NSA tracks phone calls?

[RameNoodle]

Wow, I think that you could be Michael Moore, Stegyre.
But seriously, I think that a little bit of recording who I called isn't going to kill me; besides, I would rather the NSA know that I called my mom at 4:00 P.M. and my girlfriend forty five minutes later, and know that there is someone repeatedly making phone calls to an unlisted number in the middle of Afghanistan at a suspected terrorist camp than them not know any of this at all.

 

[eyrei]

Terrorists scare me a lot less than my own government abusing its power in such ways that bring us a little bit closer to a police state.

 

[CaptainF]

Terrorists scare me a lot less than my own government abusing its power in such ways that bring us a little bit closer to a police state.

exactly.

This whole "national security" thing kind of irks me.

 

[The Yankee]

Hasn't "national security" always been the excuse given by totalitarian states and just your run-of-the-mill dictator whenever something was to be done against "enemies of the state"? Before you all pile on me for somehow connecting Bush with Stalin, I'm not doing that. But even if you trust this president to be faithful to the privacy of Americans, do you trust the next president? Or the one after?

Isn't it worrying that we can't even let the judges decide? Who knows...maybe they'll be all for it. In fact, it'd be a huge political boon if the judges ruled in that favor. So why not press ahead...unless there's a very good chance the judges would strike it down and explicity state where such a program breached the law?

Isn't it something when we cannot pass laws in some places to get a track on where guns are sold (perhaps to terrorists even) but we're willing to let them look through phone records? Someone explain this to me.

 

[CaptainF]

I don't understand how people could be so blindly afraid of threats that the government puts in front of their face.

 

[Stegyre]

Wow, I think that you could be Michael Moore, Stegyre..

You have found me out. Now, I must kill you.
Actually, I was just annoyed at the comments by skad and tulkas. The length and detail of the response was just to demonstrate how easy it is to rebut their assertions.

But seriously, I think that a little bit of recording who I called isn't going to kill me . . . .

Neither will someone videotaping you on the toilet. As a rule, privacy invasions are not physically harmful, just morally reprehensible, just as lying about it is morally reprehensible. We have seem to have a morally reprehensible administration. As such, I am unwilling to trust them when they assure me that (a) this is all that they are doing, and (b) the information is only being used for "national security."

esides, I would rather the NSA know that I called my mom at 4:00 P.M. and my girlfriend forty five minutes later, and know that there is someone repeatedly making phone calls to an unlisted number in the middle of Afghanistan at a suspected terrorist camp than them not know any of this at all.

These aren't calls from the U.S. to Afghanistan (that was the previous privacy breach they didn't think we needed to know anything about. These were domestic-to-domestic calls - everybody's calls, indiscriminately. This includes calls from the telephone numbers of the DNC, members of Congress and the judiciary, etc. In short, the Executive Branch is flexing its muscle to keep tabs on everyone else, but thinks no one needs to keep tabs on them. That is contrary to the nature of the U.S. political system, and deeply disturbing.

 

[skadistic]

I was just annoyed at the comments by skad and tulkas. The length and detail of the response was just to demonstrate how easy it is to rebut their assertions.
QUOTE]

You rebuted nothing. I asked where is it expressly writen That americans have a right to privacy. All you could show was assumpions and possible maybes.

 

[Stegyre]

You rebuted nothing. I asked where is it expressly writen That americans have a right to privacy. All you could show was assumptions and possible maybes.

Uhm, no. What I showed were the texts of a few constitutional provisions, a Supreme Court decision, and some federal statutes, all of which are law. If you do not grasp the relationship between those provisions and the concepts of rights or privacy, the problem is yours. What do you think a "right to privacy" is? Until one defines it, the statement is useless: you may think it means I can't read your journal, while I think it means you can't peak under a woman's skirt. In my previously quoted text, however, Justice Douglas gives several instances of rights of privacy: the home is private, so the government cannot enter it at will; personal property is private, so the government cannot search it at will; telephone communications are private, so the companies that retain records of them are barred from disclosing them without the individual's permission.

 

[Akhhorus]

As much is this could be construed as a "violation of rights", the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s. Why is this an issue now?

 

[Stegyre]

As much is this could be construed as a "violation of rights", the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s. Why is this an issue now?

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the NSA is generally limited to intercepting foreign communications, not domestic:

NSA's SIGINT mission provides our military leaders and policy makers with intelligence to ensure our national defense and to advance U.S. global interests. This information is specifically limited to that on foreign powers, organizations or persons and international terrorists. NSA responds to requirements levied by intelligence customers, which includes all departments and levels of the United States Executive Branch.

(bolding mine) source: http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/index.cfm

 

[Kozmos]

Yeah thats what they are supposed to be listenting but they listen to everything.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the NSA is generally limited to intercepting foreign communications, not domestic:

(bolding mine) source: http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/index.cfm

Your trusting the same NSA that most people didn't even know existed up until the beginning of the year, and one who denied keeping track of phone calls in the first place.

 

[Akhhorus]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the NSA is generally limited to intercepting foreign communications, not domestic:

(bolding mine) source: http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/index.cfm

The NSA isn't the best source, frankly. Michael Hayden has said many times that while they're aren't allowed to listen in to domestic calls, they still do(its called the 11th commandment of the NSA). The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 allows telecommunication companies to hand over phone records if the government asks for it.

But its common knowledge that the NSA was circumventing the laws against it(especially after the Church Committee Hearings) by getting the Brits to listen in on American calls and giving them the tapes. Carter ordered them to stop, sort of.

 

[Stegyre]

Your trusting the same NSA that most people didn't even know existed up until the beginning of the year, and one who denied keeping track of phone calls in the first place.

It's not a matter of trusting or not trusting them. I don't know what they've been up to. However, if someone else wishes to imply that he does know what they've been doing, he'd best be prepared to support his statement.

The assertion has been made that "the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s." Where is the support? You, Akhhorus, or anyone else are welcome to provide it.

 

[Akhhorus]

It's not a matter of trusting or not trusting them. I don't know what they've been up to. However, if someone else wishes to imply that he does know what they've been doing, he'd best be prepared to support his statement.

The assertion has been made that "the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s." Where is the support? You, Akhhorus, or anyone else are welcome to provide it.

Its proved with the establishment of FISA. FISA was established in 1978 because of NSA domestic spying that the Pentagon was using against peace activists(who have approved over 10,000 warrants for US Intel to spy domestically). This really sprung out of the Church Committee that uncovered a ton of dirty secrets that US intel was hiding, not least of which was that they were listening in to Domestic calls. I don't what else I can show, outside of articles mentioning it.

 

[Stegyre]

The NSA isn't the best source, frankly. Michael Hayden has said many times that while they're aren't allowed to listen in to domestic calls, they still do (its called the 11th commandment of the NSA). The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 allows telecommunication companies to hand over phone records if the government asks for it.

But its common knowledge that the NSA was circumventing the laws against it (especially after the Church Committee Hearings) by getting the Brits to listen in on American calls and giving them the tapes. Carter ordered them to stop, sort of.

You’re really highlighting why sources are so important:

(1) I’ve already cited (and quoted) from the ECPA (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): it doesn’t allow companies to hand over phone records if the government asks for it. They can provide records “on demand of other lawful authority,” but if, as you concede, the NSA is not authorized to have that information, any such request is by definition unlawful, not “lawful authority.”

(2) The “11th commandment of the NSA” is actually the opposite of what you give: “thou shalt not eavesdrop on Americans.” (Bolding mine) Source: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002845.htm

"Common knowledge" so often isn't. The internet is a wondeful tool that can provide support for almost any proposition, even the crackpot, so there’s no excuse for anyone not to come up with some sort of support other than his own word. Let’s put it this way: I don’t trust the NSA, but what makes you any more reliable?

 

[Akhhorus]

You’re really highlighting why sources are so important:

(1) I’ve already cited (and quoted) from the ECPA (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): it doesn’t allow companies to hand over phone records if the government asks for it. They can provide records “on demand of other lawful authority,” but if, as you concede, the NSA is not authorized to have that information, any such request is by definition unlawful, not “lawful authority.”

The NSA would be a lawful authority if they ask for it. They are a legal governmental agency. And they can go to FISA and ask for a warrant for domestic wiretapping. This has been granted to government agency over 10,000 times since the establishment of FISA.

And that's not the Electronic Communications privacy act, this is:
http://cio.doe.gov/Documents/ECPA.HTM

Please show where the NSA(or any govt. agency) is outlawed from listening in to domestic calls with appropriate authority.

(2) The “11th commandment of the NSA” is actually the opposite of what you give: “thou shalt not eavesdrop on Americans.” (Bolding mine) Source: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002845.htm

And obviously, that commandment is suggestion at best if the NSA(and even when Hayden was NSA chief) is still domestic wiretapping and has been in the past.

"Common knowledge" so often isn't. The internet is a wondeful tool that can provide support for almost any proposition, even the crackpot, so there’s no excuse for anyone not to come up with some sort of support other than his own word.

I could find plenty of moronic blogs and less than credible sources, but those aren't real sources. Oddly enough, you quote one here.

Let’s put it this way: I don’t trust the NSA, but what makes you any more reliable?

This is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you want some news article about NSA spying in the 70s, here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-nsa-70s_x.htm?csp=N009

Which proves my claim with my first post. And thanks for not discussing my previous post on FISA. I guess that answers a lot of your questions?

 

[Stegyre]

The NSA would be a lawful authority if they ask for it. They are a legal governmental agency. And they can go to FISA and ask for a warrant for domestic wiretapping. This has been granted to government agency over 10,000 times since the establishment of FISA.

Agreed: when the NSA acts with a warrant from the Court, it is a lawful authority. The NSA is being criticized for acting without a warrant. In that situation, its requests are "unlawful," because a warrant is legally required.

And that's not the Electronic Communications privacy act, this is: http://cio.doe.gov/Documents/ECPA.HTM

A source! Bless you, my child, for now we can have intelligent discourse that rises above the level of "yes it is" versus "no it isn't."

You have cited to the public law (the bill enacting the various statutory changes that make up the ECPA. Page down to the notation "47 U.S.C. 605" on the left side, which is the language I quoted. You are correct that I did not cite the entire ECPA. I cited a specific statute enacted therein, rather than the public law. From an attorney's perspective, the statutes are generally more readily accessible, and they tend to place the relevant portions of the act in the context of other, related statutes. If you believe some other section of the ECPA authorized this action, by all means, point to it. The best way to do so, again, is with the statutory reference (that notation on the left side of the document).

Please show where the NSA(or any govt. agency) is outlawed from listening in to domestic calls with appropriate authority.

As already noted, it's the "appropriate authority" problem: the authority required is a warrant. The NSA has no warrant for the wholesale appropriation of telecommunication records. It makes no claim to any such warrant. If you need a specific citation, it is the 4th Amendment, which requires a warrant for any "search" or "seizure." The seizure and search of these phone records certainly qualifies, and that point is not credibly subject to dispute. You have already noted that the NSA is authorized when it has a warrant. That warrant requirement comes from the 4th Amendment.

And obviously, that commandment is suggestion at best if the NSA(and even when Hayden was NSA chief) is still domestic wiretapping and has been in the past.

You're losing sight of the antecedents, here. I was merely pointing out that you had mis-stated the so-called "11th commandment," coming up with the exact opposite.

This is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you want some news article about NSA spying in the 70s, here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-nsa-70s_x.htm?csp=N009
Which proves my claim with my first post.

Another source! We're on a roll! The claim in your first post (if we're both thinking of the same post) was:

As much is this could be construed as a "violation of rights", the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s. Why is this an issue now?

The USA Today article notes that there was an uproar about the 1970s spying, which directly lead to the 1978 enactment of FISA. Perhaps I'm misreading your original post, but the implication seemed to be "no one complained in the 1970s, so why should they complain now?" We're still looking for support for the claim that "the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s," but I think you may have intended that solely as hyperbole, so I was going to let it pass.

And thanks for not discussing my previous post on FISA. I guess that answers a lot of your questions?

Get a clue: you've never heard of cross-posting, before? You're post didn't exist (on my computer, at least) at the time I was posting. I'm happy to address it, now:

Its proved with the establishment of FISA. FISA was established in 1978 because of NSA domestic spying that the Pentagon was using against peace activists(who have approved over 10,000 warrants for US Intel to spy domestically). This really sprung out of the Church Committee that uncovered a ton of dirty secrets that US intel was hiding, not least of which was that they were listening in to Domestic calls. I don't what else I can show, outside of articles mentioning it.

Your statement does not support your original argument (that the NSA is listening to every telephone call since the 1970s). In fact, it tends to contradict it. Yes, FISA permits domestic spying with a warrant; and yes, plenty of warrants have been issued: out of the thousands of requests, only about 4 have ever been denied. THAT'S THE WAY THE NSA IS SUPPOSED TO WORK: They get a warrant! This provides the necessary "check" on executive power by the judiciary. THE NSA'S ACTIONS ARE REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ACTING WITHOUT A WARRANT. In case you have missed it, THAT is what the current uproar is all about. The fact that it's so ridiculously easy to obtain a warrant highlights the absurdity of the Bush administration's refusal to do so: it's so easy to comply with the law that they really have no excuse for breaking it.

 

[Akhhorus]

Agreed: when the NSA acts with a warrant from the Court, it is a lawful authority. The NSA is being criticized for acting without a warrant. In that situation, its requests are "unlawful," because a warrant is legally required.

And they've been asking for warrants from FISA since its establishment in 1978. 10 thousand of them have been granted. This contraversey started when FISA rejected a warrant request and the WH told the NSA to go ahead and listen. Whether its legal is a good question. It all depends on the subjects being wiretapped.

A source! Bless you, my child, for now we can have intelligent discourse that rises above the level of "yes it is" versus "no it isn't."

(crickets)

You have cited to the public law (the bill enacting the various statutory changes that make up the ECPA. Page down to the notation "47 U.S.C. 605" on the left side, which is the language I quoted. You are correct that I did not cite the entire ECPA. I cited a specific statute enacted therein, rather than the public law. From an attorney's perspective, the statutes are generally more readily accessible, and they tend to place the relevant portions of the act in the context of other, related statutes. If you believe some other section of the ECPA authorized this action, by all means, point to it. The best way to do so, again, is with the statutory reference (that notation on the left side of the document).

There's nothing that section that supports or contradicts anything anyone has said.

As already noted, it's the "appropriate authority" problem: the authority required is a warrant. The NSA has no warrant for the wholesale appropriation of telecommunication records. It makes no claim to any such warrant. If you need a specific citation, it is the 4th Amendment, which requires a warrant for any "search" or "seizure." The seizure and search of these phone records certainly qualifies, and that point is not credibly subject to dispute. You have already noted that the NSA is authorized when it has a warrant. That warrant requirement comes from the 4th Amendment.

Except that FISA law allowed the government to put the wiretap in place, then ask for permission within 72 hours in domestic cases, 1 year in anyone involved in foreign intelligence or possiblity international terrorism. This is the legal fig leaf Bush will hide behind. They'll claim that they believed the people had ties to international terrorism(or belonged to a foreign organization). And you're wrong about the 4th amendment here. The government or police can tap your phones all they want, they just cannot use it in court unless they had a warrant for it.

Another source! We're on a roll! The claim in your first post (if we're both thinking of the same post) was:The USA Today article notes that there was an uproar about the 1970s spying, which directly lead to the 1978 enactment of FISA. Perhaps I'm misreading your original post, but the implication seemed to be "no one complained in the 1970s, so why should they complain now?" We're still looking for support for the claim that "the NSA has been listening to every phone call since the 1970s," but I think you may have intended that solely as hyperbole, so I was going to let it pass.

Going back the "11th Commandment", obviously the NSA can listen to every phone call(and the notion that they could technically listen to only foreign calls without tapping into domestic calls is ridiculous), the question being whether they turned on the recorder. The NSA listens to every call in the world. The question is whether they record and transcribe the call.

Your statement does not support your original argument (that the NSA is listening to every telephone call since the 1970s). In fact, it tends to contradict it.

No, it doesn't. My point is that they were listening to every call. Whether they have a warrant or not, they listen to them. They need the warrant to use it in court, but they don't need a warrant to listen. I have no problem if they want to listen in for certain code words to stop terrorists.

Yes, FISA permits domestic spying with a warrant; and yes, plenty of warrants have been issued: out of the thousands of requests, only about 4 have ever been denied. THAT'S THE WAY THE NSA IS SUPPOSED TO WORK: They get a warrant! This provides the necessary "check" on executive power by the judiciary. THE NSA'S ACTIONS ARE REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ACTING WITHOUT A WARRANT. In case you have missed it, THAT is what the current uproar is all about.

You don't know what the real issue is. The NSA can listen in and use the information gathered if the President orders them to, if they apply for the warrant retroactively(again, 72 hours domestically, 1 year internationally). They are also allowed "extended tests" of any equipment for 90 days if the AG allows them to. The issue was that the FISA rejected a retroactive warrant request and the White House told them to keep listening. If the subject was in anyway related to a foreign country(the definition is purposefully vague), then they could invoke 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). Which allows them to wiretap, even on US soil, for up to a year. And the Patriot Act allows the President to take all measures needed to prevent any potential or future or current attacks on the United States. He has plenty of legal coverage. And as for 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3), it says that the President can authorize the Justice department to do the wiretapping, but the Justice department and bring in the NSA to do it.

The fact that it's so ridiculously easy to obtain a warrant highlights the absurdity of the Bush administration's refusal to do so: it's so easy to comply with the law that they really have no excuse for breaking it.

We don't know if they have or not. If the subjects in question can fulfill the requirements for 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3), then this is a tempest in a teapot.