Are Telephone Records Protected: Supreme Court Said "No" In 1979

Findlaw ^ | June 20, 1979 | US Supreme Court

[angkor]

Mods: make it a vanity if you like, but this sure does seem pertinent to the howling of the MSM this past week (and surely next).

[Brilliant]

The media is on a witch hunt.

[Mike Darancette]

I have sent my kids through college based on just this one ruling. Call records are what I do.

[FairOpinion]

You are right.

An article in the WSJ summed it up:

But since the database doesn't involve any wiretapping, FISA doesn't apply. The FISA statute specifically says its regulations do not cover any "process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing." As to Ms. Feinstein's invocation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has already held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning such matters.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008376

[Prost1]

"The media is on a witch hunt."

No. The media is intent on making G.W. Bush worse than Clinton. That is their sole intent. Putting the democrats back in power is a benefit.

But, denigrating Bush at all costs, including TREASON is their calling.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[angkor]

Call records are what I do.

So do you consider this (and/or other legal rulings) to abnegate the position of the MSM and pols regarding the NSA programs?

[bcsco]

"and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable..."

Hmmmmm. This could go a long way in the NSA issue.

1) Is it reasonable to expect complete privacy when we are at war and the data mining of telephone records is one way to focus in on possible illegal activity? I think not.

2) Is it reasonable to expect that the government cannot monitor telephone conversations of known terrorist operatives when the person on the other end is an American citizen? I think not.

3) Is it reasonable to expect that the government cannot monitor telephone conversations of American citizens at random? I think so.

There, I solved the issue. Wasn't that hard, really!

[conserv13]

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home.

That is different from what they are doing now, isn't it?

[angkor]

Thanks for that link to the WSJ.

But they need to do a better job in explaining the differences between "pen register", "trap and trace", and "wiretapping", all of which have very distinct legal meanings and are at the very heart of the NSA programs.

I have a sense that the MSM reporters covering this story know exactly what those differences are - and that the NSA activities are eminently legal - but they insist on muddying the issue.

Of course Republican pols are doing exactly nothing to explain the legal issues for the American people, and that includes Gonzales.

Maybe when Hayden comes befoire Congress it'll be clarified.

[W04Man]

But this is what Rep Jane Harmon said on May 11.... She says getting these numbers called records violates FISA!!... AND SHE HAS BEEN BRIEFED...he he he

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee, today released the following statement on the USA Today report of the phone call database collected by the NSA:

“Last week I said the CIA was in free fall. Now, I think the White House is in free fall, and paying the price for refusing to obey the National Security Act and brief the full Intelligence Committees in detail on the NSA program.

“Americans are alarmed – and rightly so – because this Administration continues to operate parts of the NSA program in violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment.

“Today, 14 members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees introduced legislation to require all aspects of the NSA program comply fully with FISA.

“The drop in the President’s poll numbers is no accident. Americans have lost trust in a White House which refuses to brief Congress and insists it is above the law.”

[jsh3180]

There is also CALEA a bill passed by Democrat Congres and signed by Bubba himself in 1994.

http://www.askcalea.net/

[angkor]

That is different from what they are doing now, isn't it?

Yes, but the way I read it, the USSC ruling is aimed more at the legal character of calling records than at the mechanism used to obtain and store them.

[angkor]

She says getting these numbers called records violates FISA!!... AND SHE HAS BEEN BRIEFED...he he he

Heh. I guess she should tell that to the Supreme Court.

[camas]

was your AFSC 202xx ??? mine was 20150.

[l33t]

Section 702 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires telecom companies to protect the privacy of their customer records.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt

I am no expert, but I think that the NSA and the three telecom companies could have violated the law unless their activities were sanctioned by FISA court.

[Mike Darancette]

was your AFSC 202xx ??? mine was 20150.

] All my work was on PABXs.

[angkor]

Section 702 includes a small caveat: "Except as required by law...."

[xcamel]

Easy mistake to make - the NSA computers are analyzing calling patterns, not the calls themselves. This does not violate any privacy laws. If you started with a set of "known terrorist numbers" you could use calling pattern recognition to capture all the forward and reverse calls that fit a pattern of "terror cell" callers and intermediaries to build a case for wiretapping those specific numbers.

Then you go get your warrant for greater surveillance (FISA or whatever)

Klintoon's babies Eschelon and Carnivore broke every law in the book - no one seems to care much about that though.

[Mike Darancette]

I am no expert, but I think that the NSA and the three telecom companies could have violated the law unless their activities were sanctioned by FISA court.

Seems like this law applies to telcos not the Federal Govt. I don't expect to see the feds prosecute.