Looks Like Most Americans Have No Problem With NSA/Phone Record Program

[insein]

You can't say that with 100% certainty.

I worked in intelligence for my 12 years in the Air Force. I have seen what can be done and found out with the smallest bit of insignificant information.

No i can't. but i can say with 100% certainty that our rights will be taken away when they do this and then they will move onto another right to take away later claiming this same precedent. They can still get this info through the proper procedures. Allowing government free reign over our privacy is to allow them access to other areas of our lives as well.

"Well we didnt find any terrorists in this sweep but we did find several drug addicts talking about where they buy their stuff. We will contact the local authorities to arrest them."

Not a pleasant secenario.

 

[Annie]

I wonder how many people are aware that the program is illegal .

I don't think that's been determined as fact yet:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014068.php

Is It Legal?

There has been a lot of discussion about the legality of the NSA's telephone data collection and analysis program, most of it not very illuminating. I haven't had an opportunity to form an opinion, and I'm not an expert in telecommunications law. In my quick review of what seems to be the relevant law, I've encountered several puzzling provisions. But one section I haven't yet seen cited, which seems relevant, is Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

§ 2709. 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 entity 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 Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity 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 Constitution 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.

UPDATE: 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 circumstances 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 entity.

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.
Posted by John at 05:59 PM

 

[Mr. P]

What i meant, Jeff, is that a superior officer briefing a group of soldiers on a plan of attack isnt going to mention that the target is US civilians. They will brief the soliders that a "group of terrorists" or a "group of rebels" are threatening to do whatever. Soldiers will not have that moral dillemma until they are face to face with their "target." If they can then realize that the target is the American people before pulling the trigger, then hopefully they will disobey. I don't have that same confidence that they will be able to realize whats at stake in time.

Look at any militia that wishes to form. What happens? The police and government create charges in order to break them up before they become too powerful. The government understands the citizens right to bear arms and will stop at nothing to prevent a true resistance from forming. Thats why i fear we have reached the point of no return when it comes to being able to defend ourselves from the government directly. So far all they want is money and control. If a person got in there who wanted MORE, we'd be in a world of trouble.

KENT STATE

 

[insein]

KENT STATE

Comes to mind. Proof that in the heat of battle, emotions can override duty.

 

[dilloduck]

I seriously had no idea that so many people are afraid of our government.

 

[Mr. P]

I seriously had no idea that so many people are afraid of our government.

I seriously had no idea that so many people were so trusting of what they have to fear the most.

 

[insein]

I seriously had no idea that so many people are afraid of our government.

Well welcome to the real world. Why do you think REAL conservatives want as little government involvment in our daily lives as possible?

 

[dilloduck]

Well welcome to the real world. Why do you think REAL conservatives want as little government involvment in our daily lives as possible?

Paranoia works for me

 

[Mr. P]

Comes to mind. Proof that in the heat of battle, emotions can override duty.

emotions? No, it was the duty to follow orders to fire.

 

[dilloduck]

I seriously had no idea that so many people were so trusting of what they have to fear the most.

Fear what you will but they will always a be a bunch of incompetant boobs to me.

 

[insein]

Paranoia works for me

Dillo, this isnt some conspiracy theory. Look at what's been done in the name of "our best interests."

Income taxes were implemented to pay for WW1 and WW2. Those wars are long gone now. Why do we still pay income taxes?

Social Security and numerous other programs from the 1930's were implemented to help restore our economy after the great depression. Our economy today is booming. Why then are we still paying the government for those programs?

Why is our 2nd ammendment rights being infringed upon further every generation we move into? The right to bear arms is simple. Any American can own and operate a weapon to defend themselves, their family and their property. Why then do we need permits to get a weapon? Oh because criminals are out there and would get a gun if we didnt have permits. They get guns anyway. The real reason is to keep the population unarmed and fearful of criminals instead of armed and fearful of government.

The child predators is another example. There arent any more child predators than in the past. But they are pushed in the media and by governments as a favorite scapegoat to push through new anti-constitutional laws to "protect the kids" because parents are so afraid to even breathe in fear of a kidnapper stealing their kids. Tracking devices on convicted "sex-offenders" (a vague description that can define anywhere from a rapist to a man who happened to brush against an offended woman's ass one time at a convienance store) are now being used to monitor the behavior of these criminals even though they supposedly served their debt to society.

Next up is the internet. Hope you like Big ole government watching everything you do on the internet because its coming and people are just going to hand it over to them in fear of those "child predators snatching their kids through the computer screen." You happen to be buying prescription drugs from Canada online, well a local police officer will come around to collect your fee for the government. Talking about smoking marijuana, doing blow, downloading illegal music or just a random porn search will result in government taking an interest in your habits and a possible knock at your door depnding on who is in office.

You see why this is important yet, dillo? Or is that government just giving you that warm fuzzy blanket of security to bask in that you don't care that they are stealing your freedoms from you?

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, this isnt some conspiracy theory. Look at what's been done in the name of "our best interests."

Income taxes were implemented to pay for WW1 and WW2. Those wars are long gone now. Why do we still pay income taxes?

Social Security and numerous other programs from the 1930's were implemented to help restore our economy after the great depression. Our economy today is booming. Why then are we still paying the government for those programs?

Why is our 2nd ammendment rights being infringed upon further every generation we move into? The right to bear arms is simple. Any American can own and operate a weapon to defend themselves, their family and their property. Why then do we need permits to get a weapon? Oh because criminals are out there and would get a gun if we didnt have permits. They get guns anyway. The real reason is to keep the population unarmed and fearful of criminals instead of armed and fearful of government.

The child predators is another example. There arent any more child predators than in the past. But they are pushed in the media and by governments as a favorite scapegoat to push through new anti-constitutional laws to "protect the kids" because parents are so afraid to even breathe in fear of a kidnapper stealing their kids. Tracking devices on convicted "sex-offenders" (a vague description that can define anywhere from a rapist to a man who happened to brush against an offended woman's ass one time at a convienance store) are now being used to monitor the behavior of these criminals even though they supposedly served their debt to society.

Next up is the internet. Hope you like Big ole government watching everything you do on the internet because its coming and people are just going to hand it over to them in fear of those "child predators snatching their kids through the computer screen." You happen to be buying prescription drugs from Canada online, well a local police officer will come around to collect your fee for the government. Talking about smoking marijuana, doing blow, downloading illegal music or just a random porn search will result in government taking an interest in your habits and a possible knock at your door depnding on who is in office.

You see why this is important yet, dillo? Or is that government just giving you that warm fuzzy blanket of security to bask in that you don't care that they are stealing your freedoms from you?

I have plenty of freedom and don't believe in security anyway. Americans have so much freedom they don't know what to do with all of it. Like I said--the government is a bunch of very slow incompetant boobs. Checks and balances make "democracy" a very slow process.

 

[Mr. P]

Fear what you will but they will always a be a bunch of incompetant boobs to me.

Incompetant boobs with the power of big guns.
Very scary.No?

 

[dilloduck]

Incompetant boobs with the power of big guns.
Very scary.No?

I'm in more danger from my fellow citizens.

 

[insein]

I'm in more danger from my fellow citizens.

You keep thinking that.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'd rather die free then live comfortably in tyranny.

 

[Diuretic]

If you don't believe that disciplined military personnel will not follow orders given to them by their superior officers then you misunderstand both human nature and the psychology of the military. Humans are naturally obedient. We might look at Germany in the 1930s and think, bah what a mob of sheep, following Hitler and his mob. But it's not the Germans, it's all of us that possess the potential for following along. All of us, humans in general, regardless of race or culture. My own country has a myth that we're all independent, rugged individualists, defiant of authority and ready to be as nonconformist as possible. It's a load of rot. We would line up behind a strong leader who told us what to do and bleat like sheep, yes sir, no sir. We kid ourselves about our individualism but it's comic book philosophy.

I have a part-time job teaching in what is our version of the US two-year community college (I'm not an academic, just an adjunct instructor). In one of my classes (all adults) I introduce my students to the well-known experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo (google them if you're not familiar). They are classic studies of obedience. When I begin the discussions with my students they are convinced that it's all just a load of disgusting hype. At the end of the three hour session they are usually numb when they realise the truth about human behaviour. We are easily conditioned. All of us. We will do as we're told, always, provided the circumstances are optimum. The military will not disobey its superiors if those superiors give orders. The key to military defiance of tyranny from within lies in the command ranks. They are the people who must say no to the tyrant who gives the orders. They are the people who will be obeyed by their troops. The tyrant will always ensure that the command people are his. Look at Saddam, it's how he kept his military in line. The man was a murderous thug tyrant but he wasn't stupid.

It's the lone voice that will save any of us from tyranny. In this thread it's a microcosm. We have the followers who believe that the government is benign and can be trusted and it's okay to flout the law and assume to itself unconstitutional powers. Your President is ignoring your constitution and your laws, has relied in tame in-house lawyers to craftily put together legal opinions - opinions mind you, words on a page, not tested by the Supreme Court - which seek to give him supreme authority. And he's doing that, exercising supreme authority using legal fiction. Why he hasn't been stopped I don't know (I asked that question in another thread, this is not just rhetorical). Perhaps it's because the Democratic Party is either gutless, scared of getting potential voters offside (that is, looking after its own political interests rather than your country's interests which obviously are greater - treachery lite in my book) or tacitly agrees that it has to be done. They could have another reason for what looks like political cowardice but I can't think of one right now.

My last visit to the States was in 2005. My previous visit was in 1996. I couldn't believe in 2005 that I was in the same country I'd spent a couple of months in during 1996. I never thought that it would come to what I'm seeing now.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you don't believe that disciplined military personnel will not follow orders given to them by their superior officers then you misunderstand both human nature and the psychology of the military. Humans are naturally obedient. We might look at Germany in the 1930s and think, bah what a mob of sheep, following Hitler and his mob. But it's not the Germans, it's all of us that possess the potential for following along. All of us, humans in general, regardless of race or culture. My own country has a myth that we're all independent, rugged individualists, defiant of authority and ready to be as nonconformist as possible. It's a load of rot. We would line up behind a strong leader who told us what to do and bleat like sheep, yes sir, no sir. We kid ourselves about our individualism but it's comic book philosophy.

I have a part-time job teaching in what is our version of the US two-year community college (I'm not an academic, just an adjunct instructor). In one of my classes (all adults) I introduce my students to the well-known experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo (google them if you're not familiar). They are classic studies of obedience. When I begin the discussions with my students they are convinced that it's all just a load of disgusting hype. At the end of the three hour session they are usually numb when they realise the truth about human behaviour. We are easily conditioned. All of us. We will do as we're told, always, provided the circumstances are optimum. The military will not disobey its superiors if those superiors give orders. The key to military defiance of tyranny from within lies in the command ranks. They are the people who must say no to the tyrant who gives the orders. They are the people who will be obeyed by their troops. The tyrant will always ensure that the command people are his. Look at Saddam, it's how he kept his military in line. The man was a murderous thug tyrant but he wasn't stupid.

It's the lone voice that will save any of us from tyranny. In this thread it's a microcosm. We have the followers who believe that the government is benign and can be trusted and it's okay to flout the law and assume to itself unconstitutional powers. Your President is ignoring your constitution and your laws, has relied in tame in-house lawyers to craftily put together legal opinions - opinions mind you, words on a page, not tested by the Supreme Court - which seek to give him supreme authority. And he's doing that, exercising supreme authority using legal fiction. Why he hasn't been stopped I don't know (I asked that question in another thread, this is not just rhetorical). Perhaps it's because the Democratic Party is either gutless, scared of getting potential voters offside (that is, looking after its own political interests rather than your country's interests which obviously are greater - treachery lite in my book) or tacitly agrees that it has to be done. They could have another reason for what looks like political cowardice but I can't think of one right now.

My last visit to the States was in 2005. My previous visit was in 1996. I couldn't believe in 2005 that I was in the same country I'd spent a couple of months in during 1996. I never thought that it would come to what I'm seeing now.

People are not QUITE as easily led as you portray. Generally their intellect must be appealled to in some way. They must believe following the dictator will serve their self interest. I'm very interested in defeating terrorist cells.
Your verbose passage ignores the possibility that perhaps they're really just doing this to fight terrorism.

The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.

 

[Diuretic]

Intellect and rationality - for example the pursuit of self-interest have nothing to do with it.

In the experiments by Milgram and Zimbardo there was no issue of self interest, just obedience to authority. Zimbardo's experiment was particularly illustrative of just how people are quick to obey.

Milgram's studies were also startling in showing just how people react to authority figures.

Did you even bother to take a look at the studies?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Diuretic, you're merely suffering from an inversion of priorities. Take a :chillpill, then take a shill pill.