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

[dirtboy]

Phone companies have been collecting connection data for YEARS!!!!!

Phone companies are not restricted by the Bill of Rights. Phone companies also do not have the power to arrest people.

[mcvey]

I think you are making my case. This a political decision and the Fourth Amendment can be reasonably debate if Bush would speak to the American people as a people.

Israel can't afford NOT to do it. They have made that political decision. I am willing to live with this if it is worked out in reasoned political way. But we are leaving it to the 'rats and the MSM to carry on this debate.

And, if you trust the Democrat bureaucrats not to misuse this data, your trust level is much higher than mine.

As I say, I am willing to accept this if it is the product of a political process. Since the Congressional leaders seem to have known about this, that may make it legit in my mind if the decision is reviewed regularly.

McVey

[Political Junkie Too]

From the Verizon Privacy Statement:

Disclosure of Information Outside Verizon
As a rule, Verizon will notify you and give you the opportunity to "opt out" when we disclose telephone customer information outside of Verizon. In fact, we generally keep our records of the services you buy and the calls you make private, and will not ordinarily disclose this information to outside parties without your permission. However, we do release customer information without involving you if disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property. This is further explained below.

Examples of your control over the disclosure of information:

• You tell us the telephone listings you want to include in our directories and in directory assistance. You also may choose to have a non-published number, or a non-listed number, or to exclude your address from your listing.
• We may compile lists of names, addresses, and telephone numbers from our published White Pages directories and provide the lists to qualified companies that are conducting product promotions. Non-published and non-listed numbers will not be included in these lists, and we will remove other customers from these lists by request.
• All customers in areas where Caller ID services are available have the ability to block the display of their phone numbers and names. (Note that Caller ID blocking does not prevent the transmission of your phone number when you dial certain business numbers, including 911, or 800, 888, 877, and 900 numbers.)

Examples where disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property:

• When you dial 911, information about your location may be transmitted automatically to a public safety agency. Certain information about your long distance calls is transmitted to your long distance company for billing purposes. Verizon also is required by law to give competitive local exchange carriers access to its customer databases for purposes of serving their customers, to exchange credit information with other carriers, and to provide listings (other than certain non-published and non-listed information) to directory publishers.
• Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas. Verizon also will share information to protect its rights or property and to protect users of its services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive or unlawful use of services.
• We may, where permitted by law, provide information to credit bureaus, or provide information and/or sell receivables to collection agencies, to obtain payment for Verizon billed products and services.
• Verizon also occasionally uses contractors to do work for the company. These contractors have the same obligations as our regular employees concerning customer information.

==========================

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

-PJ

[demlosers]

So Libertarian.

I don't want to see these same guys complaining when the next WMD weapon goes off because the government didn't take the rudimentary steps, which they whined about, to protect national security.

[dirtboy]

Lordy, Lordy, dirt. You really are a screaming libertarian, aren't you?

I'd expect you to not grasp this one, sink, and you didn't disappoint. It is not libertarian to demand that the government provide some kind of probable cause to obtain phone records.

[oceanview]

its not a search. the data (who you call) doesn't even belong to you.

[sinkspur]

If Clinton did this, you would be all over it.

Clinton did do it, in Echelon. And there wasn't a peep out of anybody, as I recall.

[tallhappy]

What if the FBI entered my home without a warrant and without probable cause and took my phone and logged the numbers I had logged on my caller ID.

But they aren't doing that at all, are they?

If you have a problem with this you had better take it up with your service provider. It is their records being used, not yours. You have no obligation to use their service.

Phone calls being made are analyzed. They by no means belong to you.

If you build the infrastructure and run a company to allow this sort of communication, then you can decide what to do with the records that are generated.

Your outlook is typical of entitlement liberals.

[mcvey]

Ernest:

Doesn't need to be. If I have a gambling problem--which no one at FR has ever had--and you get my bookie, then you get me and can blackmail me.

32 phone calls to Jimmy the Fish on College Football Saturdays would make it easy for some governmental gnome to make life miserable for the person who made the calls.

[dirtboy]

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

Funny, the section you bolded:

Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas.

Mentions subpeonas. There was no subpeona for these records.

So, once again, there was no probable cause for obtaining the records in question. Which means the government should not have them.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Does it show which number called what other number in a phone book you don't have? Does it tell you how long the call lasted? If your wife or husband saw those calls, would you be in trouble.

Billing Records show such information>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now who's the Moron..........????

[dirtboy]

But they aren't doing that at all, are they?

They are doing the EXACT SAME THING. They are

Your outlook is typical of entitlement liberals.

My gawd. I am asking that the federal government follow the Bill of Rights when it comes to searching my calling records. And for that, I'm an entitlement liberal?

You're a shell of the conservative you once were if you can say that and mean it.

[dirtboy]

its not a search. the data (who you call) doesn't even belong to you.

It's still a search of my phone company records, obtained without probable cause or subpeona. Why do you have so much trouble grasping that basic concept?

[butternut_squash_bisque]

I sure hope so. I'm so darned tired of America's traitors and Enemies Within, always putting the GOP on the defense, and it just sits back and takes it, meekly.

The 'Snowman' whould hopefully make a difference.

Thanks, U.

[dirtboy]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Uh, gee, maybe because it says that in the article?

[oceanview]

alot of governents now installing cameras in public spaces. does the government need a warrant to digitize the image of your face, taken from one of these public cameras, and store it in a database? does that violate the 4th amendment?

how about the IRS - does it violate the 4th amendment when it requires that financial institutions and employers send all of your transaction and earnings information to them?

you believe the 4th amendment is very broad - it isn't - its very narrow in fact.

[Drago]

No court order or subpoena in this case. 200 million American's phone records (calls made and to whom) where just turned over under pressure from the NSA. Quest was the only major company to decline.

[Political Junkie Too]

From the thread Text of President Bush remarks on NSA Telephone Traffic Analysis:

First, our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.

With the mention of court approval, it is hard to tell from this statement whether that applies only to the interception of al Qaeda phone calls or the analysis of phone traffic too. However, it does say that it was done with the awareness of Congress.

-PJ

[VictoryGal]

Oh, silly dirtboy, didn't you know? If you want to keep your Constitutional freedoms you must have SOMEthing to hide. Right? /sarc

[dirtboy]

alot of governents now installing cameras in public spaces.

My phone calls from my home are made in private. And my records with Verizon are private as well.

how about the IRS - does it violate the 4th amendment when it requires that financial institutions and employers send all of your transaction and earnings information to them?

That has been done through legislation, not through executive fiat. And even that, IMO, is an abuse of federal power - but at least it has some checks and balances.

you believe the 4th amendment is very broad - it isn't - its very narrow in fact.

OK, so let's check out the 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.

No probable cause involved. NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

And that is the danger. That government now feels entitled to get information without probable cause and search it.