NSA phone records story excites Washington(Trying to take down Michael Hayden)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 11 May 2006 | Frank James at 1:10 pm CDT

[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

[mrsmith]

"federal law forbids "

I haven't seen any support for that claim, though you're the second informed and reasonable person to make it.

This morning Volokh adopted the same analysis I made above in post 222.

[dirtboy]

QUESTION: But does it not say probable—

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure...

My god. The man doesn't even admit the words probable cause are in the 4th.

[Wurlitzer]

"And the government as a result stepped over a line in asking for the data and compiling it - just as it feels it can have just about any information it wants nowadays. And you just try to quip that problem away. "

So based upon this how do we answer the treason party's accusation that the administration did not connect the dots prior to 9/11 and now they and you are telling us to not even collect the dots. Of the number of things I know the government is doing wrong, this does not even register a blip on the former US Constitutional rights violation meter.

Under cover by the MSM, the treason party can attack the right from any side of an issue and in some cases like this both sides of an issue at the same time.

Before I would worry about collecting phone number A called rag head number B 10 times just before something blew up, I would worry about that former 4 amendment when I go to the airport, bus station, government building, etc.

[dirtboy]

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.

And you miss the point. It really doesn't matter what the government is doing with the calls (not phone numbers, calls - I note you also are trying to change the real issue).

The point is, the government has no business having this data without a subpeona. And as someone noted in this thread, the nominee to run the CIA doesn't even acknowledge the concept of probable cause - and since he used to be NSA, I can see why the NSA did this. And that is the entire problem.

I don't think the Bush Admin is abusing this data. But that is not the point. They should not have it in the first place.

[Wurlitzer]

"My calls, you maroon."

Please, while you may have a strong opinion on what may or may not be allowed by our former US Constitution, attacking another Freeper like this does not advance your view.

I dislike (to be very kind) what the TSA does at airports to the point I have not taken a flight in 4 years but I will not attack any Freeper who believes the TSA's actions are Constitutional. I simply disagree.

In reality, a list of phone number A to phone number B does not even pin down which citizen made the call. Further investigation would be required and I assume you and I would be on the same side of the privacy fence in said investigation. We would want warrants to investigate who physically was on Phone A when speaking to the person on Phone B.

[dirtboy]

Please, while you may have a strong opinion on what may or may not be allowed by our former US Constitution, attacking another Freeper like this does not advance your view.

I'm sorry, but when someone is being that obtuse, either deliberately or by accident, my comment fits. And I've been called far worse on this thread.

[dirtboy]

So based upon this how do we answer the treason party's accusation that the administration did not connect the dots prior to 9/11 and now they and you are telling us to not even collect the dots.

Sorry, but the fact that the Dems are political hatchet men does not therefore free up the Bush Admin to collect that kind of data without a subpeona. And the problems with connecting the dots pre-9/11 had less to do with not having enough information and much more to do with the fact that the government couldn't adequately work with the information it had. So in that instance, more information is not the answer, above and beyond the issues with probable cause.

[dirtboy]

Not exactly the use intended for the law, but arguable.

No, it's not arguable: (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; "

There is no immediate danger in this matter. And beyond that, you cannot make the case that millions of phone subscribers are in immediate danger.

I would favor, instead of this database dump to the feds, some kind of expedited process with a quick turnaround. But not to provide the entire database - the feds already feel they can have whatever information they want, for any reason. That needs to change.

[Wurlitzer]

"So it seems that customers of telephone services are aware that their telephone usage (not conversations) may be subpoenaed by the government for analysis."

Thanks for posting the Verizon contract. It might clear some of the paranoia on this thread but I won't hold my breath.

[dirtboy]

Anthony Scalia (in Kyllo):

Sorry, but Scalia is atrocious when it comes to search and seizure.

Third party databases and government use of them is a problem that keeps coming up. It's past time for an examination by the legislature of what would be good public policy on the issue.

Agree 100 percent there.

[dirtboy]

Thanks for posting the Verizon contract. It might clear some of the paranoia on this thread but I won't hold my breath.

Note the key word in that sentence: subeonaed.

I don't see a subpeona here. I don't have any problem when probable cause and due process is involved. But as someone posted on this thread, Hayden doesn't even understand that due process is part of the 4th Amendment.

[Wurlitzer]

"200 million American's phone records (calls made and to whom) where just turned over under pressure from the NSA. "

The only correction I would make Drago is that we don't know the "whom" only the numbers. There is an unknown person (or fax machine/modem) for each of the 2 numbers.

Of the few (maybe more than a few) things this administration has done wrong (and certainly most of the Clinton admin), I find this number tracking brilliant. I want my government to be able to backtrack calls made to RagHeads-R-Us at 1-800-Mosque-Bomb. At the point were the government knows RagHeads-R-Us blew up something, the government can then, using the proper warrant process find out who the scum was calling this group.

[Tarpon]

You obviously know little .. no probable cause is required. Of course you could go to the web site of a phone company and read their own privacy statements, you have none, they do with your calling records what they want. Yep, that's what the Supreme Court said as well, no expectation of privacy from customers regarding their billing records. They sell and trade billing records, calling patterns and other records to the highest bidders, or just give them out to whomever is doing marketing with them. Ever wonder how you get those flyers with your bills?

But got to admit, you are more than a little paranoid. Google your own phone number ... have fun.

bye.

[dirtboy]

You obviously know little .. no probable cause is required. Of course you could go to the web site of a phone company and read their own privacy statements, you have none, they do with your calling records what they want.

Read the federal Telecom act of 1934. Read Verizon's own privacy statement - they will release records to the government in response to a subpeona - and there is no subpeona here.

Yep, that's what the Supreme Court said as well, no expectation of privacy from customers regarding their billing records. They sell and trade billing records, calling patterns and other records to the highest bidders, or just give them out to whomever is doing marketing with them. Ever wonder how you get those flyers with your bills?

I work with marketing databases for a living. Been doing it for over a decade for large corporate clients. And I have to adhere to strict privacy rules in my work. Because I know exactly what can be done with this kind of data.

Oh, and I also don't have the power of arrest. The government does. Which is why they need a higher threshhold to have this data, as opposed to me figuring out if you will get a certain mailing.

But got to admit, you are more than a little paranoid.

So were the Founding Fathers. Wanna belittle them for writing and ratifying the Bill of Rights?

Google your own phone number ... have fun.

Funny ... I don't see any records of who I have called. Here you are acting like you know more than I do and you cannot even frame the debate adequately.

[Sandy]

I haven't seen any support for that claim, though you're the second informed and reasonable person to make it.

18 USC 2702(a)(3):

A provider of ... electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service ... to any governmental entity.

What you posted in 222 is the only close-to-point exception to the prohibition. However, to paraphrase Orin Kerr at Volokh, to believe that an emergency involving immediate danger can be ongoing for 4+ years isn't exactly reasonable.

[Wurlitzer]

"I don't see a subpeona here. I don't have any problem when probable cause and due process is involved. But as someone posted on this thread, Hayden doesn't even understand that due process is part of the 4th Amendment."

You and I are not that far apart on this but maybe I can better explain to you my point of view.

The collecting of just numbers does not, IMO, mean citizen Joe Bag-O-Donuts spoke to Diaperheads-R-US. It only means SOMEONE (anonymous) placed a call from phone number A to DiaperHeads-R-US. While that may seem like a find line distinction and hopefully not like the meaning of "Is", I do believe it is lawful. However, given the complexities of the current laws so poorly written that even the USSC cannot completely agree, I could be wrong.

Where you and I join company is once the government tries to place Citizen A with phone number A. Then I would agree some sort of warrant or subpoena MUST be involved.

Cheers!

[dirtboy]

The collecting of just numbers does not, IMO

It's more than numbers. These are calls. And that is data that should only be provided to the government with a subpeona or some kind of due process.

I work with connecting the dots for a living - I work with large corporate marketing databases. I know what can be done with this kind of data. But I don't have powers of arrest - all I can do is annoy you by selecting you to get some mail you probably don't want anyway. Government needs a higher threshhold to get this data, given their powers and the history of government abuse of powers. That is why we have a Bill of Rights.

[RobbyS]

I suggest you read the first part of the 4th Amendment, the one that includes the word reasonable. In any case, there is no privacy issue incolved because this information was, like your phone number, the property of the phone companies.

[Wurlitzer]

"It's more than numbers. These are calls. And that is data that should only be provided to the government with a subpeona or some kind of due process."

The point DB I was trying unsuccessfully to make is that without any further investigation the numbers (calls if you like) only generate patterns and are not specific to any US Citizen. If we were discussing Credit Cards there is a much stronger linkage to actual person vs card number and you and I would be in complete agreement.

I have worked in printing for 26 years and know all about data mining in mail lists. I had access to the inner workings of Reader's Digest and their huge subscriber database. I too know the dangers of excessive data in the wrong hands.

However, that being said, I still do not see the evil bogey man behind our government looking for calling patterns and then and only then using the limited powers allowed by the former Constitution to convert a totally anonymous phone number to an actual person.

It seems unlikely we will agree on this one point but the discussion has been civil. Thanks.

[dirtboy]

In any case, there is no privacy issue incolved because this information was, like your phone number, the property of the phone companies.

Wrong. Read Verizon's privacy policy and get back to me. And while you are at it, read the federal Telecom Act of 1934.