?

 

[Tulkas12]

???? the bill of rights....?

Not there, go back and read them again.

The answer? It is based on a series of rulings of the suprene court where it is basically an assumed right. Its most contraversial use? Thats right Roe v. Wade.

 

[IglooDame]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

Not everyone. I understand that it isn't clearly delineated in the US Constitution, and I'm not happy about that, but it is clearly within the purview of the legislative branch to lay down some guidelines for it.

But you're okay with the executive branch doing non-emergency activities against the population of the US and claiming immunity from the constitution via national security preemption, I take it?

 

[Tulkas12]

Not everyone. I understand that it isn't clearly delineated in the US Constitution, and I'm not happy about that, but it is clearly within the purview of the legislative branch to lay down some guidelines for it.

But you're okay with the executive branch doing non-emergency activities against the population of the US and claiming immunity from the constitution via national security preemption, I take it?

No, I'm not personally. I take a bunch of contraversial positions but most of them require a formal declaration of war from congress. We did not get such a thing, so we are left with an inept governement that is grasping for straws and that can't tell the ACLU to fly a kite for a few years.

 

[puglover]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

It's not necessarily a right, but privacy is a valuable asset to living in a modern world.

 

[Kozmos]

Hmm I thought everyone knew that NSA tracked phone calls. But then again I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Not listening in? Bwhaahah, they have thousands of hours of conversation on tape. They burn most of them though.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

In America you are not supposed to be allowed search and/or seizure until a warrant is issued. You can't just barge into a house and look for drugs just for the heck of it. That's what the argument is here, that the government is spying on these people without a stated reason/cause.

And it is wrong indeed. The government should never interfere in anyone's personal life.

 

[Stile]

Plus, you have to admit there is a high potential for abuse from someone: digging up dirt on political opponents, rooting out leakers/whistle-blowers, etc.

 

[skadistic]

But you're okay with the executive branch doing non-emergency activities against the population of the US and claiming immunity from the constitution via national security preemption, I take it?

I'm ok with the government doing what it sees fit to protect its people. If the executive branch needs to use the "national security" bit to keep info from people like the ACLU, who would gladly tell the world and the enamy all our tools for combating islamofacist radicalism, then I have no problem with that. I think that all anti-terror actions on or off the the the battle field are emergancy activities. These animals are cunning and use all kinds of uncoventual methods for attack and comunication. I want my protectors to use what ever means are at their disposal to trace, listen, watch, follow, and stop the planning and exacution of attacks. I don't trust the gov. completely but at the same time I don't think this is a case to be held up as some abuse of powers. This is a case of the Bush haters who would rather make mountains out of ant hills in an effort to discredit the administration.

 

[skadistic]

In America you are not supposed to be allowed search and/or seizure until a warrant is issued. You can't just barge into a house and look for drugs just for the heck of it. That's what the argument is here, that the government is spying on these people without a stated reason/cause.

And it is wrong indeed. The government should never interfere in anyone's personal life.

The right that protects you from "unreasonable search and seizure" doesn't apply in this case at all. The data that the NSA wants does not belong to the individual but to the company that the NSA asked. It was covered in another thread how you dont own the info and that it wasn't private to begin with. No ones house was beeing barged into literaly of figurativly. (SP?)

 

[YNCS]

I'm ok with the government doing what it sees fit to protect its people. If the executive branch needs to use the "national security" bit to keep info from people like the ACLU, who would gladly tell the world and the enamy all our tools for combating islamofacist radicalism, then I have no problem with that.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

BTW, I'd like a source for your claim that the ACLU "would gladly tell the world and the enamy [sic] all our tools for combating islamofacist radicalism." Please give instances when the ACLU has done such a thing.

 

[Neomega]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

The fourth amendment clearly states an agent of the executive must get a warrant from the judicial before trying to gather evidence on a person suspected of unlawful activity.

 

[Neomega]

Not there, go back and read them again.

The answer? It is based on a series of rulings of the suprene court where it is basically an assumed right. Its most contraversial use? Thats right Roe v. Wade.

yeah, and so a bunch of ipeople very familiar with the abortion battle then claim anything to do with search and seizure is bogus because there is no right to privacy.

Which is true, there is no clearly stated right to privacy in the bill of rights, But there is a clearly stated right to protection from unlawful search and siezure.

And if telephone companies have given away your records, without requiring a warrant, then they have broken their privacy policies, and their contract with their consumers, and are no better than a spyware company.

 

[Stegyre]

Every one says its a violation of privacy rights be it small or not. I would like someone to show me where american citizens have an expressly writen right to privacy.

???? the bill of rights....?

Not there, go back and read them again.

The answer? It is based on a series of rulings of the supreme court where it is basically an assumed right. Its most contraversial use? Thats right Roe v. Wade.

Regarding references to rights for what we could commonly consider “private,” the Bill of Rights is replete:

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .

(Those darned activist courts have interpreted this right of assembly to prevent the government from requiring the disclosure of membership lists. A point noted because the government’s purpose in acquiring these records is essentially to create “membership lists”: groups of people who call each other. Specific case citations are not at my finger tips, but can be provided if someone doubts the assertion.)

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Relationship here should be pretty obvious, as others have already remarked upon it.)

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .

(Privacy is very much a liberty interest: how much liberty does one have if everything must be performed “in public”? (i.e., without any privacy). It is also sometimes a property interest, particularly to the extent that my telephone records are mine, not yours; therefore, I have unfettered access to them, and you have none at all, without my permission.)

The specific reference to “privacy” as a right comes from some admittedly abominable language by Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut (bolding mine):

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. [Citation omitted.] Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html
(If someone wants to betray his ignorance by arguing that a judicial decision isn’t the law but just what some judge (or judges) think the law is, we can discuss how common law legal systems like the U.S. work.)

Regarding the telecommunications companies’ obligation to maintain the privacy of these records, see 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (bolding mine):

Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,
(1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney,
(2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination,
(3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed,
(4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving,
(5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
(6) on demand of other lawful authority.

An expert in the area could doubtless provide you with several additional statutory, regulatory, and case law references. I found others (such as 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 18 U.S.C. § 2702, but quoting enough to demonstrate that they were not being taken out of context or that I was not excluding some relevant provision would be too much text for too little added benefit.

In sum, we have numerous privacy rights, founded in Constitutional provisions, federal and state statutes, regulations, and common law (court decisions).