Posted on 05/11/2006 12:30:13 PM PDT by demlosers
Washington is agog today with the disclosure that appeared in USA Today that Verizon, AT&T and Bell South have been providing domestic phone call information to the National Security Agency on millions of residential and business phone calls made by Americans.
It’s all part of the spy agency’s quest to create a huge database of caller information it could data mine in order to find patterns that might reveal terrorist communications. But it has raised enormous privacy concerns in the minds of many.
The USA Today report, coming after last year’s disclosure in the New York Times of the NSA’s warrantless electronic surveillance of phone calls it deems to be connected to terrorism ginned up the debate over how far is too far in the Bush administration’s efforts to protect the American people from al Qaeda and other terrorists.
The newspaper’s disclosure modified a lot of plans today. President Bush, on his way to give a commencement address in Biloxi, Miss., stopped in the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room to deliver a brief statement to the press.
By the way, the president’s rapid response was remarkable. When other bad news has hit, say Dubai Ports World or the initial revelations of the NSA surveillance last December, there was a noticeable lag which allowed White House critics to define the debate.
The president’s quickness before today might be attributable to Tony Snow, the new press secretary. Or it could be that the White House is so nervous about the president’s ever lower poll ratings that he and his advisors felt he had to speak and quickly.
PRESIDENT BUSH: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized
(Excerpt) Read more at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com ...
Don't worry dirt, there are plenty here who are concerned by this.
If this had been Bill & Hill doing Exactly the same things, under Exactly the same circumstances, many of the knee-jerk defenders of this nonsense would be some of the loudest howlers against it.
It's because it's Bush doing it, that makes it alright for them.
However, I wonder if they've bothered to think further down the road, and what happens with all these wonderful "powers" they claim for Bush, are suddenly in the hands of the next Dem Prez.
Will they still say the same things?
All in all, the old adage was correct, He who is willing to sacrifice a little Liberty, for a little Security, deserves neither Liberty or Security.
I haven't found anything in your cites that apply to what has been alleged.
I haven't found any law banning the provision or the collection of transactional information
Look around here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html
This sounds like what was used.
"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 >
§ 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records...
(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.— A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))— ...
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving
immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information; "
Not exactly the use intended for the law, but arguable.
No offense, but the only points you accept are the ones inside your head.
Not the character of a reasoned psyche.
Especially when neither you, or me, or anyone really knows what the heck the government is doing with the millions of phone numbers which are generated and used day after day, year after year, with calls coming into the US and leaving the US.
It is quite possible the govt. is simply looking for numbers which make calls to a known terrorist cell in Pakistan, after which the govt. gets the FISA court to approve further investigative techniques.
To me, this would be like the govt. keeping track of all the letters mailed from a known overseas terrorist to addresses or people in the US.
Once the destinations of those terrorist communiques are known, the NSA can get FISA to approve other means to investigate those entities.
If you read the USA article carefully, you will notice that none of the phone companies, Bell South, etc. actually provide the names or addresses of the people either getting or making phone calls to terrorist networks.
The NSA can get that info via other means, possibly thru FISA, the article states.
Bottom line: it's hard not to offend people like yourself who are bound and determined to be offended.
section 2709 is quite interesting.
As I said I looked and didn't see anything in there, or elsewhere, though I certainly may have missed it.
I think they used the argument that AlQueda was an immediate threat and the info would help stop them. Right after 9/11 I think it would have been a strong argument, though weaker as time went by. Qwest wasn't convinced by it apparently.
Yeah, I don't think it was used because the Juediciary Committee senators are acting like they weren't notified- which it requires.
Also the NSA doesn't seem to have collected that much information.
what you cited is specifically about cable TV subscibers.
The Framers were concerned with the Constitutionality of a census and some Republicans today would gleefully hand over anything and everything to the government under the false auspices of 'safety'. My, how far we've come...Wonder if 'conservatives' will be against it when Democrats come back to power one day.
It's not illegal if the President says it's not.
I remember when Nixon tried that one - it didn't work for him.
No probable cause involved. NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
Now if we could only get our next CIA director to read that amendment. He doesn't think those words are in there.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use—GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually—the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable—
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure...
GEN. HAYDEN: ... Just to be very clear—and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth.
There are two separate issues involved here:
1. The Echelon system samples actual telephone and e-mail conversations, looking for keywords, the lists of which are stored in computer systems called "libraries".
2. The NSA has requested and received bulk dumps of call connection data from three of four large carriers, which number called which other number, how long the call lasted, how frequently that number called the other number, and with a little massaging, how frequently the called number returned the original call.
The Echelon system cannot sample enough actual conversations to compile the kind of broad trend information that can be gained form a bulk dump of the records.
A bulk dump of calling information cannot directly be used to sample actual conversations. These are text records, not monitoring apparatus.
Two completely separate operations, at least at the technology level.
With that understood...
1. In the US, Echelon, by law anyway, is restricted to monitoring calls from overseas to the US or vice versa.
2. The bulk dumps of calling data include all customer's calling data, whether the calls are to overseas or local numbers.
3. Additional programming algorithms would be needed to "marry" the two datasets. With out firsthand information on this specific issue, I am reasonably certain that at some levels, this programming has already been done. I.E., certain behavioral calling patterns are flagged for Echelon sampling at higher priorities. My opinion only.
4. Both programs are subject to Legislative Oversight, early indications from the Oversight Committees indicate that these procedures have been followed, therefore, this tranfer of information is both "legal" and "Constitutional", with only the limitation that this precise instance (set of instances) has not been heard in open court (to the best of my knowlege). The forms have been followed.
5. The Liberals are indeed trying to use this as a smear campaign, deliberately blurring the lines between the two differing collection efforts, hoping to hype the average techno-ignorant person into believing that their phone calls are being listened to without warrant or legal basis. Almost certainly, the bulk dumps were disclosed by Liberals within the Oversight Process, risking National Security in exchange for political advantage. THIS REPRESENTS MALICIOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
My thoughts:
1. I am not comfortable with the idea that the people I personally know who are affiliated with the NSA have access to both sets of data, for three reasons:
A. The people I know probably fit the clinical definition of paranoia, to a degree I classify as "rabid".
B. The databases will be available for misuse for the next Administration to hold office, I don't trust Hillary Clinton or any other liberal, or many Conservatives either, with this data. I trust Bush, within certain limits, but the infrastructure remains after Bush 's term ends.
C. The sheer volume of data collection makes Congressional Oversight impossible in any detailed way. It would be extremely simple to marry the two databases, where calling patterns automatically flag those numbers for closer Echelon inspection. Computers are not perfect, such programming would almost certainly lead to local calls being monitored by Echelon, however, Echelon's biggest limitation is hard drive space and processing horsepower, (after being allowed full access to the TX exchanges and internet nodes) and widespread abuse is technologically impossible. Echelon doesn't have the resources to ingest and process the data available to it now, (remember the calls from AQ#3 on 9/10 that weren't translated until 9/12?), expanding Echelon's scope by even one order of magnitude is technologically and budgetarily impossible. However, the Liberals could easily reprogram priorities, ignoring overseas calls to Pakistan, instead concentrating on people who called a Republican official or party office. (Were this to happen on a regular basis, a whistleblower would come forward within a short period of time.)
2. I have never believed that any form of electronic communication was secure, or private. I hear others talking on my phone all the time, presumably they hear me as well from time to time. The TEMPEST Program has the sole objective of magnetically shielding computer monitors and other CRT screens from being intercepted and read at a distance. An Infinity Transformer can open the voice coil on any unprotected home telephone and monitor both call conversations and also conversation in the same room as the phone receiver, whether on the hook or off.
If I have sensitive imformation to impart, I do so in shorthand or face to face, period. Expecting privacy in this day and age is immature and ill informed. Even if the government isn't listening in, anyone else can and almost certainly is. It has nothing at all to do with Big Brother, or Constitutionality, it is the very essence of the technology, which was, after all, designed to allow people to ...communicate at a distance.
The danger is obvious, which is why federal law forbids the the phone companies to do what they're doing.
The reason we are willing to give up some freedoms today is because our leadership for the past 20 years has been spineless. Now we pay the price, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.