That argument is immaterial, Fishin. The method of the spying doesn't matter at all. It is the act itself which matters.
Cycloptichorn
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.
Electronic communication has long been held to be equivalent to 'papers and effects.' You are stating that it in fact isn't equal to this?
Have you heard of the Federal Communications act?
ps. nice condescending tone ya got there. Does wonders for your argument, surely.
You and I don't own or control the data. You, I and everyone else knows that the telcos collect this data (it's on your phone bill every month) so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy either.
§ 2702. Disclosure of Contents
(a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or 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 covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions.--A person or entity may divulge the contents of a communication-
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or 2703 of this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency--
(A) if the contents--
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C.A. S 13032].
(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.
(c) Exceptions for disclosure of customer records. A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.
Yes, I have. I was the one that mentioned it here in this thread earlier to as a point against your other statement that telco deregulation took place over the last 6 or 7 years. It says absolutely nothing about call data records.
The concern for the customer was also based on law:
Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first
passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited
from giving out information regarding their customers'
calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what
routes those calls take to reach their final destination.
Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are
covered.
Section 222 of the Communications Act requires
telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality
of customer proprietary information ("CPNI"), such as the
telephone numbers called by customers and the length of
time of the calls. . . .
Section 222 defines "CPNI" as information that relates to
the quality, technical configuration, type, destination,
location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service
that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely
by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. The Act
excludes from the definition of CPNI several categories of
information, including:
-subscriber list information such as name, address, and
telephone number;
-aggregate customer information from which individual
customer identities have been removed . . .
Section 222 provides that, except with customer approval,
a carrier receiving or developing CPNI by virtue of
providing a telecommunications service shall use
individually identifiable CPNI only to provide the type of
service from which CPNI is derived.
Section 1801(f)(1) of FISA defines "electronic surveillance" to include "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States. . . " In turn, Section 1801(n) defines the term "contents" as follows:
Quote:"Contents," when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication
The only reason you people believe this is possible is because of the hate in your hearts. Did you complain and believe when Clinton personal in the Whitehouse were gaining info from the FBI on political rivals?
NSA Collected Phone Records in U.S., Lott Says
May 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency has obtained the phone records of millions of Americans in an effort to stop terrorists, a Senate Intelligence Committee member confirmed.
News of the program, first reported by USA Today, sparked demands by lawmakers that executives from AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. testify before Congress. The disclosure also might make it more difficult for the former NSA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, to win confirmation to direct the Central Intelligence Agency.
Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, told reporters he was briefed on the program and said the U.S. needs ``to use modern technological tools'' to defeat terrorists. President George W. Bush, while not confirming or denying the effort, defended his administration's spying and said the government isn't ``trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.''
Just because the gov't can't do everything, it doesn't mean they can't try. And it doesn't mean they don't have billions to spend on the subject.
Quote:Plus it just isn't terrorists we have to worry about. The information that is collected is also shared with other agencies to catch other types of bad guys whether it is drug dealers or kiddy porn people.
Problem is, this is explicitly against the 4th amendment. The original argument proposed was that this information was 'foreign intelligence' and therefore wasn't covered under FISA. But we're talking about domestic calls.
Are you for the systematic breaking of the fourth amendment? You don't believe this right exists for Americans? Remember that those drug dealers and kiddie porn ring members are innocent until proven guilty, and this means the government can't just go around tapping their phones without a warrant!
Cycloptichorn
While I do agree that the NSA has no need for this information,and may have overstepped their authority,as I understand it they are not collecting personal info about people.
All they are doing is collecting phone numbers.
IF that is true,it is not illegal at all,because those arent protected.
I find myself in the unusual poiition of perfect agreement with woiyo....
mysteryman wrote:While I do agree that the NSA has no need for this information,and may have overstepped their authority,as I understand it they are not collecting personal info about people.
All they are doing is collecting phone numbers.
IF that is true,it is not illegal at all,because those arent protected.
Give me your phone number and in 2 minutes online I can tell you your name and address mm and I don't have access the database.
Give me your phone number and access to the database and I can tell your name and the name of EVERYONE you have called.
The idea that somehow a phone number doesn't identify a person is ridiculous.
Did you even read the earlier posts of mine, MM?
You are correct that information such as your name, address, and phone number aren't public. Records of who you have called, the duration of the calls, and other information pertaining to your communications, aren't.
That's the point. It doesn't matter if the NSA isn't being given that info, we all know they can get that stuff easily enough; it's a matter of the info that they aren't supposed to have without a warrant, namely, records of who you have called.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:You and I don't own or control the data. You, I and everyone else knows that the telcos collect this data (it's on your phone bill every month) so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy either.
You are simply incorrect. The telcos are not allowed to hand this data out, and there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
First,
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usc2702.htm
Quote:§ 2702. Disclosure of Contents
(a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or 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 covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions.--A person or entity may divulge the contents of a communication-
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or 2703 of this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency--
(A) if the contents--
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C.A. S 13032].
(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.
(c) Exceptions for disclosure of customer records. A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.
Digital cel phone records count as electronic communications under the law, according to my research.
Quote:
Yes, I have. I was the one that mentioned it here in this thread earlier to as a point against your other statement that telco deregulation took place over the last 6 or 7 years. It says absolutely nothing about call data records.
Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. If you had read the USA Today article, you probably would have seen this:
Quote:
The concern for the customer was also based on law:
Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first
passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited
from giving out information regarding their customers'
calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what
routes those calls take to reach their final destination.
Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are
covered.
Here's the chief privacy officer of AT&T explaining what this means in 2001:
http://netcaucus.org/books/privacy2001/pdf/michaellamb.pdf
Quote:Section 222 of the Communications Act requires
telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality
of customer proprietary information ("CPNI"), such as the
telephone numbers called by customers and the length of
time of the calls. . . .
Section 222 defines "CPNI" as information that relates to
the quality, technical configuration, type, destination,
location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service
that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely
by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. The Act
excludes from the definition of CPNI several categories of
information, including:
-subscriber list information such as name, address, and
telephone number;
-aggregate customer information from which individual
customer identities have been removed . . .
Section 222 provides that, except with customer approval,
a carrier receiving or developing CPNI by virtue of
providing a telecommunications service shall use
individually identifiable CPNI only to provide the type of
service from which CPNI is derived.
Clearly, the customer identity has not been removed, as the data would then be useless to the NSA, who is trying to identify specific individuals, not see how many calls were placed to pakistan in toto by Americans.
"(c) CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK
INFORMATION.--
(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CARRIERS.--Except as required by law or with the approval of the
customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer
proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a
telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to
individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its
provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such
information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the
provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of
directories.
(2) DISCLOSURE ON REQUEST BY CUSTOMERS.--A telecommunications carrier shall disclose customer proprietary network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer.
(3) AGGREGATE CUSTOMER INFORMATION.--A telecommunications
carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information
by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service may use,
disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for the purposes described in paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it provides such aggregate information to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request therefor.
Don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about when you haven't done the research yourself, thanks.
I know you Conservatives have your panties in a bunch over the fact that people are finding out that your leader has been breaking the law systematically, but don't take it out on me.
The customer identify has not been removed? Where do you come by that little factiod? Every news report thusfar has said that it is the call data records that have been disclosed and the CDRs don't contain customer identity information.
