USA Today this morning reports that the infamous NSA wiretapping program is VASTLY more extensive than the White House has ever disclosed: they have created a database that contains all of the phone calls - local, long distance, and international - made by approximately 200 million Americans. USA Today's source has said that the NSA's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made within the nation's borders."
The agency received the phone information when it was sold to them by the three largest telephone communications companies in the United States: AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon (MY phone company). The telephone companies sold this information to the government (who did not REQUIRE them to do so, merely made a request and then leaned hard on every company who resisted) without notifying its customers, in direct violation of the Communications Act of 1934. That Congressional act specifically forbids the telephone companies from disclosing information on customers' telephone habits.
In 2005, President Bush acknowledged that he had authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance on ONLY the international calls and emails of ONLY people currently in the US who were suspected of having links to terrorists. "In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States," he said.
We now know that this is not true. The NSA wants a database of every call made in the United States by anyone, to anyone. They cannot possibly suspect 200 million people have links to terrorism, but 200 million people nonetheless have their phone calls in a federal database, without warrants or probable cause, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
At the very least, the Administration has some explaining to do.
At worst, there's a larger concern at work. The President has already given demonstrably untrue information about the limits of this program. If today the White House confirms that the USA Today story is true, might that still be beneath the actual limits of the program? Does it go farther than this? If it does, doesn't it seem pretty clear that the White House will deny it?
That being the case, where do we draw the line? At what point do we say that the government has gone too far in the name of security?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Blue Meanie
Well, this Article didn't take long to come up. Good stuff and food for much thought.
Now we can seperate the real conservatives and libertarians from the dittohead sheeple.
2 - Michael J. West
Let's hope you're right. My big fear is that nobody has anything to say about it at all, which to me is inconceivable.
3 - zingzing
ish. you know, a few years ago, this would have made me really made. now it just makes me sigh. again. for the 200 millionth time.
4 - zingzing
that's "mad," "this would have made me really MAD." not "made." that just doesn't make any sense.
5 - JP
I have three questions:
Why wasn't this information volunteered earlier this year when the first reports surfaced?
Why were we only given part of the truth as an answer?
Are people still willing to sacrifice all manner of personal liberty in exchange for security, after being continuously scared by the Bush administration regarding terror threats?
6 - Michael J. West
I have another question: why doesn't anybody give a damn?
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
All phone calls are monitored in Israel. All of them. The Shaba"k has access to it all through the phone monopoly, Bezeq, and since all cell phone calls are really radio transmissions, through monitoring the radio transmissions here. I'm sure that the NSA monitors all phone calls here also. I know they monitor all radio transmissions.
It all reminds me of a cartoon by Thomas Nast about 130 years ago. It shows the Tammany tiger (Nast's symbol for the Democratic political machine in NYC) in an arena, having just finished eating a Christian. The cartoon's title? "What are you gointg to do about it?"
8 - Blue Meanie
Michael-
Why? Good question. It appears as if far too many people are either not engaged, have not heard about this newest bit of horror, or even worse yet for our republic.
Some may actually think that rather than these events being the definition of a police state ruled from the top down by an executive branch which willfully disobeys the very laws he swore to uphold and defend; that instead, such behavior is acceptable for whatever "reason".
I would guess that most just don't know yet, see how it goes over the next few days.
I'm predicting outrage.
9 - Triniman
Anyone ever heard of ECHELON?
10 - Blue Meanie
Triniman-
You are so going to GITMO for that one.
11 - ss
It gets worse. Check out this story at MSNBC:
'The Associated Press
Updated: 8:41 p.m. ET May 10, 2006
WASHINGTON - The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.'
The full story at this URL:
I'm ususally pretty liberal, but I actually wanted the government to use electronic survelience against terrorists trying to enter this country. I still don't see how we can defend ourselves if we don't. But I also saw the security establishment had to be willing to submit to oversight and give those who had been survielled a fair legal remedy if they thought it was baseless or used to harass them.
Personally, I don't believe our Justice Dept is a security risk. The NSA just doesn't want the program investigated, so they're using national security to avoid oversight of a program that now, it turns out, may be used to track citizens with no ties to terrorist organizations at all.
The scary thing, for me, is the Justice Dept just giving up. If no one in Justice or Congress stands up and beats the NSA into shape on this...
Freedom as we've known it may actually be ebbing away.
12 - Michael J. West
Absolutely right, SS. The NSA can't possibly be worried that the Gonzalez Justice Department is a security risk. But that's something strange...the White House is shutting its OWN ADMINISTRATION out of this?
13 - RedTard
You ask where the true conservatives and libertarians are? I ask where you've been all along. Oregon, California, and New York have already considered plans to track driving habits so they can tax people by the mile. There are cameras at redlight, tolltags at every road, and facial recognition screening for criminals in city neighborhoods.
Want to know the sad thing. Most of these surveillance plans were either started or are more prevalent in big cities and so called 'blue' states, the areas that democrats call home.
I went to my city council and fought tooth and nail their plans to setup cameras all over my local town. Surprisingly missing were all you liberal democrats. Where were you all your compadres and the media then?
Oh, that's right there were no political points to be scored there. If you truly dislike surveillance then I am with you 100%, however, I have a sinking suspicion that your sudden urgent concern with privacy will mysteriously and simultaneously end with the downfall of the Republican majority.
14 - Michael J. West
Actually, RedTard, I've also been an ardent opponent of cameras and surveillance in this city. And when the opposition failed I helped publicize the locations of all the "hidden" surveillance equipment.
So I guess you're with me 100%?
15 - Dave Nalle
You seem to have this wrong fromt he very first sentence. The 200 million phone numbers in the database are at most peripherally related to the wiretaps. You suggest that the existence of the database means that more people are being wiretapped than previously believed, when that is explicitly not the case. That database is used solely to determine what numbers are making calls to suspect phone numbers in other countries. If anything it is a way to find the terrorists without having to datamine everyone using a phone in the country. It narrows the phones that need to be kept track of, reduces the intrusion on the privacy of US citizens, and should be seen as a desirable way to fight terrorism without violating rights or the constitution.
Dave
16 - zingzing
so are they tracking every one of our phone calls or not? do they see it when i call my mother? a 900 sex line? or do they not?
17 - gonzo marx
for comment #15...
go and read the Communications Act of 1934, it's the applicable law, passed by Congress, signed by a President just like it says in the Constitution...
i'll wait....
back?..kewlio
you did notice the bit where the records of calls made to and from a customer can only be solicited from the telecom by a duly authorized warrant from a sitting judge?
it then requires the telecom to comply.
no such warrants were issued, therefore both the telecom and the adminsitration(NSA too) are subject to prosecution under said Law
now, of course since our Attorney General was previously WH counsel, wrote the torture guidelines and the legal positions of the Administration for a plethora of questionable activities (like the *signing statements*)...
i got no hope that he would actually Investigate much less Prosecute anyone for following the legal justification he, himself , wrote
can you say *conflict of Interest*???
just to put it in perspective, can you imagine the GOP faithful's reactions if Janet Reno had tried 1/100th of this kind of shit?
fantasyland, i know...basically because that Administration had a divided government so checks and balances fucking worked
again, comment #15 is right form the talking points, and bears no basis in the reality of either how the technology of all this actually functions, nor of the Law
nuff said
Excelsior?
18 - Dave Nalle
Zing, contrary to what this article and gonzo may say, they are NOT 'tracking' our phonecalls or recording them or even sorting through all of them to do datamining. They are merely logging them. In other words, they are keeping track of which numbers called which other numbers specifically so that they can identify which numbers make repeated calls to certain countries and numbers.
Gonzo's comment about the 'technology' and how it works is erroneous, because this issue is NOT about data mining. The phone company has kept track of who your phone calls for decades - it's printed on your bill. All that has happened here is that the phone companies agreed to give those call logs to the feds. It required NO special technology, and while it may allow those doing datamining to be more informed, that is a GOOD thing because it means they will run their computer scans on fewer numbers.
In addition, again in direct contradiction of gonzo's comment, this information was first requested by the Clinton administration in 1999 and the "GOP faithful's reaction" was to make not one peep.
Again, this gathering of phone records IS not the same thing as data mining or wiretaps and the efforts to confuse the two are classic disinformation.
Dave
19 - Dave Nalle
For what it's worth I think gonzo does have a marginally valid point on the technical need for warrants to get this information. But on the other hand, I believe that anyone who ponies up the cash can actually buy the information openly from the phone companies - in fact I believe they're required to have it available for sale under the act that mandated forced competition for local phone service.
What's more, most law enforcement agencies have informal agreements to get instant warrantless access to the information with a phonecall. You only need a warrant if the phone company doesn't want to cooperate, and in this case they do. The information belongs to THEM, not the individual customers, at least until a court rules otherwise. And in this case the courts seem to be following the same standards used with mailing address, credit card use and other commercial information gathering and staying out of it.
Dave
20 - gonzo marx
finally, some Light begins to dawn, but obviously not completely...
comment #19 sez...
*For what it's worth I think gonzo does have a marginally valid point on the technical need for warrants to get this information.*
yer starting ta read the 1934 law ain't ya
keep reading
and here i had thought Libertarians believed in the Right of fucking Privacy...
obviously the GOP and their Apologists don't
and that is a fucking shame
Excelsior?
21 - zingzing
dave: "they are keeping track of which numbers called which other numbers specifically"
that's what i meant by tracking. so they do know when i call my mother. and, etc.
"But on the other hand, I believe that anyone who ponies up the cash can actually buy the information openly from the phone companies"
i don't know about that. i don't think that's public record, and i work in public records. i could be wrong, but i believe a company recently started to sell individual's phone records and they were quickly shut down. at least, i haven't heard anything recently.
22 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I believe in the right of privacy, but decades of practice and court rulings have firmly established that information gathered by businesses about their customers is NOT private. Go sue Experian for giving out your credit info and see how far you get. It's exactly the same thing here. You and I may not like it, but there's no question at all that what was done to gather these names is legal.
Dave
23 - zingzing
well damn. just looked it up. looks like you can buy itemized phone records. that's kind of nasty. how long before we start doing that... sheesh... i need a new job...
24 - Dave Nalle
Hold on a second, Zing. I happen to have a friend who's a lwayer in the public info division of the AG's office. I'll give him a call...
Damn, the bastard leaves his cell phone in the car while he's playing disc golf. I'll get the info later and post it.
Dave
25 - zingzing
disc golf!? fucking hippies!