Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jack1.0
No, but I don't care if the government asks a phone company for a list of numbers that I have called.
Arguments don't have to rely on extremes. A rain drop does not mean that it will flood tonight. Giving up a list of numbers does not mean I am willing to put cameras in my home.
|
So...it isn't extreme for the government to ask the telcos to break the law, and then use the telephone numbers that it shouldn't have gotten from them in the first place, and "data mine" the database of telephone numbers, to find out whatever it secretly chooses to know. You don't care about the potential for the government to blackmail or harass political opponents or constitutionally protected dissidents, when the government learns who they are calling, when the contacts begin, how frequently they happen, how long they last....etc. You are unconcerned about the political party in power knowing who the opposition candidates are talking to....how often, and who the opposition's contacts are talking to, etc.
This is why warrants are required by law. When warrants are not obtained, there is no examination by an impartial judge as to how appropriate the request for the warrant is, how large the scope of the investigation is, when the warrant is obtained, the duration of the warrant authorization, the confines of who and what the warrant is authorized by the judge to search for, and no "chain of evidence" that can later be used in court, in a prosecution based on the evidence obtained via the warrant, can happen.
The current, warrantless method is unlawful, exempts folks who are Qwest telco customers, offers no safeguards that the data mining info won't be abused for political purposes, or in an illegal "set up".... calls can be made from or to a targeted opposition politician or dissident, from or to a phone number that, when disclosed, or leaked, will embarass the target, hurt his marriage, or his reputation with his employer. Examples are phony calls to or from a porno store, a brothel, even an old girlfriend, ex-wife, rival company, employment recruiter....are you starting to consider how warrantless searches can be abused???
The "camera in your home", installed and observed via local police, is no more extreme an idea, than the reality that USA Today disclosed. It's illegal. Why isn't the DOJ prosecuting the phone companies that the NSA persuaded to break the law?
Quote:
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Sa...=1137836047737
Saturday, May 13, 2006
20-year-old law prohibits divulging phone records
Government can ask, but companies can't give data
LOS ANGELES TIMES
......The law does not make it illegal for the government to ask for such records. Rather, it makes it illegal for phone companies to divulge them.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was passed when cell phones and the Internet were emerging as new forms of communication. Section 2702 of the law says that these providers of "electronic communications ... shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity."
Companies that violate the law are subjected to being sued and paying damages of at least $1,000 for each violation for each customer. A lawsuit was filed yesterday against Verizon.
"It is simply illegal for a telephone company to turn over caller records without some form of legal process, such as a court order or a subpoena," said James X. Dempsey, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology in San Francisco.
The 1986 law "was Congress's effort to create a comprehensive privacy right and to apply it to all forms of electronic communications," said Dempsey, who was then a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.
Kerr and Dempsey said that it is hard to analyze the legal situation because neither the Bush administration nor the phone companies has explained the legal basis for divulging the records. Under the law as written, "it looks like the disclosure is not allowed," Kerr said.
The Supreme Court and Congress have taken turns defining the privacy rights of Americans involving phone calls.
The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. But until 1967, a search generally was limited to the police entering a home.
That year, the court said that a government agent listening to a private phone call was the equivalent of a search. That ruling, in Katz vs. United States, required police and federal agents thereafter to obtain a search warrant from a judge before they wiretapped a phone.
Still, phone records are not the same as phone conversations, and the Supreme Court refused to extend the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to a list of dialed phone numbers.
"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the (phone) number they dial," the court said in the 1979 case of Smith vs. Maryland. This ruling gave the police freedom to obtain phone records without a warrant.
To close that loophole, Congress then enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act forbidding the phone companies from divulging phone records.....
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006
.........One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
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.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
|
Jack1.0, your argument relies totally on an extreme. It is extreme to advocate for the government convincing the telcos to break the law meant to protect our privacy. It is extreme for the government not to prosecute the telcos when they break the law by disclosing our telephone billing records without a warrant.
Maybe you support the party in power, and the elected officials from that party. Maybe you won't support the ones from the opposition party who someday unseat them. Maybe you have nothing to hide...so...you don't care if this government knows who you call. Why does it follow that you are so willing to give your rights and my rights, protected by law....away?
The law was passed 20 years ago to protect all of us from the potenital of government abuse by a warrantless assault on our privacy, or by the telcos selling our billing records to a private party. You are indifferent if that law is broken, but you think letting the police put a surveillance camera in your house is extreme. I want the law upheld, I want the government to prosecute companies who break it. I want search warrants obtained when the law requires it. You don't mind if the government decides to ignore the law, sometimes, selectively, if it's a mild enough instance, for you. Who has the more extreme position, you...or me?
At what point, between the telcos illegally handing over your billing record to the NSA, and local police installing a surveillance camera in your home, would you draw, the line....object....as I'm objecting now....if not when the law is first reported to be broken, or ignored, by the government?