NSA data base of phone calls

I think it's cool a bunch of snow enthusiasts are interested in politics... but the power of the internet!

I remember my ski bum days; life was perfect (proximity to terrain, friends to ride/ski with, a girl, great physical shape, crappy but decent job) except that my brain would rot. Where was TGR back in the day???

Left coasters know what's up. We need a Constitutional Amendment forbidding any Texan from ever running for the presidency of the USA. Word!

Back to my Nate Dogg and Eminem - shake that...

Note to all: this was how sympathizers were tracked and killed in europe in WW2 and why they now have anonymous phone bills. Be wary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Congress: "We want to see your records of what you store and what you do with them. We want to depose you under oath."

NSA: "No."

In a way I'm in awe of their balls.

---

Along the same lines, and amazingly so, again and again, they don't even want their own Justice Department to know what they are doing because they are afraid that DoJ lawyers will tell them that it is against the law. They don't want to hear that it is against the law. As USA Today reported: "For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events." They know very well that their conduct might be, and in some cases that it is definitely is, illegal, but they are purposely avoiding having the DoJ be able to opine on the legality of their behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schuss

Note to all: this was how sympathizers were tracked and killed in europe in WW2 and why they now have anonymous phone bills. Be wary.

---

Nobody studies history anymore.

I'm not that old. Is everyone else so young or so forgetfull that they forget how we hated the Soviet Union KGB, the East German Stazi, the Nazi Gestapo, et al... we joked about their polcie state surveilance societies. They didn't become that way instantly, the erosion took place over time. We laughed because they were so different.

We still are differnt... somewhat... but we are slowly becoming what we hated.

It's the little things. I'll leave you with a little Yakov..

“In America, you check out books at the library. In Soviet Russia, library checks out you!” In post 9/11 USA, library checks you out too.

“In California, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, the Party can always find you!”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

er you might follow that advice:



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...5-10-nsa_x.htm

---

My point was no one is eavesdropping on your conversations. The articles headline implies that, and it seems to be the thinking of most folks' gripes i've so far heard.

the problem is that Bush and his evil crew of fucktards are hell bent on their PLAN (google PNAC) of creating a permanent war, while all the democrats have no plan or spine and are too weak to stand up and oppose Bush. The foundations for a future with out freedom have been taking place and this whole thread subject is one of many small parts that will lead to our eventual demise as free citizens. That is why being a skier is so important because it is all based on freedom and fun, so we best enjoy it while we can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I stand corrected. I assure you there is no nefarious plot behind my mis-statement.

this phone call database is a different program than the wiretapping. the wiretapping was specific to the calls outside our borders.

also, eavesdropping is not a part of the phone call database.

finally, would you guys be pissed at the administration if someone blew up a tanker as it was leaving port and we didn't have a program like this?

---

Well, all these programs didn't stop someone from throwing a bomb at my former office building last spring. I guess you missed that one on the news. By the way, no suspect was ever caught. So please explain to me again why I should be giving up my rights again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I just realized how we can stand up to this - all it needs is a few seconds of your time and a couple of dollars.

Once a week everyone in the nation who opposes this database (there must be around 100 million?) should call a random Middle Eastern phone number. You wouldn't have to say anything suspicous or shady you could even just say "hey I'm from America and I apologise for what the President is doing over there. We're really doing all we can to get rid of him. We don't hold you or your nation responsible for 9/11 and don't want to invade you, corrupt your way of life, harm your religion or steal your oil"

The spike in calls to Iran, Saudi, Iraq, etc. should so distort their database that it woudn't be worth them updating it anymore.

---

You want a better way. If you use SBC, ATT or Verizon, switch your service to Qwest and let your former phone company know that the only reason you are switching service is because you don't like what they are doing with their phone records. Those companies lose enough customers, they'll stop giving the data to the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sea2ski

Well, all these programs didn't stop someone from throwing a bomb at my former office building last spring. I guess you missed that one on the news. By the way, no suspect was ever caught. So please explain to me again why I should be giving up my rights again.

---

not to minimize the attack on your old building, but that kind of is going to happen. simple arson isn't really what the NSA is trying to stop.

additionally, I don't mind the debate. but don't any of you read Natty's NyTimes links? this program has been a part of three different articles in that paper, alone, since december. the esteemed Pat Leahy and his fellow members of the Senate Intel Committee have been briefed on this program since its inception. however, now is his chosen time to grandstand about it in public. Could it be because of Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings next week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterplee

Left coasters know what's up. We need a Constitutional Amendment forbidding any Texan from ever running for the presidency of the USA. Word!

---

I'm sure that was tongue in cheek, but as someone with roots in Texas and a since of embarrassment over Bush, I would like to remind you that the Northeast has to share some of the blame for that man. I do believe he was born in Connecticut, partially raised in the NE, did his undergrad at Yale, and grad work at Harvard. The Bush family comes from old school, old money New England. Of course the oil industry and conservative politics of Texas have been very good to them... Just sayin'

I won't even go into my outrage over our federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbp

I'm sure that was tongue in cheek, but as someone with roots in Texas and a since of embarrassment over Bush, I would like to remind you that the Northeast has to share some of the blame for that man. I do believe he was born in Connecticut, partially raised in the NE, did his undergrad at Yale, and grad work at Harvard. The Bush family comes from old school, old money New England. Of course the oil industry and conservative politics of Texas have been very good to them... Just sayin'

I won't even go into my outrage over our federal government.

---

Yeah, I get so bugged by his stupid crawford cowboy pics. Dude is the biggest sham urban cowboy I've ever seen. Every photo op, he's out clearing brush with a chainsaw. Every real texas cowboy knows you hire illegals for that work. Fuking charlatan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sea2ski

You want a better way. If you use SBC, ATT or Verizon, switch your service to Qwest and let your former phone company know that the only reason you are switching service is because you don't like what they are doing with their phone records. Those companies lose enough customers, they'll stop giving the data to the government.

---

I'm already with Qwest :biggrin: and never thought I'd have reason to be pleased about it!

From coverage about this last night seems it's very possible that Telcos have acted illegally in releasing this info without a warrant. Especially in light of Qwest's unchallenged refusal. If ever a class action suit was needed now is the time? I'm sure a consumer boycott would be highly effective but it's very unlikely to happen.

For those who aren't worried because it's just traffic records and not actual wiretapping would you be upset if they were actually tapping all calls? House to house searches? Random roadblocks for i.d. checks? The methods and excuses used to start such projects and then to prevent questioning of them would be exactly the same as they're currently using. It isn't what or why they're trying to find intel that's the issue it's how they do it and whether it's the thin edge of a wedge...........freedoms surrendered are rarely returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

additionally, I don't mind the debate. but don't any of you read Natty's NyTimes links? this program has been a part of three different articles in that paper, alone, since december. the esteemed Pat Leahy and his fellow members of the Senate Intel Committee have been briefed on this program since its inception. however, now is his chosen time to grandstand about it in public. Could it be because of Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings next week?

---

Yeah, this isn’t new information, but it didn’t have credibility until this week. A cynical person might say it is re-branded piece of Total Information Awareness. If it takes Michael Hayden's confirmation hearing to get this on the front page, so be it.

In my opinion, the NSA monitoring our calls is un-American; hence the outrage from the left and right. Also, the NSA monitoring our calls is a waste of time. The terrorists do not trust the phones and haven’t for years. Someone at DARPA got a hard-on for this project and now the wheels have come off in a spectacular fashion. When Osama bin Laden is crucified upside down on the White House lawn, I’ll think the call monitoring program was a good idea. Until then, I’d prefer that the federal government not waste time and money running my calls through a super computer.

depending on the fine print on your phone contract, the phone company might be in the clear for releasing the records. The NSA played a nice trick as you will read if you care.


[Orin Kerr, May 12, 2006 at 3:35am] 2 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
More Thoughts on the Legality of the NSA Call Records Program: We now have a slightly better idea of the factual and legal issues surrounding the newly-disclosed NSA Call Records program, and I thought I would offer a second analysis that is more focused and more factually informed than the one I posted this morning. My still-very-tentative bottom line: The companies were probably violating the Stored Communications Act by disclosing the records to the NSA before the Patriot Act renewal in March 2006, although the new language in the Patriot Act renewal at least arguably made it more likely that the disclosure was legal under the emergency exception.

First, let's update the facts. It now looks relatively clear that the NSA was not directing the telephone companies to conduct any particular monitoring on the NSA's behalf. Rather, NSA officials were persuading the telephone companies to voluntarily disclose their call records to the government. In other words, the government wasn't actually doing the monitoring, but instead was encouraging the telephone companies to disclose call records to them that the telephone companies already had collected.

In light of those apparent facts, the key issue to me becomes whether the disclosures were permitted under the Stored Communications Act, and specificially 18 U.S.C. 2702. (For a "user's guide" to the Stored Communications Act, see here). Telephone companies are providers of "electronic communications service to the public" under the Act, and the Act regulates when providers can disclose non-content records of account information to the government. The ban is in Section 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 (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.
Of the possible exceptions to the statute, three are most likely to be relevant. They permit disclosure under the circumstances listed in 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), as amended by the Patriot Act renewal of 2006:
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency[.]
(Note that the link to the Cornell site's text of 2702 does not have the latest version of the exceptions, as it was last updated in the fall of 2005 and the exceptions were amended in March 2006. I was unable to find the new version on a website, and ended up taking it from Westlaw.).

Let's take each of these exceptions in turn.

(1) The first exception permits disclosure if the subscriber consents. There are no cases interpreting eactly what consent means in 2702(c)(2), but like many of the exceptions in the SCA it is clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. We do have lots of cases on what consent means in the context of the Wiretap Act, so those cases presumably create the applicable standard here. The basic rule: Consent means that the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice. Here's what the First Circuit said on this in United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995):
Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice.
Did users consent to the disclosure under this standard? The Washington Post reports that government lawyers seemed to think so, based on small print in the Terms of Service of the telephone service customer agreements:
One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records — and even the stored content of calls and e-mails — because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request. . . . Verizon's customer agreement, for example, acknowledges the company's 'duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of your use of our service,' but it provides for exceptions to 'protect the safety of customers, employees or property.' Verizon will disclose confidential records, it says, "as required by law, legal process, or exigent circumstances."
This seems like a very unpersuasive argument in light of the cases construing consent under the Wiretap Act, of which the consent provision in the SCA is a mirror. It reminds me of the argument that a DOJ lawyer once tried to make that monitoring prison phones was allowed because language in the Code of Federal Regulations clearly notified prisoners that their phones would be monitored. According to the lawyer, the notice in the fine print of the CFR was sufficient to make the monitoring consensual. Judge Posner rejected the argument, calling it "the kind of argument that makes lawyers figures of fun to the lay community." United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir. 1990). In light of these cases, I think the consent argument is weak. (Incidentally, if you look up Daniels, note that Posner incorrectly states later in the opinion that the Second Circuit accepted such a weak notice argument. If you read the Second Circuit case, it is clear that the CA2 did no such thing and that Posner was just being sloppy.)

(2) The next possible exception is disclosure "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." This is known as the provider exception, and is also a copy of an analogous exception from the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i). You can read all about this exception here: basically, it gives providers rights to disclose information to the government to help the providers combat illegal service and unauthorized use of the network. It seems pretty clear that this doesn't apply: The cases make clear that the provider exception exists to further provider interests, not government interests.

(3) The third and final exception is the emergency exception, which permits providers to disclose "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." At the outset, it's worth noticing something very interesting about this language: It is almost brand spanking new. The language that passed as part of the Patriot Act in 2001 allowed disclosure only when "the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information." This was the language in place from October 2001 until March 2006. Did the phone companies have such a belief under the 2001-06 language? I gather they had a reasonable belief of danger, but I don't know of a reason to think that they had a reasonable belief of "immediate" danger. If this was a program ongoing for several years, then it's hard to say that there was a continuing reasonable belief of immediate danger over that entire time.

As noted above, though, the Patriot Act renewal passed in March 2006 changed this language. And it did so in a way with potentially important implications for the legality of the NSA call records program. The new exception states that disclosure is permitted "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." Few people were paying attention to this change at the time, but I would guess that it was very important to the telephone companies: The change expanded the exception to allow disclosure when there is a good faith belief instead of a reasonable belief, and when there was a danger instead of an "immediate" danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the telephone companies were pushing the change in part out of concern for civil liability for their participation in the NSA call records program. (Or perhaps not, come to think of it: Does the new language suggest that the information disclosed needs to relate to the emergency to be covered? What if the provider doesn't know what information relates to the emergency?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

not to minimize the attack on your old building, but that kind of is going to happen. simple arson isn't really what the NSA is trying to stop.

additionally, I don't mind the debate. but don't any of you read Natty's NyTimes links? this program has been a part of three different articles in that paper, alone, since december. the esteemed Pat Leahy and his fellow members of the Senate Intel Committee have been briefed on this program since its inception. however, now is his chosen time to grandstand about it in public. Could it be because of Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings next week?

---

The fact that my old building also contained the British Consulate and that the bombing was done on the day of the elections in Britain might make it something the NSA should be trying to stop. I'm well aware that the program has been around. My point was in response to your comment about a tanker exploding. As far as I'm concerned my old building being bombed is the same as your tanker analogy except it actually happened. All the illegally obtained phone information didn't prevent it from happening. What makes you think that it won't happen again?

How many times does the Bush adiminstration need to prove their incompetence before people like you realize this administration can't do the job? For me, it's not about political ideology it's about solving the problem of terrorists targeting America. This present administration are a bunch of snake oil salesmen who seem to be more concerned about enriching their friends and political supporters, covering each other's asses and blaming all this on the media and democrats in Congress. Seems like you have bought their message lock, stock and barrel. :rolleyes:

Americans are a bunch of scared, cowering, fat, lazy and stupid idiots, and will give up the majority of their civil liberties just so they believe that some boogey man won't blow up their mall in butt fuck rural red state land.....you have a better chance of being hit by a car, lightening, whatever, than dying in a terrorist attack. Freedom comes with some risk. I will take my chances of dying in a terrorist attack vs. giving up my civil liberties, privacy and freedom.

You can't "fight a war on terrorism" - there is no real enemy to wage war upon. If this was the case, Isreal would be the safest place on earth. It isn't.

I am all for targeted - yes, targeted - surveillance. phone taps, email sniffing, house-raids, arrests, etc for those that may be trying to do us harm. Good old fashioned law enforcement/police work souped up w/FBI/NSA and CIA (abroad) attention and resources will help prevent almost anything that can be prevented. But, sometimes, in a country the size of the US, something/someone will slip through the cracks. Its inevitable.

Deal with it, accept is as the price for being free, or be prepared to give up all your freedoms for extra safety!

General Tony Zinni told a room full of reporters his take on the War on Terrorism yesterday: "It's silly. For the first time ever we declared war on a tactic.... kinda like if Roosevelt had declared war on the Blitzkrieg."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshies

Deal with it, accept is as the price for being free, or be prepared to give up all your freedoms for extra safety!

---

Here, I fixed it for ya...
Deal with it, accept is as the price for being free, or be prepared to give up all your freedoms for THE ILLUSION of extra safety!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Database is of calls made and is highly significant because it's being created secretly (probably also illegally) by the government and not by businesses who are telcos - but you know that.

---

I haven't read everything in this thread because I feel pretty safe in guessing that it is the same dribble that gets spewed, in a knee-gerk reaction, anytime something like this hits the front page. But for those to lazy(or blinded by bigotry) to go look this up for yourselves...


As could be expected, the story’s publication was accompanied by a torrent of criticism directed at the Bush administration. A quick scan of liberal blogs shows that the program is being attacked as not only unwise, but also illegal. Yet for this to be true, an actual law must have been broken. Yet the two most likely legal authorities—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—do not prohibit the alleged government activity...


Nor would the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial...


Link to the whole article.


There are legitimate things to be angry about with this administration. Getting all worked up and blowing your wad on Red Herrings like this will guarantee that you aren't taken seriousely when the time comes to object to real problems. Don't be so reactionary. It just makes you look gullible.

Gee - the National Review is defending this action. How surprising. Next you're gonna tell me that Hillary has a penis and wants to sleep with your kids and Bubba Clinton was the worst President ever for getting a blowjob. Then it's "Cooking With Hannity" followed by "How to get the blood stains out of your Brown Shirts" with Ann Coulter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Gee - the National Review is defending this action. How surprising. Next you're gonna tell me that Hillary has a penis and wants to sleep with your kids and Bubba Clinton was the worst President ever for getting a blowjob. Then it's "Cooking With Hannity" followed by "How to get the blood stains out of your Brown Shirts" with Ann Coulter....

---

Attack the source, blah, blah...


The important parts are:

1) There is no law on the books that has been broken, so, by definition, these(alleged) actions are not illegal.


2) The Supreme Court has already addressed this specific issue back in 1978!!! and found no problem with it.


This is a closed issue. The only controversy is that being drummed up by the dems trying to make hay in an election year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

This is a closed issue. The only controversy is that being drummed up by the dems trying to make hay in an election year.

---

So if the required cellphone geographic location information is tied into the database so they can track your movements you won't complain. Good to know.

That it may be currently legal doesn't mean fuck all. It sucks, and shouldn't be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

So if the required cellphone geographic location information is tied into the database so they can track your movements you won't complain. Good to know.

---

If that is the case, then the issue has changed and needs to be revisited by the courts. As of yet, I haven't heard any of the big name dems bring up this issue. Instead, they would rather get face time by acting appauled and shocked that this happening, never mind that this has been going on for almost 30 years! If it is such a terrible thing, why hasn't anybody introduced a bill to put a stop to it?

They are all a bunch of domesticated turkeys standing in the rain.

Quote:

---

That it may be currently legal doesn't mean fuck all. It sucks, and shouldn't be legal.

---

Now that is a point that can be debated. Too bad nobody wants to take action, and try to change it.


Edit: If somedody, wants to make a legal challenge on this, or any other issue, I'm fine with it. The system will work and there will be a resolution. As it is, our elected officials are tripping all over each other to get in front of a camera and act indignant. It's sickening.
I am no longer a fan of this administration, due in large part to domestic issues, homeland security being one of them. I think they have gone too far in the wrong areas, crossed lines they shouldn't have, and haven't even touched other, more critical, areas. But, the kind of moaning we are seeing out of the dems right now just distract from the real problems and make them that much harder to address.
Now you got me monologuing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

As of yet, I haven't heard any of the big name dems bring up this issue. Instead, they would rather get face time by acting appauled and shocked that this happening, never mind that this has been going on for almost 30 years!

---

Who knew?

http://www.senate.gov/~veterans/gall...lvania%202.JPG

This is outside the purview of FISA - there is no law because the tech was never there. This is happening in the here and now, and to say only the "other" party is concerned about this is laughable.

[QUOTE=Tippster]

Quote:

---

This is outside the purview of FISA - there is no law because the tech was never there.

---

I don't disagree, but since that is the case, all this yammering about the administration's actions beign "illegal" needs to stop, now. A lawsuit needs to be filed, or a bill introduced that addresses the issue. Until that happens, it's all just political postureing, not much more.

Quote:

---

This is happening in the here and now, and to say only the "other" party is concerned about this is laughable.

---

I never said it was only the "other" party. But the dems are throwing around terms like "illegal" and "impeachment". I hear more...muted...language coming from the republicans. That makes the dems come across as more opportunistic, and politically motivated.