"The Defenders of Freedom" :lol U.S. Spying On Citizens

[Gerryatrics]

How is keeping a record of freaking phone numbers "wiretapping" dumbass? I'm trying to ignore all this black helicopter , but how freaking dense can you be? Phone companies hand over records of phone numbers called... so? Are the phone companies illegally wiretapping you when they record the numbers you called? Should they immediately burn all records so absolutely no information can be gathered on you when you use their services? This kind of thing has been done for years, just not on a national scale. The phone companies hand over phone records to police departments all the time so they can be checked to see if they reveal any information pertinent to their investigations.

Did it at any time cross the small, sad mass of moldy bong resin that passes for your brain that maybe all the government is doing is collecting all that information that is already readily available into a national database so if they're investigating someone with possible terrorist ties they can note any calls to or from areas known to harbor terrorists, or cross reference numbers called and calls received to see if they can track more members of a possible cell?

Do you really think the federal government is doing all this so they can single you out and somehow or other infringe on your civil liberties, you know, just for kicks? Actually you are probably screwed up enough to believe that. But unless you're calling up your buddies in Al-Qaeda, (which again, wouldn't surprise me) what exactly is the problem? If you're that paranoid about it, stop whining here and go find yourself a nice secluded cave in the middle of some heavily wooded area, because if a quarter of the bull you believe is true, they're probably already coming for you.

[Yonivore]

Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or en y if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Cons ution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or en y if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Cons ution of the United States.

(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

So there is no question about the fact that the federal government can obtain anyone's telephone billing records simply by requesting them, if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, and the telecom companies "shall comply" with such requests. Under this section, the FBI can pass the phone records on to another government agency, like the NSA, if the information is relevant to that agency's duties.

The question, it seems to me, is whether Sec. 2709 authorizes a blanket request not for the records of a particular person, or the records relating to a particular phone number, but for the records of all of the company's subscribers. Such a broad request probably wasn't contemplated when the statute was adopted, and it might be argued that all of the records can't possibly be relevant to any terrorism investigation. But why not? I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that, for a data mining project like the one carried out by the NSA, the records of all telephone subscribers are relevant. If that is the case, there is no obvious reason why this provision wouldn't authorize a request for all subscriber records, with which the companies would be required to comply.

I haven't seen any indication that the government relied on Sec. 2709 when it made its requests to the phone companies, or that the FBI certification contemplated by 2709(b) was given. But it may have been; the White House hasn't said much about the procedures the government followed or the legal principles it relied on. I'm also not sure whether the reference to "toll billing records" represents a material limitation. I would assume this includes records of all "local and long distance" calls, but maybe I'm missing something here, and perhaps this provision wouldn't have allowed the FBI to obtain the full range of records that the NSA wanted.

There are a number of provisions of various statutes under which the government's request to the telecoms might have been justified. It will take some time to sort through the various rationales. This is an odd situation, too, in that the government didn't use any compulsory process, but apparently just asked the companies for their records. It is possible that it could have been illegal for the companies to respond to the request, but on what theory would it be illegal for the government to ask?

What Sec. 2709 establishes beyond question is that anyone's telephone records can be obtained by the federal government, without court order, in the course of a terrorism investigation. Which I think renders some of the more hysterical reaction to the NSA program a little silly.

Maybe I'm the only one who didn't already know this, but I was astonished to learn that there is no expectation of privacy in telephone records at all. Section 2702(c) sets out the cir stances in which a telecom provider can disclose phone records, not including the contents of communications. So this would cover the call information at issue in this program. 2702(c)(6) says that such phone records may be freely disclosed, at the company's discretion:

(6) to any person other than a governmental en y.

That's right. These supposedly top-secret telephone records can be given or, more likely, sold to any company or private citizen. So if I had enough money, I could buy the phone records of every person in the U.S., and donate them to the NSA.

[boutons_]

[clubalien]

I use SBC(which is now rebranded as AT&T after they bougth att) I wish there was soem way I coudl sign up for Qwest as a show of support for them making a good descion but sadly there isn't with monolpy of infrasturcutres you cannot easily "vote" with your wallet

[Yonivore]

I use SBC(which is now rebranded as AT&T after they bougth att) I wish there was soem way I coudl sign up for Qwest as a show of support for them making a good descion but sadly there isn't with monolpy of infrasturcutres you cannot easily "vote" with your wallet

Yeah, here's your hero clubalien:

Joe Nacchio Indicted On Insider Trading Charges

Former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio has been indicted on 42 counts of insider trading, reports WSJ. He made $176.5 million in profits from stock sales in 2002 alone. The prosecutors are seeking a $100 million in res ution.

“was specifically and repeatedly warned about the material, nonpublic financial risks facing Qwest and about Qwest’s ability to achieve its aggressive publicly stated financial targets.”

Denver Post has a more indepth look at the lead-up to this latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Qwest, a high-flying darling of the investors in the 1990s. Its aggressive takeover of US West, a fiber network that spanned the globe, and the stock that defied gravity, Qwest was supposed to be the future. It did not pan out that way, and now the company is a much shrunken former self of itself.

In “Broadbandits: Inside the $750 Billion Telecom Heist” , I write about the rise and fall of Qwest in the chapter called, “Rocky Mountain High.” Here is a background piece from the Red Herring.

[boutons_]

ECPA 1986 is seen by nearly every legal scholar and lawyer as the applicable law. These people don't even want to imagine being the general counsels for the telecom firms that violated the ECPA and the enusing legal battles they will fight and possible fines ($1000/person whose privacy was compromised).

Indiscriminately vacuuming up 100s of millions of telephone calls going back a decade is nothing but an unwarranted, illegal fishing expedition on American citizens and their privacy. Fishing expeditions, especially without warrants and probable cause, have been denied by the courts repeatedly

There's nothing anonymous about "just the numbers". The FBI/CIA/NSA know exactly how to put a name and address by every number. I'm sure the telco's will provide complete billing information, if they haven't already.

If anybody thinks the Repugs will stop at this huge violation, and that this particular violation is fully exposed (WH and telcos still haven't explained on what legal basis this rape was based, other than, "Repugs want it, we get it, and the Cons ution and any laws that limit Executive powers")

NEVER EVER trust any government, in the paranoid, power-limiting spirit of the US Cons ution.

[xrayzebra]

I use SBC(which is now rebranded as AT&T after they bougth att) I wish there was soem way I coudl sign up for Qwest as a show of support for them making a good descion but sadly there isn't with monolpy of infrasturcutres you cannot easily "vote" with your wallet

Of course you can. Just call qwest, they will gladly take care of you.
Better yet, call TW cable. Really show you distaste for SBC.

[boutons_]

[IceColdBrewski]

OMG! We're going to lose all of our rights! Dubya is throwing out the Cons ution! Run! RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!

[Clandestino]

Hahaha.. too ing funny...

Those Phone Records Sure Are Secret!

The Qwest privacy policy for telephone customers on the Web:


So . . .

It's a great invasion of privacy to data mine calling patterns for national security purposes, even if the call is not listened to.

But, isn't it noteworthy that the phone company does this on a far more personal level to decide what services to try to sell to you and, probably, to do joint marketing to you with others?

Moral of the story: Those hot and bothered by the telephone call database mining program don't know or appreciate what telephone companies do all the time for their business purposes or the purposes of their business partners.

And wasn't there a big news story just a couple of months ago about the fact that, for a nominal sum, you can buy anyone's cell phone records? In fact, liberal bloggers tried to put together a plan to buy and analyze the telephone records of prominent Republicans in hopes of finding calls that would somehow be embarrassing. These same liberals, of course, are now up in arms about the fact that the NSA does computer analyses of phone records, not with the malicious purpose of singling out political enemies for harassment, but to try to stop terrorist attacks.

There is really no hypocrisy quite like the hypocrisy of a liberal.

One more thing: since Qwest shares its customers' records with companies with which it has a "business relationship," but not with the NSA to prevent terrorist attacks, there is no way I'm doing business with Qwest.

You should never trust a company that can't spell.

[boutons_]

"since Qwest shares its customers' records with companies with which it has a "business relationship,"

.... evidence of that? ECPA calls for a $1000 fine per customer for divulging phone info to 3rd parties.

[xrayzebra]

boutons, go hire you a lawyer and try collecting from Qwest from
giving information to a third party. Bet you wont be able to find one
who will take you case, unless you pay him $300.00 an hour for his
efforts. Then he will gladly represent you, but make no promises of
success.