Smith v Maryland - US Supreme Court Case 1979 - Phone Records belong to phone company, no privacy

Find Law ^ | June 20, 1979 | SCOTUS

[FlingWingFlyer]

Well. "Republican" Lindsay Graham said that he was "clueless" so I guess we can leave him out.

[Cementjungle]

Same here. I love how Pelosi went on TV and acted as if she knew little of this and was pretending to be 'outraged'. And it's really frustrating that her saying that settles it in the minds of the libs. No other exhibits are ever allowed to be presented to counter her argument.

[kinoxi]

qwest has been outsourcing their business. ATT and IBM both overlap in their (qwest's) coverage areas. the qwest turn down to the the NSA in 2003 was by no means a guarantee of privacy

[ndt]

Did you get a chance to read 2709?

Regarding § 2709(b):

" The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation... may

request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director ...certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider ... that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States"

Whoever wrote and passed this thing worded this way needs to be fired. This is begging for a SCOTUS challenge. You could interpret it as meaning...

• You are not allowed to target people based on first amendment speech but you can target somebody with other evidence.
• You are not allowed to target people based on first amendment speech but you can target target everybody. (the current case)
• You are not allowed to target people based on first amendment speech but you can target target people with green hair.
• You are not allowed to target people based on first amendment speech but you can target target people who own guns.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

What the ruling says is that the phone numbers you dial from your phone are the phone companies property since you are using their property. The NSA is building a national phone book of numbers.

I would agree with you if it involved content of the conversation.

[demlosers]

Did you get a chance to read 2709?

I'm eating at the moment and watching FOX. I'll read it for comprehension...soon.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

From what we know about what USA Today reported is that it is numbers to numbers is what the database and looking for patters to call out of the country.

It is not as detailed information until you get much furter along with an investigation

[gondramB]

>>I would agree with you if it involved content of the conversation.<<

There may be another shoe to drop - keyword sampling may be part of the "patterns:" they are talking about.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

From what we know about what USA Today reported is that it is numbers to numbers is what the database and looking for patters to call out of the country.

It is not as detailed information until you get much further along with an investigation

[Republican Wildcat]

As Drudge has now pointed out, the USA Today story is recycled news first reported in December by the New York Times. This latest feeding frenzy is purely manufactured.

[demlosers]

That's the way I interpret it too.

Whoever wrote this was concerned about the free speech rights of political protesters? But everyone else is fair game.

[ndt]

"Whoever wrote this was concerned about the free speech rights of political protesters? "

I can imagine what happened. Congress wanted to give some protections of privacy but not impose the difficult hurdle of "probable cause". Instead they used this "first amendment" excepted wording.

The problem is that leaves a huge loophole. If the feds want to target anybody, even for first amendment speech, all they need to do is target everybody. They get all the records and then they can do whatever they want with them. Basically the way this law is written, if the privacy protections are interpreted in their most liberal sense is meaningless.

If this gets to a court, I suspect it would not be interpreted so liberally. It is clear that congress intended to include protections and using this clause to target everyone by targeting no one is a pretty flagrant misinterpretation of the intent IMHO.

[demlosers]

The problem is that leaves a huge loophole. If the feds want to target anybody, even for first amendment speech, all they need to do is target everybody.

My guess this law is part of the Patriot Act since it favors the government.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

"..provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States"

What the Democrats have a big stink about is ?

That the N.S.A. either wired tapped their phone, or conducted surveillance of someone from overseas ( whom is over here on a US visa )
but ?
They ( the Dems - Libs- MSM ) still want to consider someone who is ( NOT ) a US citizen , or nationalized , a US citizen who is protected under the US Constitution

Hey Democrats ? Liberals ? MSM ? those who want to impeach President Bush ?

A person who is from a foreign country whom is here on a US visa is ( NOT A US CITZEN !! )

The US government, NSA , CIA has every right to investigate them, wire tap them, and conduct surveillance if they think they are a terrorist, or suspicious.

[ndt]

"My guess this law is part of the Patriot Act since it favors the government."

I do believe you are correct. I have seen that same wishy washy wording littered throughout FISA as part of the patriot act amendments. It's an honest attempt to fix a real problem but horribly misguided. Probable cause is a difficult standard to meet. It is supposed to be.

Law must be strictly written and not open to whimsical interpretations.

"In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and order..."

What constitutes a threat to public safety? Who determines? To what extent my he take those "necessary measures"?

Sounds innocent enough doesn't it. The item above however was the wishy washy language of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. What a savings a few extra words could have made the day they wrote that one.

[ndt]

"What the Democrats have a big stink about is ?"

Well you do have that "Prophet in the wilderness" thing going on because I have no idea what you're talking about.

This thread is about a specific incident that to the best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the immigration issue which was two threads back.

[freepatriot32]

ping

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Sorry if I was mistaken.
I thought this tread was about the Dems bogus claim that the NSA was illegally wire tapping suspected terrorist whom the Dems think are US citzens.

[ndt]

No this thread is about the NSA collecting phone records on 10s of millions of Americans yours included.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

You know very well that the Dems and MSM is not going to let this story go away ( NSA ) spying on US citizens even after the November elections.
I always thought that the law kept them from not spying on US citizens who are living currently in the USA.
The point I was making was that the Dems/MSM/Libs still think that even those people who are born and are from a foreign country and who are on a US visa and ( NOT ) a US citizen still can be considered ( in their twisted thinking and logic )a US citizen ( i.e. Mohammad alti ).