The difference is that the previous issue was the NSA wiretapping lines without warrants. The recording of actual phone calls from or to certain specific individuals.

The new issue is that Bellsouth, AT&T, and Verizon have been handing over records of all phone calls made on their networks, which would include cell phone calls and calls from outside their network into their network. Meaning they want to datamine the phone companies data. No warrants, no specific targets. They are looking for patterns or oddities to known patterns.

Also the White House has maintained that the NSA program has only affected calls into or out of the USA, whereas this new revelation covers every call made within the networks of the cooperating companies.

For one thing, many of the previous stories made it look like the NSA was going after, without warrants, the records of those it suspected of illegal activity. When I read the earlier stories, I didn't catch on that the government was wholesale obtaining phone records of people it has no reason to suspect of connections to terrorism. In other words, I wasn't thinking along the lines that MY phone records were being handed over. It didn't bother me when it was YOUR records. ;-)

As a side note, I haven't received an answer as to why my McAfee firewall tracer shows more than a thousand unsolicted attempts over the last 30 days to connect to various of my computer ports that resolve to a wide range of Department of Defense and other military computers. McAfee notes them as "possible hacker" activity. Now, there are some things on my computer I don't care for the whole world to know (mostly personal e-mail) but nothing that the government should be after.

The interesting thing is that if they really wanted in, they could probably spoof their way in by cloaking their identity. Maybe they are simply trying to test the security of the Internet, but it is still a little disconcerting.

Perhaps because so many people like you just keep saying "sure, this bothers me but I don't know why the MEDIA has to make a big deal about it." Those of us on the left are frustrated at how easily those on the small-government right have adjusted/swallowed so many of their principles in order to get slightly lower taxes and a president who gives welfare to the rich instead of the poor.

Glenn Greenwald wrote yesterday that the legality/illegality issue regarding NSA's domestic data gathering program is still up in the air due to the complexity of the issues involved.

However, it is interesting to note that Quest refused to cooperate when the company's lawyers got cold feet and asked NSA to take the proposal to the FISA court to get a ruling on its legality. The agency refused and NSA people actually told Qwest they didn't want to go before the FISA court because it might have found their domestic data gathering program illegal.

In a related story MSNBC reported that the White House just ended the fledgling investigation into the NSA's warrantless wiretap program. Bush's own Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, headed the inquiry but
was unable to continue "because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to
information about the NSA program,” according to OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett.

White House contempt for the other two branches of government is breathtaking, and that Dems and Republicans in Congress continue to take it even with Bush poll numbers in the very low 30s is disturbing, to say the least.

Those of us on the left are all over our Democratic reps because of it (Clinton and Schumer got an earful from me again yesterday for their continued silence regarding likely illegal NSA programs). It's disturbing not to see anything similar coming from the right.

Ive looked at both articles and you make a good point, I read that sentence in the context of the other known NSA wiretapping. This was presented to the general media at large as just a wiretaping program which would require a government presence of some sort. In fact the NYT article out right mentions data mining.

But in addition to the companies involved, newer information includes the actual machines being used to mine the data.

But I remain confused as to why it is suddenly a top story when, as Matt Drudge notes, the NSA's program has been known and reported for months.

Perhaps because when the Attorney General testified before the House Judiciary Committee in April, he denied the story:

NADLER: Number two, can you assure us that there is no warrantless surveillance of calls between two Americans within the United States?

GONZALES: That is not what the president has authorized.

NADLER: Can you assure us that it's not being done?

GONZALES: As I indicated in response to an earlier question, no technology is perfect.

NADLER: OK.

GONZALES: We do have minimization procedures in place...

NADLER: But you're not doing that deliberately?

GONZALES: That is correct.

Via: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000622.php

Joshua,

You tell us what the media said, but you neglect to say what the Administration said in repsonse to that:

Hasn't the President consistently said that they were only targeting international communications, specifically between bad guys outside the US and people inside or between bad guys inside the US and others outside? Has the President ever said he was targeting communications (whether the entire content or just the call parameters) from one American in the US to another American in the US?

So, is your incredulousness real or feigned?

Because confirmation now of what was speculated then but almost categorically denied by the Administration is something most would call news.

Everyone is confusing two issues here. There are two different programs that have been leaked:

1) Wiretapping (with and without warrants) of international phone calls FROM or TO the United States where either the originator or the receiver is suspected of terrorist activity. This is what caused the big controversy to erupt several months ago.

2) Analysis of phone records. Patterns of calls are being analyzed, but no personally identifiable information has been disclosed. Presumably, if they identified an interesting pattern of calls, they could get a warrant to find out who owns the phone numbers involved.

Personally, neither of these bother me because in the first case I don't make international phone calls (especially not to terror suspects), and in the second case my name isn't attached to my data.

Eric, phone numbers themselves are actually considered to be personally identifiable information by every account I've seen. You don't need a warrant to find out who owns a phone number.

Eric

If you have a telephone number, you have an address. Even if the phone companies are only releasing files containing phone numbers, and data like your address, carrier, account number, etc, that info can be matched with available data already on the market.

James Risen of the NY Times and Robert O'Harrow of the Wa Post (their resident expert on data mining) were interviewed by Tim Russert on his cable show.

Risen and O'Harrow claimed the NSA has the capability to use its gigando computers to mine data collected by private companies thus giving them access to nearly any info out there on you. Who knows, that's what they could be mining, looking for patterns and links...

With that kind of access to sensitive personal data, isn't there a chance of corruption?

And again, when Quest lawyers balked at the NSA's request and suggested asking for a ruling on the data mining program's legality by the FISA court, the NSA turned them down, because NSA feared the FISA court might not rule in its favor. This doesn't bother you?

It looks like there has been an edit to this thread. Was ITA policy changed to make editors notes when this occurs?

In this case Eric's contact info appears to have been pulled from the thread, which makes a good point regarding the ease of which the call data can be aggregated while its being mined.

Balta/JohnS:

Granted, for people with a listed phone number it is possible to do a "reverse lookup" and find out the name attached to the phone number. My assumption, however, is that if your number is unlisted, the NSA would need to take additional steps (maybe a warrant, maybe not) to get your name from your number.

Either way, there are a number of reasons it doesn't bother me. For instance, unless I'm wrong, law enforcement can already conduct surveilance on a person whenever he/she is in public without a warrant. You could be spending time in a park with your family and the FBI is videotaping you for some reason. I find that a heck of a lot more intrusive than some agent finding out how many times I've called my parents in the last month.

Foltz: Yes, an individual thought it would be cute to post my home phone and address in this comment thread. I think the reason for removing it is self-explanatory. It also has nothing to do with the subject at hand. While I may not mind if an FBI agent looks at my phone records, I'd rather not have my personal information available to random, small-minded cretins. Both Joshua and I have been subject to harassment in the past from people who did not have the wit or the cojones to engage us in an intellectual discussion.

Yes, an individual thought it would be cute to post my home phone and address in this comment thread. I think the reason for removing it is self-explanatory. It also has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Umm, that "small minded" individual was me and I didn't post it to be cute, I posted it to make a point -- namely that the claim that the government "only" has access to phone numbers, and not any personal information beyond that is, to be charitable, disingenous beyond belief.

I think my post, containing nothing but public information, and even more the fact that it got deleted, made the point well.

While I may not mind if an FBI agent looks at my phone records, I'd rather not have my personal information available to random, small-minded cretins.

It's not "personal information" -- it's name/phone number mapping which is, as I thought my demonstration showed, public information. Once I have a pool of phone number pairs, it's trivial for me, using public information, to find out the social networks involved -- which might be a good thing if my real intention is to ferret out "terrorists" (whatever that term now means) and a bad thing if my real intention is to harrass my political enemies.

As I said in my (deleted) post, having phone record information available makes it trivial (for example) to find out who a hostile reporter is talking to -- and then punish those people.

Now, in the interest of fairness, here is the public information on me, as told by www.whitepages.com (I simply put in my phone number, and this is what it says):
---
Gregory Travis

information removed by Eric Seymour
---

Finally, phone call records are not, by a long shot, the only kind of information that falls into this category. For example, every time I go grocery shopping, the Kroger Corporation compiles a record of what I bought. This can, obviosly, be used to determine my social status, my health, etc. (which is why Kroger does it).

Would we be as sanguine were Kroger to be handing over that information, no questions asked, to the government?

greg

Yes, an individual thought it would be cute to post my home phone and address in this comment thread. I think the reason for removing it is self-explanatory.

I was referring more to the editing of threads without making notes. It leads to disjointed discussions and possible accusations when edits aren’t noted.

Removing your info is up to you or another editor, but the point was made that your phone number and address are rather easy to correlate considering the “white pages” are already an open database. I havent used my first name since I "blogged" at the HR/ITA, but I'm fairly certain someone who doesnt know me could take a decent stab and pull my info with just my last name.

Videotaping you in the park is one thing --- the NSA has your phone records which is revealing enough. But data mining companies like ChoicePoint are legally allowed to collect your medical records, your credit card purchases and other personal info down to your voting registration for "commercial" purchases, and Choice Point already has over a billion dollars in national security contracts with the government.

Considering the lack of Congressional oversight over NSA surveillance programs, doesn't that kind of government access to sensitive personal data suggest the possibility of corruption?

And again, I haven't seen a conservative response to my question regarding Quest: their lawyers balked at the NSA's request for phone records and suggested asking for a ruling on the data mining program's legality by the FISA court. The NSA turned them down, because NSA feared the FISA court might tell them the program is illegal. This doesn't bother you?

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

A senior federal law enforcement official tells us (ABC NEWS) the government is tracking the phone numbers we 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.

Wow, I guess I called that one (from the link provided by JohnS above):

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.

greg

Gregory,

Umm, that "small minded" individual was me

I wasn't calling you "small minded," I was calling people who issue threatening mail and phone calls at bloggers "small minded."

You can't use whitepages.com to look up the name and address associated with an unlisted number. Whether the NSA could do a reverse lookup on an unlisted number without some sort of outside authorization hasn't been answered here, but my guess is the answer is no. Anyway, as I've said, I really don't see the harm from law enforcment personnel having access to my phone records.

a bad thing if my real intention is to harrass my political enemies

There are many ways in which law enforcment can be used to harass political enemies, but having access to their phone records doesn't strike me as a particularly effective method, compared to other existing possibilities.

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.

This is an investigation of the leaking of classified information, not a campaign to harass reporters who bash the Bush administration. Funny how many Democrats screamed bloody murder about the Valerie Plame affair (which had no apparent real national security impact), yet many don't seem to be worried that key parts of our strategy to prevent future terror attacks on Americans are being leaked to the press. Or that when those leaks are investigated, it amounts to political harassment.

As far as using government agencies to harass opponents, Democrats know how it's done. Anyone remember the IRS audits of conservative groups and the FBI files found in the White House during the Clinton years?

I was referring more to the editing of threads without making notes. It leads to disjointed discussions and possible accusations when edits aren’t noted.

Foltz--duly noted. I will keep that in mind in the future. For the record, Gregory's original post did not say anything that Balta and JohnS managed to say without posting my home phone and address.

Eric

You appear to be OK with WH leaking of a covert CIA agent's identity (who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover officer as part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran) for no good reason I've yet heard because it "had no apparent real national security impact."

However, in the case of ABC, you appear vexed about leaks that the U.S. runs secret prisons in Romania and Poland, operating in possible violation of international human rights law, the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal anti-torture, enacted in 1994, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice because this leak by an employee(s) willing to put his or her job on the line to shed light on posssible criminality exposes a "key parts of our strategy to prevent future terror attacks on Americans."

Stamping a program "classified" doesn't make it legal. But I guess we can forget about the rule of law during Bush's War on Terror.

For the upteenth time, NOWHERE in your data mining NSA arguments do you EVER address the issue of legality/illegality. In fact you appear to studiously avoid it.

Are you concerned by NSA's refusal to go to court with Quest to determine the data mining operation? Arlen Spectre (sic) is. He wants to know why AT&T, Verizon and Bell South did. And he's asking them and not the WH because the telecoms can't hide behind executive privilege.

It is beyond disturbing how willing some Americans are to put up with, no worse than that, ENABLE, lies and criminal behavior by those in charge of upholding our constitution in the name of "national security."  

I was unclear here. I should have said:

Arlen Spectre (sic) is. He wants to know why AT&T, Verizon and Bell South cooperated with the NSA's data mining operation, in possible violation of the law. As in, why didn't they demand to do what Quest did?

You appear to be OK with WH leaking of a covert CIA agent's identity

No, I'm not. My take on the Plame affair has always been that someone tried to discredit Joseph Wilson by charging him with nepotism--saying the only reason he was chosen to go to Niger (or wherever) was that his wife worked for the CIA--not knowing her identity was classified. If it could be shown that the WH intentionally blew Plame's cover to punish Wilson, I would fully endorse stiff punishment for the leaker. But as far as I know, that hypothesis has not been substantiated at all.

operating in possible violation of international human rights law, the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal anti-torture, enacted in 1994, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Key word there is "possible." I do not believe it is the prerogative of a CIA employee to respond to policies they disagree with by leaking classified information to the press. Surely there are internal (or at least intra-governmental) channels to pursue.

For the upteenth time, NOWHERE in your data mining NSA arguments do you EVER address the issue of legality/illegality.

Take it easy, dude. When I have people flinging things at me from all directions, I don't always have time to pursue every avenue. In this case, I simply do not have the background knowledge to address this issue. (I do, however, remember reading about a late 1970's Supreme Court case which ruled that customers do not have the right to keep their phone records private from law enforcement, but beyond that...?) Furthermore, I really don't think speculative arguments such as why the NSA didn't go to court for Quest's records are worthwhile.

Is the NSA "law enforcement?"

greg

Eric,

The WH Plame leak, innocent or otherwise, had no express purpose other than to taint the findings of a political rival.

I called them "possibly" illegal, but former prosecuter and Republican member of Congress Bob Barr has called the secret prisons "clearly" illegal.

And now the CIA is mining the results of a Soviet-style domestic spy program that the NSA and White House went around all of our checks and balances to institute, that the president lied about to the American people, and his AG lied to Congress about, in order to ferret out, not the leakers in the WH... you know, the other leakers, the enemies of the WH, I'm fairly certain the thinking goes.

And USA today wasn't "speculating" with regards to why the NSA didn't go to FISA court with Quest. They were "reporting" what Quest lawyers were told by the NSA; that the agency would not go to court because they feared their data mining program would be found illegal.

History will not be kind to this administration and to the gang that enabled it.

ABC's Brian Ross today reports that:

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly  seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

*snip*

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).

So what exactly are National Security Letters? This 2005 article, "The FBI's Secret Scrutiny"r by Barton Gellman in the WaPo explains:

"National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks -- and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined.

National security letters offer a case study of the impact of the Patriot Act outside the spotlight of political debate. Drafted in haste after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law's 132 pages wrought scores of changes in the landscape of intelligence and law enforcement. Many received far more attention than the amendments to a seemingly pedestrian power to review "transactional records." But few if any other provisions touch as many ordinary Americans without their knowledge.

Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau's new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. Criticized for failure to detect the Sept. 11 plot, the bureau now casts a much wider net, using national security letters to generate leads as well as to pursue them. Casual or unwitting contact with a suspect -- a single telephone call, for example -- may attract the attention of investigators and subject a person to scrutiny about which he never learns.

A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

As it wrote the Patriot Act four years ago, Congress bought time and leverage for oversight by placing an expiration date on 16 provisions. The changes involving national security letters were not among them. In fact, as the Dec. 31 deadline approaches and Congress prepares to renew or make permanent the expiring provisions, House and Senate conferees are poised again to amplify the FBI's power to compel the secret surrender of private records.

The House and Senate have voted to make noncompliance with a national security letter a criminal offense. The House would also impose a prison term for breach of secrecy."

And we let 'em do it...

So Specter "mollifies" conservative opposition to his bill determining the legality of the NSA's surveillance program by agreeing to drop the requirement that the Bush administration seek a legal judgment on it from the FISA court.

What a crew. Comrade Frist.

But get this. They had been expected to mark up Specter's piece of crap bill this week but instead, the committee will work on legislation on same-sex marriage!

The delay means further examination of the bill... and pffffft!

The irony is PERFECT!