Why is data-mining records of telephone calls unconstitutional?

Lest anyone be confused, the charge made in USA Today was not that the NSA was listening in on converations between Americans making domestic calls to other Americans--or as Dianne Feinstein put it, "not content collection." So a global terrorism warrior is bound to wonder what's wrong with what the NSA is actually accused of doing, which is, creating "the world's largest database" recording the simple fact of every telephone call made in the US? (That was their goal, though, apparently, without the aid of Qwest, they haven't yet succeeded.)

Does anyone on DU have any doubts about why this is against the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against search and seisure without warrant? Does anyone need this explained?

I know over at Free Republic they may find this no more upsetting than the phone company's collecting private telephone numbers and addresses for publication (as another DUer reported based on an excursion to Freepland). Perhaps this impression is not restricted to the far right. As I noticed my own instantly outraged reaction to the news, the skeptic in me asked, "Is this really as outrageous as you think? I mean, even though this is the NSA poking its nose, outside of its Congressionally mandated limits, into domestic telephone calls, it's not the same as listening in on a conversation, is it? All they're collecting is facts that phone calls were made, right?"

What they're really collecting, however, is not mere, cold, dead facts but patterns of behavior. It's not that those numbers would sit in a database doing nothing but collecting virtual dust. They would be sorted through, analyzed, decoded. Those data were collected so the NSA could spy on Americans' private lives--without a warrant! And as if that weren't outrageous enough, the NSA is not supposed to waste its time mucking about with US citizens. Its focus is supposed to be **external**, on **foreign threats** to the US.

We have a right to be outraged. We have a duty to be vigilant against this warrantless intrusion and colossal waste of government resources.

That alone should knock him outta the bid to head up the CIA!

I plan to immediately ask them for their phone number.

Without probable cause they have no right to monitor who I associate with.

:toast:

since when do they tell the truth? Maybe the phone companies had that perception, and were lied to? We need more information on what was going on, before we can decide if the law or constitution was breached. We know for a fact that the previously reported program was illegal. I'd like to know more about this one.

they were doing exactly what the FU virus hackers are doing. It's illegal and unconstitutional, no doubt about it.

Who knows what else they were doing without anyone's permission.

With his track record we should *all* be very afraid and insist on investigations. :scared:

When Bush categorically denies something, you can pretty much take to the bank that he did it.

Excuse, I didn't correctly process your post above.

Must Read Slower! :blush: :hi:

- they imply they do not listen in - but they do.

The Toronto site (actually just outside Toronto) was the site in the 1990's that had our servicemen reviewing the snips that the computer via voice/pattern recognition suggested may be of interest.

If the 30 sec before and the 30 sec after snip-it made the sargent suspicious, the commander would review the whole conversation.

It is amassing to me that they would try to hide this.

What is new is the massive nature of today's effort. There is no attempt these days to justify the initial recording off of a line.

the USA Today story is about data-mining, not wire-tapping. Seems to be two different, albeit equally illegal activities for the NSA to be involved in.

conversations on a line you have permission to tap, when you has a FISA OK. You'd pick up a lot of crap that had no bearing on the purpose of the tap - but at least you had a reason for the tap.

It has just gotten out of hand under Bush.

Sort of like Clinton's reason for Monica - "I did it because I could".

To pretend the data mining is only looking for pattern is give a classic "partial truth"

Of course to get the data on who calls who you need to get the same info the Tel. Co's get for billing - you don't need the actual conversations.

This new expanded data mining may well be limited to billing records -

But I have a hard time believing that.

:cry:

to spy on terrorists or connections with terrorists. The only thing circumventing proper channels and courts is good for is engaging in an illegal activity you don't want to have to answer to.

... identifying all checks written on the accounts of millions of Americans and the accounts to which those checks were deposited ... but just eliminated the amounts?

"We didn't look at the amount of money; we just need to know to whom you wrote the check."

Is that OK, too? :eyes: :eyes:

(Try that argument with folks and maybe they'll get it.)

More aptly, I suppose, it's the Executive Branch as a wholly-owned subsidary of Global Corporatism.

:toast:

A signalling database has things like:

1974 JUN 05 11:35 - called: 303 256-3169 - caller: 212 586-1918 - duration 10:38

That data allows you to construct, based on billing records, a huge
network of who knows who, very valuable when you're looking at
the ripples of data diffusion through a population, listening-to and infiltrating
ANY network of people, determining their danger to the republican party.

than just that a call was made. (Obviously they're not claiming to just be counting calls. ;) )

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

It's just against the law. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled that it's unconstitutional.

by requiring warrants in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.

Regardless of how the SCOTUS rules, we've got enough brains to scope out when the government is in or out of the realm of constitutionality, don't we? Does this smell constitutional to you? Can you make an argument in favor of its constitutionality based on what you (and of course I don't mean YOU, but ANYONE) know about the Constitution?

I guess my point was that it seems like just business as usual for bush to break federal laws.

FISA doesn’t apply to dragnet data collection tactics. But, there are privacy laws which restrict companies from providing customer information to third parties, including the government. Again, the existing laws say the government has to have a warrant to get the phone records of an individual. But the Decider don'tneed no stinkin' laws!

How would the SCOTUS rule? My prediction: Scalia will come up with some bizarre argument to the effect that once a person opts to have their voice converted into an electrical signal for the purposes of telephonic communication, they no longer have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” because the electromagnetic spectrum is a part of the natural world.

Silly? Yes but it’s really no more ridiculous Scalia’s argument in bush v. Gore that having different types of voting machines in different precincts violated the Equal Protection Clause.

mis-use of this info that is terrifying. Even if they are catching drug dealers.... it is not alright to do this. .And it is not a stretch to assume this data will be politically exploited. As we speak, I am sure that certain office holders are selectively having their records scrutinized and cross checked to see what dirt can show up. Gambling, phone sex, trysts, etc. The NSA should be held accountable. And the carious corp. heads should be forced to resign by shareholders. This is a big deal.

From the USA TODAY ARTICLE.....(as quoted by KoKo1 on DU-- original article no longer appears)