The latest controversy about the NSA spying on Americans once again takes facts, twists them to the breaking point, and then panics that the sky is falling. The sole source for this program has been the USA Today article that alarmingly says the NSA is spying on Americans.
The program was voluntary.
According to the USA Today article, giving the information to the NSA was not required. In fact, one carrier (Qwest) declined to participate. This means that the federal government did not require these companies to participate, it merely asked them. In fact, it paid the companies for the information and it was provided “under contract.”
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
The government is not prevented by any law from buying records that companies willingly will sell. If those companies violated their privacy policy, an entrepreneurial lawyer will have a cause of action in litigating the phone companies for their breach of privacy policy. However, the government is not “spying” when it buys records that are put out on the common market, even if there is only one buyer.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
Here are some links worth reading for a less breathless accounting of this story:
Weekly Standard...
LA Times...
National Review...
2 - mschannon
John,
You missed a couple of things--like Qwest got threatened that they'd lose all gov't contracts if they didn't participate. Like all the senior Republican Members of Congress who are outraged over the abuse of power, like Bush lying when he said that only calls made to international places would be collected. Read my followup article...we're dealing with another Nixon here.
3 - RJ Elliott
"we're dealing with another Nixon here"
Really? Is Bush using this intel against political enemies, or foreign terrorist enemies? If the former, cite? If the latter, why do Democrats oppose it?
4 - m
In fact, it paid the companies for the information and it was provided "under contract."
this is even worst
5 - John Bambenek
Well, I'm sure this will be litigated and litigated and litigated, and Bush will be exonerated yet again.
6 - Dave Nalle
like Bush lying when he said that only calls made to international places would be collected.
This is a semantic interpretation. Bush clearly meant that while lots of calls would be processed, only those to suspect international numbers would be kept and tracked.
Dave
7 - John Bambenek
As I understood it, the calls would only be collected at the border so only calls leaving the country (or coming in) could be tagged to begin with (save some technical glitches).
8 - Dave Nalle
Correct, JB. But in order to figure out which ones were going out of the country and to suspicious people in other countries all of the call records would need to be put in a computer database which could theoretically then also be used for other purposes. That's where the concern is.
And let me point out again that this program did not involve listening in on a single phonecall.
Dave
9 - Bliffle
Dave:"Bush clearly meant that while lots of calls would be processed, only those to suspect international numbers would be kept and tracked."
"And let me point out again that this program did not involve listening in on a single phonecall."
But, without oversight, how are we to know any of this is true? Or is it just the fantasies required to support GWBs actions?
10 - John Bambenek
Only to a liberal is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty to be considered fantasy....
You assume there was no oversight. Just like the overseas data-mining, there may have been oversight by Congress in a limited fashion. They can also defund such operations with one bill.
11 - MCH
"John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois."
John, you've left out which branch of the military you're serving in? Where did you go to boot camp?
12 - JB
Your facts are rather hazy here...
1) It's not spying? Of course it is. You don't have to listen to spy, surveillance (observing what a person is doing) certainly qualifies as spying.
2) The telcos did it voluntarily? I would say it could as easily be considered coercion; if the NSA asks, you deny the request at your own peril. It's much like denying a request from The Godfather.
It's the potential for abuse that is at issue here.
Once you cross the line to monitoring domestic calls to track terrorists, smaller steps are more easily justified. From terrorists the line might move to pedophiles (they are certainly bad, who could object!). From Pedophiles to drug dealers (they're bad too!). From drug dealers to agitators. From agitators to dissidents.
It's a slippery, slippery slope; that's why we have laws against unsupervised surveilance and judicial systems in place to monitor it--systems that the Bush Whitehouse seems all to eager to circumvent.
The way that they are doing it is most worrisome. They are using National Security Letters to gain access to data rather than throguh court orders. National Security Letters are a way to avoid the traditional system of checks and balances that have been developed to prevent abuses of power.
"But they won't abuse it!" Bullshit. History has proved that fallacy wrong time and again. If you believe that there is no chance that they will abuse it, you are very, very naive.
Did they use the information for other purposes? Who knows. They are using National Security Letters to get around a judicial process that is already in place, which short-circuits the LEGALLY DEFINED system of checks and balances that has been put into place to prevent such abuses.
The fact that they choose to do it has a rather chilling effect. How long do they keep the data in their database? We don't know. Who has access? We don't know. Will an accidental phone call from a suspected terrorist get somebody innocent thrown in to Guantanamo? We don't know!
Checks and balances: that's how you prevent abuses of power. Our system of government was built on that principal. Why is the Bush Whitehouse so afraid of using the existing mechanisms that do have checks and balances?
13 - JP
Bliffle - "But, without oversight, how are we to know any of this is true? Or is it just the fantasies required to support GWBs actions?" That's exactly the point.
John, "Only to a liberal is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty to be considered fantasy...." Didn't Reagan coin "trust, but verify"?
14 - John Bambenek
MCH-
I'm not sure what that's relevant...
JB-
The fact that the phone companies live in fear of the government is novel and interesting, but unconvincing. This isn't China.
I'll concede the potential for abuse is there, if you concede there is no evidence that there was abuse. There is nothing the government does (legal or illegal) that does not have the potential for abuse.
When you take a deep breath and realize that there ARE checks and balances here (someone can't get thrown in Gitmo willy-nilly) and Congress does have a say, you'll realize this isn't 6 million Jews being loaded into boxcars.
If they've been keeping it secret, they've done a horrible job. Echelon, Carnivore, etc. We've know about these programs for a decade at least.
JP-
Hoover coined that phrase.
15 - gonzo marx
oh John...how the fuck can you even think to defend this shit, which John Dean (former Nixon staffer) has stated made Nixon look like a boy scout...
go and look up section 222 of the 1934 Communications act...this is a DIRECT violation of said Law, by definition...
and there is still FISA, which coudl have been used to circumvent the 1934 law quite legally if it had been brought up for Judicial review...
which part of a judge's warrant and probable cause from the fucking 4th Amendment don't you Apologists understand?
but one good thing, we know who will sell their Liberty in a desperate attempt to hold onto political power, so they can get their 30 pieces of silver (tax cuts)
too bad...i normally like to Respect opposition
but ANY person or organization which systematically erodes the Liberty of Citizens, and those that support said organization, are the Foe and far more dangerous to our Nation than any outside conflict...
objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Excelsior?
16 - Bliffle
RJ: "Really? Is Bush using this intel against political enemies, or foreign terrorist enemies? If the former, cite? "
How could we know? The only info we have on this stuff is what Bush tells us, and he's an unreliable source (it hardly makes any difference whether he is uninformed or lying).
17 - Bliffle
"Well, I'm sure this will be litigated and litigated and litigated, and Bush will be exonerated yet again."
Has there been some court trial that I'm not aware of? Proceeding from some litigation and resulting in an exoneration? I guess I missed it.
18 - Les Slater
RJ: "Really? Is Bush using this intel against political enemies, or foreign terrorist enemies?"
It's already being used against us. We are the enemy.
Be careful who you call.
19 - Dave Nalle
Here's an omnibus response:
But, without oversight, how are we to know any of this is true? Or is it just the fantasies required to support GWBs actions?
Bliffle, while you may think that the appropriate response to anything Bush says is inherent suspicion, not all of us share that perspective. We go the small step required to understand why he has said the things he has said, and where the dividing line between truth and fiction really is. Bush tells the truth. He may leave things out or be selective, but his words are as far as I can tell ALWAYS literally true as he understands them.
Only to a liberal is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty to be considered fantasy....
I believe that's part of the mindset required to embrace the European-style law of the UN.
The telcos did it voluntarily? I would say it could as easily be considered coercion; if the NSA asks, you deny the request at your own peril. It's much like denying a request from The Godfather.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Qwest was one of the largest companies asked to participate and they refused and faced no repurcussions.
Dave
20 - gonzo marx
and again...read section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act...
another Law broken by this Administration...add it to FISA, and we see a pattern of total disregard for obeying the Laws and Constitution the Shrub had sword to defend and uphold...
you want more...the signing statements also show a complete disregard for the Constitution...and yes, that includes ANY POTUS that has used them..
why?..simple, it ain't up to the President to determine the Constitutionality of the fucking Law...it's up to the Supreme Court...
remember them?..you know the equal third of our Government, that pesky Judicial branch
but those who like to call themselves "conservative" or "libertarian" (not all, just some) and yet still support this Administration are shown, day after day to be hypocrits and liars
time fer a change...and i can't wait till November
between now and then, kick back and Observe as each of these scandals and outright criminal Acts get tossed into the Light of Day
then, Remember
Excelsior?
21 - troll
can't it be argued that the Prez is merely doing his historical job pushing the boundaries of executive power - what's the point of 'checks and balances' if there's no power struggle
Congress has oversight of an overreaching (or law breaking if you prefer) executive - if you're dissatisfied with the job they've done then fire your representatives
(in order to do this you're going to have to make sure that the opposition gets more campaign dough than the incumbent - no mean feat but necessary...statistically speaking)
troll
22 - Bliffle
Dave: "Bliffle, while you may think that the appropriate response to anything Bush says is inherent suspicion, not all of us share that perspective. We go the small step required to understand why he has said the things he has said, and where the dividing line between truth and fiction really is. Bush tells the truth."
I AM suspicious of GWB. That's my personal judgement, developed from watching him. Not based on my political predisposition: after all, I voted for him in 2000. I even supported the Iraq Invasion, having gotten the sotto voce message from the admin, that while the proferred causes were weak, they had better causes that could not be made public in order to protect sources and methods. They were dissembling; they cheated and manipulated me. Once burned twice cautious. My personal rule, developed from taking some very expensive courses at The School Of Hard Knocks, is that liars never stop lying. YMMV.
I've watched GWB speak, and I've seen him invent lies on the fly. I've also been careful to notice how he plants cues to exculpate himself in the future. For example, he says that "ordinary americans" have nothing to fear from the NSA programs. But of course he has left "ordinary" undefined so he can define that in the future. Maybe I am not an ordinary american. Maybe I deserve to be spied upon in the name of National Security. I have no way to know.
The question remains:
"But, without oversight, how are we to know any of this is true? Or is it just the fantasies required to support GWBs actions?"
23 - Les Slater
Gonzo, Trol,
This is just the latest of a bipartisan attack on democratic rights. The administration tests the waters, a few dems squeel, maybe they back off a little, but the direction is clear.
It's not a question of the popularity of the administration either. It just happens that there is a Republican administration with Bush's face on it.
Since it is bipartisan a Democratic face would fair no better.
Sinse there is no fundamental disagreement in any branch of the government don't look to checks and balances or unconstitutionality to stop this.
24 - troll
lock an' load - ?
troll
25 - Les Slater
Biffle: But of course he has left "ordinary" undefined so he can define that in the future. Maybe I am not an ordinary american. Maybe I deserve to be spied upon in the name of National Security. I have no way to know.
This what I alluded to in my 18 above.