NSA collecting Verizon phone records of millions of Americans daily

[cptau 169]

The Brit newspapers are again doing the job of the US media. The Guardian obtained a copy of a secret US court order requiring Verizon to turn over the records

http://www.guardian....zon-court-order

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.

The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI's request for its customers' records, or the court order itself.

"We decline comment," said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of "all call detail records or 'telephony metadata' created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls".

The order directs Verizon to "continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order". It specifies that the records to be produced include "session identifying information", such as "originating and terminating number", the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and "comprehensive communication routing information".

The information is classed as "metadata", or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such "metadata" is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.

While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration's surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.

Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: "We've certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of 'relevance' to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion." The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called "business records" provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration's extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

In a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that "there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows."

"We believe," they wrote, "that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted" the "business records" provision of the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited "metadata" is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens' communications activities. Those records enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the time of the communication.

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual's network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when USA Today reported that the NSA had "been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth" and was "using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity." Until now, there has been no indication that the Obama administration implemented a similar program.

These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA's mission has transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency's focus on domestic activities.

In the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus domestically.

At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: "The NSA's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter."

http://www.guardian....ata-court-order

[autigeremt 7,260]

No worries. Our government would never do anything against its people.

[channonc 466]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

[channonc 466]

From Politico.

The top two leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that the widespread monitoring of phone records revealed by Wednesday's Guardian report has been going on for years and that Congress is regularly briefed about it.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss also defended the National Security Agency's request to Verizon for all the metadata about phone calls made within the U.S. and from the U.S. to other countries.

"As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years," Feinstein asid. "This renewal is carried out by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress."

Added Chambliss: "This is nothing new. This has been going on for seven years ... every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this. To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint. It has proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years."

[TitanTiger 21,565]

"To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint."

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING ON YOU FRICKIN' DUMBASS!!!

[shabby 2,098]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/lindsey-graham-nsa-tracking-phones-92330.html?hp=f2

Congress has been continually briefed:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/report-nsa-verizon-call-records-92315.html?hp=t1_3

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

[TitanTiger 21,565]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico....2330.html?hp=f2

An excellent indicator that everyone should be worried. A good rule of thumb on most things is that if you want to know what position to take on a political matter, find out whatever Lindsey thinks about it and do the opposite.

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to know who I call and when if I'm not suspected of any wrongdoing (no probable cause)?

[shabby 2,098]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico....2330.html?hp=f2

An excellent indicator that everyone should be worried. A good rule of thumb on most things is that if you want to know what position to take on a political matter, find out whatever Lindsey thinks about it and do the opposite.

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to know who I call and when if I'm not suspected of any wrongdoing (no probable cause)?

It's authorized by The Patriot Act. Apparently it's considered constitutionally legal

[homersapien 12,329]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation.com/article/174682/will-obama-end-long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12997/strategic-horizons-obamas-end-to-war-on-terror-a-needed-corrective

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/24/us-usa-obama-speech-idUSBRE94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57587203/ben-stein-declaring-end-to-war-on-terror-is-surrender/

[TitanTiger 21,565]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico....2330.html?hp=f2

An excellent indicator that everyone should be worried. A good rule of thumb on most things is that if you want to know what position to take on a political matter, find out whatever Lindsey thinks about it and do the opposite.

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to know who I call and when if I'm not suspected of any wrongdoing (no probable cause)?

It's authorized by The Patriot Act. Apparently it's considered constitutionally legal

There are a lot of laws that were on the books at one time (such as "separate but legal" stuff, poll taxes) that were eventually found to be unconstitutional once they made it to the SCOTUS. This isn't a justification.

Has the PATRIOT Act been affirmed by the SCOTUS? Because many of its provisions are directly contradicted by the Bill of Rights.

[homersapien 12,329]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico....2330.html?hp=f2

An excellent indicator that everyone should be worried. A good rule of thumb on most things is that if you want to know what position to take on a political matter, find out whatever Lindsey thinks about it and do the opposite.

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to know who I call and when if I'm not suspected of any wrongdoing (no probable cause)?

It's authorized by The Patriot Act. Apparently it's considered constitutionally legal

Exactly. That's what happens when you declare a state of "war".

[japantiger 4,168]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation...long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoli...eded-corrective

http://www.reuters.c...E94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.c...r-is-surrender/

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation...long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoli...eded-corrective

http://www.reuters.c...E94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.c...r-is-surrender/

So if he thinks it's wrong, why didn't he stop it? He runs the NSA? He could have just ordered them to stop doing it...he doesn't mind not enforcing other statutes; like immigration laws...so why not just tell the NSA to stop this one?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Guys, why don't you just love the Government already? It'll make this whole process easier.

[alexava 6,976]

Oh my god! No they aint trying to get in my business. Aint nobody got time for that.

[channonc 466]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation...long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoli...eded-corrective

http://www.reuters.c...E94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.c...r-is-surrender/

Talk has to be followed up with action. Just to be clear, I am a Democrat, but I have always disagreed with these types of actions under any Administration. I also am one who thinks these types of provisions of the Patriot Act should be repealed. I believe fully in probable cause. I believe in the way our founders designed the justice system to place the burden on the government to prove guilt. Not the other way around. I think if they have evidence against someone, get a warrant to monitor that person's phone calls and records. Not a warrant that covers millions of citizens without probable cause.

[homersapien 12,329]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation...long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoli...eded-corrective

http://www.reuters.c...E94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.c...r-is-surrender/

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Actually, Obama has proposed a fundamental change that would directly affect this sort of thing. He has proposed that we end the so called "war on terror".

He has gotten a lot of flack over this, but he is correct. If we think of ourselves in a perpetual state of war, our freedoms will erode.

http://www.thenation...long-war-terror

http://www.worldpoli...eded-corrective

http://www.reuters.c...E94M04Y20130524

Example of criticism for the speech:

http://www.cbsnews.c...r-is-surrender/

So if he thinks it's wrong, why didn't he stop it? He runs the NSA? He could have just ordered them to stop doing it...he doesn't mind not enforcing other statutes; like immigration laws...so why not just tell the NSA to stop this one?

First, I am not sure he can do that unilaterally if it is authorized under legislation.

Secondly, it would be political suicide if we suffered another attack after he did so. (See Benghazi uproar.)

[shabby 2,098]

Apparently the data directly foiled a domestic terror attack: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/rogers-legal-nsa-phone-program-thwarted-domestic-terrorism-plot-92354.html?hp=t3_3

[TitanTiger 21,565]

If we'd all submit to much more invasive privacy-robbing protection from our gubment, we'd be even safer!

We should apply this to domestic crime as well. Imagine how much safer inner city neighborhoods would be if police could conduct surprise search and seizures of random homes, any time of day or night to root out gangs and drug dealers. The benefits would be enormous.

[cptau 169]

Lindsey Graham chimes in support

http://www.politico....2330.html?hp=f2

Congress has been continually briefed:

http://www.politico....15.html?hp=t1_3

If conversations weren't monitored (which apparently they weren't) then I have no problems with it.

As long as you also do not care if they know or have access to know who you talk to and where you and the party are physically located. Basically they can also track your movements.

[homersapien 12,329]

If we'd all submit to much more invasive privacy-robbing protection from our gubment, we'd be even safer!

We should apply this to domestic crime as well. Imagine how much safer inner city neighborhoods would be if police could conduct surprise search and seizures of random homes, any time of day or night to root out gangs and drug dealers. The benefits would be enormous.

A few years down the road, we'll suffer another major terrorist attack and you'll be condemning the government for incompetence.

This is not such a simple issue. We need to ensure privacy (at least to the extent it still exists at all). But if we want an efficient and effective government, we can't prevent it from using "reasonable" applications of databases (for example).

The argument needs to be about "what is reasonable" and what is not. And the same applies to private sector as well. We may have more to fear from them than the government.

[autigeremt 7,260]

If we'd all submit to much more invasive privacy-robbing protection from our gubment, we'd be even safer!

We should apply this to domestic crime as well. Imagine how much safer inner city neighborhoods would be if police could conduct surprise search and seizures of random homes, any time of day or night to root out gangs and drug dealers. The benefits would be enormous.

A few years down the road, we'll suffer another major terrorist attack and you'll be condemning the government for incompetence.

This is not such a simple issue. We need to ensure privacy (at least to the extent it still exists at all). But if we want an efficient and effective government, we can't prevent it from using "reasonable" applications of databases (for example).

The argument needs to be about "what is reasonable" and what is not. And the same applies to private sector as well. We may have more to fear from them than the government.

They have become one and the same! It's easy to see and very easy to figure out. We have pretty much lost our personal space and our individual liberty. We are pawns in a huge game of chess and soon, they will be able to state CHECK MATE!

[TitanTiger 21,565]

If we'd all submit to much more invasive privacy-robbing protection from our gubment, we'd be even safer!

We should apply this to domestic crime as well. Imagine how much safer inner city neighborhoods would be if police could conduct surprise search and seizures of random homes, any time of day or night to root out gangs and drug dealers. The benefits would be enormous.

A few years down the road, we'll suffer another major terrorist attack and you'll be condemning the government for incompetence.

This is not such a simple issue. We need to ensure privacy (at least to the extent it still exists at all). But if we want an efficient and effective government, we can't prevent it from using "reasonable" applications of databases (for example).

The argument needs to be about "what is reasonable" and what is not. And the same applies to private sector as well. We may have more to fear from them than the government.

So it's reasonable for the government to know who everyone you talk to is, how long your call was, where you and they were located even if they have absolutely no reason to suspect you of anything? This sounds amazingly like something in the Bill of Rights that was specifically not allowed.

I won't change my mind. I didn't like it under Bush/Cheney and I don't like it now.

[autigeremt 7,260]

The Bill of Rights are outdated.......signed the current political machines

[homersapien 12,329]

If we'd all submit to much more invasive privacy-robbing protection from our gubment, we'd be even safer!

We should apply this to domestic crime as well. Imagine how much safer inner city neighborhoods would be if police could conduct surprise search and seizures of random homes, any time of day or night to root out gangs and drug dealers. The benefits would be enormous.

A few years down the road, we'll suffer another major terrorist attack and you'll be condemning the government for incompetence.

This is not such a simple issue. We need to ensure privacy (at least to the extent it still exists at all). But if we want an efficient and effective government, we can't prevent it from using "reasonable" applications of databases (for example).

The argument needs to be about "what is reasonable" and what is not. And the same applies to private sector as well. We may have more to fear from them than the government.

So it's reasonable for the government to know who everyone you talk to is, how long your call was, where you and they were located even if they have absolutely no reason to suspect you of anything? This sounds amazingly like something in the Bill of Rights that was specifically not allowed.

I won't change my mind. I didn't like it under Bush/Cheney and I don't like it now.

Please show me where I said that.

Are you responding to my post or what?

[DKW 86 7,948]

The Obama Administration has done nothing to move us off of these privacy violations for the sake of "stopping terrorism". I hated it when Bush did it, and I still hate that Obama continues these policies. Hopefully, organizations like the ACLU will continue to fight these violations of our basic rights.

Ditto.