NSA Phone records

[eghad]

Then why did Qwest and other say no to this type of invasion of privacy?

I just saw this.......

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

and this

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

NSLs are not just for phone companies..under NSLs they have gotten hotel and credit card records. They even tried to get computer records from a contractor who handles internet computers for public libraries, but the contractor took it to court......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

so not only is NSA up in your bidness the FBI is too..... so next time you make that call from the firearms range smile big brother may be listening to you.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And for more background on the national security letter issue:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=197707

 

[eghad]

It just keeps getting worse

First Bush told us it was international calls, then we find outs its also domestic calls. Next we find out its the Press. Then there are library records, hotel records, credit card records......none of which has gone before a judge.

For some reason I feel like I just had a trip to the Proctologist and feel very violated.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Then there are library records, hotel records, credit card records......none of which has gone before a judge.

Based on the law, library records do require a warrant from the court. They cannot be obtained simply by NSL (though the other records you mentioned can). Whether it is actually working that way at the moment is another matter...

 

[Michael Courtney]

Yes, and last time I looked I didn't see your name among the list of people charged with interpreting its meaning.

Are not US Citizens the highest governmental authority in all matters in the United States?

Are the opinions of US citizens irrelevant when a subject is raised in a political context to bring public opinion and the attendant political pressures to bear?

Yes, the oligarchy has installed itself as the sole and ultimate interpreter of law, and the courts have given themselves an ever-growing power to make law where they are constitutionally limited to interpreting law. But this is somewhat a power grab away from the people themselves. Where does the Constitution say, for example, that grand juries and petit juries must only serve as finders of fact and can play no role in interpretation of the law?

The "law" is the US Constitution and laws duly passed by a legislative authority and signed by a chief executive. Court decisions do not constitute "law" they merely constitute "interpretation." You would be hard pressed to show that that the framers of the Constitution intended court decisions to have the same authority as laws duly passed by the legislative authority and signed by a chief executive.

Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

It also seems odd that legal professors would not reach that conclusion in the analysis I pointed you towards. Tell me, what specific parts of that analysis do you disagree with?

I already told you.

The legal professors took it as a presupposition that Congress is empowered to restrict the free speech rights of businesses regarding what records may be shared with the government. In other words, the analysis asserted that the companies were breaking the law by sharing phone records with the government.

The analysis you referred to did not support this presupposition, but took this presupposition as a starting point to make the case that if the law is constitutional, then the companies most likely violated the law. They make a conditional case based on a presupposition for which they give no support.

The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a conviction against the phone companies in this case you'd have to work pretty hard getting a jury that is ignorant of the 1st amendment. And if there is no realistic prospect of getting a conviction, was there really a violation of law? Legal professors to not render verdicts, juries do.

Michael Courtney

 

[gm]

what some people dont understand is that everything that is done now such as the phone taps ect...will be passed on to the next president who in turn might "interpret" it to mean something else. the constitution has a 4th ammendment,there are supposed to be checks and balances to insure that these things do not get out of control.they are not being used.

I dont know about the rest of you but somehow the idea of of all this stuff being used by an anti-2nd ammendment president,is disturbing.I wonder who will be laughing and calling it justifiable when the next legislation comes along under a hillary or feinstein type president that seeks to ban certain firearms in the guise of security and anti-crime or take the stance of the UN on gun control ..no 4th or even a watered down revised version would make it very easy to enforce, all the records would be there,nobody would bother.

expose it for what it really is.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The Great Contradiction that shows we're All being LIED to

We can have an NSA that can track phone numbers for every call in
the US and look for patterns and we can have a NICS run on every
firearm buyer in the US, but we have no electronic system in place
that an employer can call to check if they about to hire an illegal
alien with a duplicate Social Security Number? No system that alerts
anyone that Juan Doe 123-45-6789 is working in CA, IL, and NY all
at the same time? Not even an automated call back to the employer
regarding the red flag status of their employee?

I guess this shows who the gov't considers a threat and who must
be watched as opposed to who is allowed to slip under the radar
unopposed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Are not US Citizens the highest governmental authority in all matters in the United States?

I'll try that next time I get pulled over for speeding... "You see officer, as a U.S. citizen, I am the highest governmental authority in all matters within the United States, so I assure you I am quite within in my rights to drive 90 in a 70mph zone."

The "law" is the US Constitution and laws duly passed by a legislative authority and signed by a chief executive.

You mean something like 18 U.S.C. 2702 would be law then? After all it was passed by the legislative authority and signed by the chief executive and it says:

[A] provider of . . . electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.

I already told you.

Michael, it is abundantly clear that you never even bothered to read the analysis. Forgive me if I cut our conversation short; but I don't find it a good use of my time to argue with someone who won't listen to or read any information I present them; but prefers to simply restate their own opinion redundantly and without factual support.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

 

[odysseus]

oo7,

You have posted this before. Your point?

 

[Michael Courtney]

Michael, it is abundantly clear that you never even bothered to read the analysis. Forgive me if I cut our conversation short; but I don't find it a good use of my time to argue with someone who won't listen to or read any information I present them; but prefers to simply restate their own opinion redundantly and without factual support.

I read the analysis. Am I wrong to say that the analysis pre-supposes the Constitutionality of the law?

I guess my quote of the 1st amendment doesn't count as factual support.

You mean something like 18 U.S.C. 2702 would be law then? After all it was passed by the legislative authority and signed by the chief executive and it says:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 U.S.C. 2702
[A] provider of . . . electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.

Surely you are aware that an unconstitutional provision in a "law" is not really a "law" at all and can be freely ignored as if it were never passed at all.


If a government agency convinces me that there is a national security need for them to see my business records, the 1st amendment makes it abundantly clear that I can voluntarily tell them what they need to know (as long as there are no non-disclosure agreements or similar contractural obligations). One does not need an army of Philadelphia lawyers to demonstrate that a citizen can voluntarily share information with the government.

A law which restricts a citizen from voluntarily sharing information with a government agency is unconstitutional on its face. If the oligarchy doesn't acknowledge this, then the odds are very good that the jury will. Or can you cite jury verdicts to the contrary?

Michael Courtney

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

odysseus,

That's my cryptic way of opining that it's just business as usual for the New World Order.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I read the analysis.

So you read it and just missed the part where it said "The USA Today story suggests that Qwest wanted the government to obtain a court order for the monitoring, and that the government refused because they concluded that the FISA court might not grant the order." This refers to the Pen & Register legislation I pointed you towards earlier. The government declined to try and obtain the court order because they concluded they would be shot down in violation of that law.

I guess my quote of the 1st amendment doesn't count as factual support.

If we are going to argue the law then giving me an interpetation of the First Amendment that only you support isn't exactly factual support. How about the legal analysis from the Attorney General concluding 18 U.S.C. 2702 (only ONE of the laws being violated here) is unconstitutional? A court decision? A legal challenge by someone?

I say the Fourth Amendment supports the idea that the government cannot obtain information where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without due process. I'll go further and say that the government creating legislation that states that a warrant or court order is mandatory to obtain such information creates such a reasonable expectation of privacy. I can support my contention with ample law, legislative history, court decisions, etc. How about you?

Surely you are aware that an unconstitutional provision in a "law" is not really a "law" at all and can be freely ignored as if it were never passed at all.

In which case was 18 U.S.C. 2702 found unconstitutional?

For that matter, since it was passed and amended under the same administration that is now violating it, why did they propose such allegedly unconstitutional language?

A law which restricts a citizen from voluntarily sharing information with a government agency is unconstitutional on its face.

So if I decided to share all the classified information from my Navy career with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that would be unconstitutional according to your interpretation of the First Amendment?

If the oligarchy doesn't acknowledge this, then the odds are very good that the jury will. Or can you cite jury verdicts to the contrary?

Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 303 F.Supp.2d 121 (D. Conn. 2004). That is the appeals court decision (no juries above the District Court level); but it got there via Federal District Court where they reached the same conclusion.

How about in your response you do me a small favor and argue based on how our legal system actually works instead of your fantasy interpretation of how it should work? I'm sure the latter is more entertaining by far; but not as relevant to the outcome.

 

[1wildbill]

Mr. Cropcirclewalk "Mr. 1wildbil,
Please translate into English.

edited to add..........9 to go............"

Tell me what part you didn't understand and I will try to explain it for you.

I will try to say it more simply: I know from experience, that this has been going on for a long time, the Democrats are trying to play politics with the isssue and act like it is something new.

Speaking of English what does, "edited to add...........9 to go...........", mean?

I feel badly for you that you must resort to ad homineim comments.

 

[308win]

For some reason I feel like I just had a trip to the Proctologist and feel very violated.

Yes, but a terrorist hasn't tried to fly a 767 up your keister lately have they. See, and you thought Duhbya was inept. /sarcasm off

 

[Michael Courtney]

The government declined to try and obtain the court order because they concluded they would be shot down in violation of that law.

I never asserted that the government's actions were legal. My assertion was that the actions of the phone companies were legal. Congress does indeed have the authority to restrict how government agencies collect information.

If we are going to argue the law then giving me an interpetation of the First Amendment that only you support isn't exactly factual support.

My assertion is that one would be hard pressed to find juries where not a single juror would view the actions of the phone companies in sharing information to be free speech.

How about the legal analysis from the Attorney General concluding 18 U.S.C. 2702 (only ONE of the laws being violated here) is unconstitutional? A court decision? A legal challenge by someone?

Why bother with a legal challenge prior to a conviction that will probably never come? If a jury cannot be empaneled that will convict, why should the phone companies waste the time, effort, and money on a legal challenge.

I say the Fourth Amendment supports the idea that the government cannot obtain information where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without due process.

Of course. The government's actions may well have been a fourth amendment violation. My point has been that the action of the phone companies appears protected by the First Amendment. Just because it is legal for one party to answer a question does not imply that it was legal for the government agency to ask.

I'll go further and say that the government creating legislation that states that a warrant or court order is mandatory to obtain such information creates such a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The reasonable expectation of privacy only applies to actions taken by agents of the government. It does not apply to private citizens and corporations. There are ample court decicisions supporting this.

In which case was 18 U.S.C. 2702 found unconstitutional?

Surely you are aware that unconstitutional laws are null and void even before a court rules them to be unconstitutional.

For that matter, since it was passed and amended under the same administration that is now violating it, why did they propose such allegedly unconstitutional language?

The current administration tramples First amendment rights all over the place, and I am in no way defending the reasonableness or legality of the government actions in this case. My posts have been clear in asserting the legality of the phone companies actions, they did not assert the legality in the government's actions.

So if I decided to share all the classified information from my Navy career with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that would be unconstitutional according to your interpretation of the First Amendment?

I was clear that citizens cannot freely share information that is covered by a non-disclosure agreement or similar contractural arrangement. Did you miss that?

Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 303 F.Supp.2d 121 (D. Conn. 2004). That is the appeals court decision (no juries above the District Court level); but it got there via Federal District Court where they reached the same conclusion.

In other words, you cannot cite a jury verdict, merely the oligarchy asserting its authority.

How about in your response you do me a small favor and argue based on how our legal system actually works instead of your fantasy interpretation of how it should work?

On the contrary, you are the one arguing on the basis of how the legal system should work because you are ignoring the reality of jury nullification of unconstitutional laws.

In your view, the only way a law is unconstitutional is if a judge or group of judges declares it unconstitutional.

The way the system works is that modern juries are saavy enough to know that as long as they pretend to be acting as finders of fact, they can exercise much broader power.

Juries learned their lesson well from the judicial branch who knows that as long as they pretend to be "interpreting" law that they can legislate from the bench.

Juries learned their lesson well from Congress who knows that as long as they pretend to "regulate interstate commerce" that they can regulate anything they want.

Juries learned their lesson well from the executive branch which likewise uses numerous pretenses to exercise power beyond the original intent of the constitution.

One does not need to be an advocate of jury nullification to recognize that it exists.

The idea that the authority to interpret law and the Constitution rests soley with judges and not with juries is a theoretical fiction. Of course, the judicial branch would like to stamp out jury nullification so that they would be the sole and final arbiters of constitutionality, but as long as trial by jury persists and jurors are educated on the constitution, they will not succeed. Courts have tried hard to reduce the role of the jury to "finder of fact" but they have not succeeded.

Our system was designed so that the common man could exercise equal power with the other branches of government in the court room. God bless America!

Michael Courtney

 

[ArmandTanzarian]

Not complicated

Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is patently unreasonable to spy on (search) every American's phone traffic records without any sort of warrant or probably cause or even reasonable suspicion whatsoever.

Oh wait, we're at war (exigent circumstances). We're in a war that by definition, will never end and cannot be won, since "Terror" as defined by the gov, has been going on since the dawn of man, and will continue to go on as long as man exists on earth.

Hell is very near freezing over, as I wholeheartedly agree with DiFi on this one.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In other words, you cannot cite a jury verdict, merely the oligarchy asserting its authority.

Obviously you aren't real clear on how our legal system works... juries only hear cases at the trial court/district court level. No state of federal court uses juries to hear appeals (and they never have). However since my "oligarchy" verdict was not to your liking; why don't you give me an example of the kind of jury verdict that supports your case?

On the contrary, you are the one arguing on the basis of how the legal system should work because you are ignoring the reality of jury nullification of unconstitutional laws.

OK, show me the jury verdict that nullifies any of the privacy laws similar to the ones we are discussing that forbid phone companies from sharing information with the government without a court order.

 

[Michael Courtney]

OK, show me the jury verdict that nullifies any of the privacy laws similar to the ones we are discussing that forbid phone companies from sharing information with the government without a court order.

You know this is not possible because juries don't write up reasons for their decisions, and jury nullification only works when juries successfully pretend that they were simply finding facts. Jury nullification does not work explicitly. The proof of jury nullification is in the absence of juries rendering guilty verdicts.

For example, juries commonly nullify CCW charges on 2nd amendment grounds, but you won't find it in any legal searches. The only way to detect that it is happening is either first-hand information from juries or to study the absence of criminal convictions for otherwise law-abiding citizens who are charged soley with CCW. There are a lot more single-charge CCW convictions in areas where it is reasonably easy to empanel a jury without strong 2nd amendment convictions than there are in areas with strong 2nd amendment convictions.

Most prosecutors in areas with strong 2nd amendment convictions won't even bother to bring a case against an otherwise law-abiding citizen carrying without a license, and convictions are rare. Yet if a juror actually admits to voting to acquit because "the law is unconstitutional" he's going to be removed from the jury. Juries know this so they only speak about the compelling testimony of the defense witnesses or the weaknesses in the prosecutor's case.

In the matter under discussion, I expect that there will be a lot of chest thumping and political posturing, but I seriously doubt that we'll see a jury render a guilty verdict against the phone companies unless they violated an explicit agreement with their customers. I'd be suprised to even see the phone companies prosecuted.

Even if the facts are clear, it's too easy for the defense attorneys to show that the defendants should not be held criminally culpable because they had national security interests in mind, they honestly believed their actions were protected by the 1st amendment, and they were cooperating with law enforcement officials. If all else fails, it should be easy to get a jury to believe that the phone company decision makers were entrapped by the government agencies enticing them to break the law. There is just no way that the prosecution can win this case, either politically or with a jury.

Michael Courtney

 

[odysseus]

Well if you haven't already heard...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/NSA.suit/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon Communications that alleges the companies illegally participated in a National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion in fines to their 200 million subscribers.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

"They are violating federal law, which mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000 for every person whose records have been disclosed," Afran said...

 

[Khornet]

Time to point out

that there isn't any privacy provision in the constitution. It just ain't there. Yes, judges have found 'emanations from penumbras' when they wanted to make the Cosntitution say something, but the privacy right is not in the document. Not to say that a right to privacy may not exist, but that it isn't in the Constitution, and if you make that claim to buttress your case, you are in the wrong.

 

[Michigander]

Fascism? Or merely a signpost along the way...?

MAY 23, 2006

NEWS
By Dawn Kopecki

Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules

Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.

FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.

In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.

AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

 

[Thin Black Line]

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world,

Was it printed in the Federal Regisiter or is this one of those things too
secret to print?

 

[1wildbill]

worrying about something like this, which, at best is a tempest in a teacup, with what is happening on our borders, etc, this is just silly.

Hit the nail on the head! The ONLY reason it is an issue is because it is another form of Bush bashing, in other words, politics as usual.

As I posted before, this has been going on for many years-no complaints until it could be tied to Dubya by the Democrats that are scrambling like crazy to find, or create, anything derogatory about the opposition.

The people who created all this uproar are the likes of teddy kennedy. Anyone want to be on that side of anything? Do you think that teddy, and his cohorts care anything about "our" freedoms? They just want their power back in order to continue their regular agenda, and it ain't good for us.

They found an issue that touches a nerve with many who would not normally go along with them. The CIA "operative" issue is another example. Operative my a$$, she was/is nothing but an analyst at Langley. (possibly analyzing phone conversations?) Her being "outed" endangered no one.

I also agree that Dubya has neglected our borders, and that is a much more serious issue.