You Want To Spy On Americans In America? You Want Their Phone Records?
Tweet
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant.
If its good enough for the beat cops from coast to coast, Briscoe and Logan, Deputy Fife, and others, then there’s no reason why the feds can’t do it too.
Get a warrant.
23 Responses to “You Want To Spy On Americans In America? You Want Their Phone Records?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Why is it that Democrats are so aghast at these things, but never call for an immediate stop to the practice? If it is SO WRONG, why don’t they say, “This needs to stop right now!”
According to the Supreme Court, the government doesn’t need a warrant to acquire dialed phone numbers:
and
Jesus Christ JWG, try to stay up with the times:
http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-2835-guest-blogger-nsa-again-violates-the-law.html
“Some background: in 1979, the Supreme Court held that no search warrant was required for a pen register recording the numbers dialed from a particular phone number because the use of such a device was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). The Court s analysis that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers dialed by an individual rested at least in part on the fact that the pen register obtained limited information. Whether that analysis would apply given new technological surveillance capabilities is not clear.
In all events, Congress thereafter acted to protect the privacy of such information. Just as in the case of the bank secrecy law protecting the privacy of bank records, after the Supreme Court held that such records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment because they were held by the bank, rather than the individual, Congress required the government to obtain a court order for pen registers and trap and trace devices, 18 USC 3121 et seq., and a court order or subpoena for records of past telephone calls.
While the law provides several means for the government to obtain records showing what phone numbers were called or dialed by a particular phone number, in every instance, either a subpoena or court order is required. It appears that the NSA obtained the records of millions of Americans without having the required court order.
If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq. Under the electronic surveillance provisions, the NSA would have to show the court that the person whose calls were being targeted was an agent of a foreign power. Under the pen register provision, the NSA would have to show the court that the information was relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation. Despite the low standard for a pen register, it is unlikely that the FISA court would have approved wholesale pen registers on every phone in America.
If the NSA obtained stored records, rather using a real time pen register, it would have to obtain an order from the FISA court under section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section contained an even lower standard for obtaining information.
It is important to note that the Patriot Act specifically provided that the FBI did not need a court order, but could use a National Security Letter a form of administrative subpoena to obtain such records. The Congress specifically withheld such subpoena authority from the NSA. The FBI investigates people or groups when it has some predication, however minimal that there is a nexus to terrorist activity. The NSA has no such limitation and thus wasn t given this broad subpoena power by the Congress. Instead the Congress required the NSA to convince the FISA court that the information would be relevant.
The President evidently decided, that he could ignore even that minimal requirement intended to insure some basic accountability by the NSA and to safeguard Americans privacy.”
Thank you for admitting that your citation of Smith v. Maryland is totally inoperable here. That took a lot of guts JWG.
The problem with your next round of bullshit, however, is that this is not a case of the FBI passing along information, it is a case of the NSA going directly to the phone companies without any kind of judicial oversight as required by law. Which raises the question why didn’t the NSA just go the FBI for the information if it all if had to do was prove that it was “clearly relevant”?
Keep trying JWG …
“… the FBI and the Attorney General were completely out of the loop on this program.”
And deliberately so:
“Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. 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.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Not in every instance, as you indicated. Concerning the NSA:
As long as the NSA can demonstrate that the phone number information is “clearly relevant” to their “authorized responsibilities” then the FBI can pass along the info.
It all simply says I-M-P-E-A-C-H.
Not that it would let them off the hook, JWG, but the FBI and the Attorney General were completely out of the loop on this program.
Jay,
It’s wrong. And you know it. We are not talking about perjury to cover up an embarrasing sex affair, or spying on your political opponents like Nixon did. This is so much worse, so much more intrusive and disturbing that it defies description.
I just can’t believe this is happening. And we’re letting it happen.
I give up on shills like Dugger, and Frank….but you, Jay……I know that you don’t like this, Jay. I know you well enough to know, that for the last 7 years, you have always spoken, and written against excessive government intrusion in our lives. You, are a libertarian at heart…and I am DAMN sure that we are on the same side of this issue.
Damn…it’s time for us “real” Americans to push back.
This isn’t America.
JK
Shorter jayc:
This is all the Democrats’ fault.
I give up on shills like Dugger, and Frank
Do you mean that, or are you just saying that?
I hit the ‘submit comment’ button too soon.
The NSA program still has so much more that is classified which we don’t know about, but this little bit that has been released is more than enough to get everybody into a hysterical tizzy.
If they’re using the information to analyze call patterns, and not listening to or recording calls, why the hysteria?
Last night I listened to a man talk about his life in Cambodia under the regime of the Khmer Rouge. His parents and siblings were all killed. He was lucky enough to have escaped. In looking at the big picture, it’s hard for me to get worked up about this at this point.
I’ve got a question that puts all of this “it’s legal” stuff in focus: If it is legal for the NSA to demand this information, why was it legal for Qwest to refuse, and why didn’t the NSA pursue the matter further?
Nobody has answered my question.
As for the data mining, from what I understand, the calls are not recorded nor are they listened to. The NSA is merely using the information to analyze patterns
Oliver, I wonder if you were suggesting that the NSA get an individual Warrant for each phone record.
You’d have a “Conga – line” of terrorists from Maine to California before that happened, or is that what you want?
That’s why I like reading and interacting on this site. There are a few commenters who actually link to evidence to which I wasn’t aware or didn’t consider (rather than just assert their opinion).
While you’re worrying about the gummint catching you on the phone with your Arabian friend, look what else they’ve been planning.
Durn fools.
“In looking at the big picture, it s hard for me to get worked up about this at this point.”
Fantastic. Just fantastic. Now we’ve set the bar at horrific slaughter. Just as long as Bush isn’t killing his political opponents in droves there’s no need to worry about our civil liberties. Of course, Jay isn’t saying that a few political assassinations would be right. He is firmly opposed to murder. But what’sa few political killings here and there compared to you know, all the people who’ve ever been murdered ever in the history of mankind? No big deal.
“I give up on shills like Dugger, and Frank& ”
JK bites the dust. Who’s next? I graciously thank Frank (I did get top billing) for his assistance in never ending job of befuddling the voices of the spirit Lyssa.
Dugger
Well, Crusty….I guess when they finally start tracking internet activity, then you’ll object?
I have to scratch my head. The “legality” of this has bearing on whether or not it’s ethical, moral, and otherwise hunky-dory to retrieve private data from innocent Americans?
What if some clown on the FBI’s watch list accidentally calls your number. Are they going to be banging on YOUR door, Jay? Crusty?
LOL.
Bizzaro World.
JK: I guess you’ve never heard of Echelon? Of course not.
Besides, I’ve been investigated by the NSA already — probably before you were born.
You’ve got nothing to worry about until they’re hunting ineffectual jerks.
Well Oliver, are you going to answer Frank D.’s question? Should we be required to get an individual warrant for every single suspicious phone call? If that was the case, the courts would still be processing warrants for phone calls made five years ago.
What makes me laugh about this issue is that I know deep-down that if Al Gore or John Kerry were president, the same commenters who are screaming “Impeach Bush” would either be a) completely silent on the issue, or b) vigorously sighting the precedents of Roosevelt, Carter, Clinton and every court case that decided in favor of wiretapping and data collecting for purposes of stopping criminal activity or espionage.
In short, this is just about damaging Bush. And it’s being done at the expense of crippling intellegence-gathering capabilities.
Just remember this: if the “big one” goes off in New York some day, and we learn that the NSA or FBI lost the suspects because they were no longer allowed to track their communications, it won’t be President Bush who bears the weight of the political fallout.
Would it interest any of you to know that when I worked at the IRS, I could get hard copies of phone records by mailing a Summons to the Telephone Company, signed by no one else but me? I could get an unlisted phone number with a gummint form letter. As a kind of test, I used to see how long I could operate “in the field”, identifying myself as a Revenue Officer, asking people all kinds of confidential stuff, without showing my ID. You would have been amazed (appalled?). I went out in the field with my manager, once — evaluation thingie, and was criticized for not showing anyone my ID. You know what I told him? “I get more information from people without it. As soon as they see the “Potsie”, they get intimated, and clam up.”
When was this happenening, you’re wondering?
I left the IRS in 1988.
If you had anything to be afraid of from the government, they would have dropped the hammer on any one of us a long time ago.
Or any other kind of fallout.