Article

2006-05-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

NSA Runs Pen Register on Tens of Millions of Domestic Calls, Wants 100%

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 10:03|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 For the amount of money the NSA burns per FY, they had darned well better be listening for the enemy.

As for the ACLU and related traitors, if you are not doing anything wrong and don't assist the terrorists, you have nothing to worry about... commrade.

Kinda sux when you're not the one running the state, isn't it?

Posted by N guard 2006-05-11 12:57|| 2006-05-11 12:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, this is a VOLUNTARY program - the phone companies can so NO, just as Qwest did.

The NSA is not demanding anything - it simply asked for call records so that it coudl do traffic analysis and discover any nexus/networks that may be developing terror threats based on communications with known terrorist numbers.

And the "Record" are simply what number called what other number, and when.

As far as "easily cross checked" - pull another statement out of your ass. There are physical and logical limitations on doing such runs at such a scale, not to mentionthe Title 18 and other limitations on obtaining such data, for the NSA.

As for Pen Registers, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979). Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company. Ths Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection.

The only protection could be statutory. Which is is: he Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Title III addresses pen registers. It places limitations only on law enforcement - and even then, its the least onerous restrictions: they can get a warrant for this - the requester only need say that it is of interest in an investigation to get the court order. Also, the law as written says there is no "privacy interest" with this sort of data since it is already in the hands of the phone company and the sending and receiveing parties, and is carried over a public network.

Again, there is no constitutional protection for information divulged to a third party under the Supreme Courts expectation of privacy test, and the routing information for phone and internet communications are divulged to the company providing the communication, the absence or inapplicability of the statute would leave the routing information for those communications completely unprotected from government surveillance.

(thanks to Wikipedia and other online sources for the legal stuff).

IMHO this is just a leak times to smear Hayden.

Someone at CIA (assuming thats the leak - hayden must have them scared shitless) should have their ass handed to them - and the USA today should be subpeonaed immediately for prosecution of criminal violation of laws I have cited here previously.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 13:05|| 2006-05-11 13:05|| Front Page Top

#3 What bothers me is that the Dems helped build this thing when they were in power, and _now_ they're sitting around, pretending it started on Sept. 12, (or Jan 2001) and that they're really a bunch of brave civil libertarians.

And one of their big experts in this is the guy who wanted to classify all cryptological research when he ran the NSA back in the 70's.

Posted by Phil 2006-05-11 13:05|| 2006-05-11 13:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Imagine, if you will, a shadowy sinister organization that keeps track of every phone call you make - who you called, how long you talked. Imagine further that they use this information to extort money form you every month to support their ongoing enterprise.

Pretty damn scary, right? Well, it is going on now, even as you read this! The evil organisation is your phone company. The incriminating records are call detail records used for billing.

The use of 'pen register' in the topic here is misleading since it implies a tap on 'tens of millions' of phones. What the NSA is interested in is using the phone companies' call detail records for social network analysis.

Can this information be abused to stifle political dissent? Sure. But it is also a useful tool to chase down bad guys determined to do us harm. Believe it or not, such people do exist.

Posted by SteveS 2006-05-11 13:08|| 2006-05-11 13:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Holy cow Spookster, do you do grandchild support, wills and powers of attorney?

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-11 13:10|| 2006-05-11 13:10|| Front Page Top

#6 To sum it up for morons and liberals (but I repeat myself)..

The Info the NSA got was that at 12:34 PM on 6 May 2006, phone number 888-555-1212 called phone number 888-555-2121 and talked for 6 minutes.

It is against the law for them to know who has those numbers, the location of those numbers, if they were land line or cell phone, if they were data or fax or voice, etc.

And thats whay all the NSA asked for and got was stripped down CDRs. To get anything more on US calls, they have to hand it over ot the proper agency (FBI, DEA), who will then have to establish probably cause, go to a judge and get a wiretap warrant.

The legal protections are still there. Your rights are still protected, and there is nothing the NSA can or will do to personally identify you unless one end of your call is overseas.

Hell, caller ID tells people you call more about you than the NSA got with this data.

Stop with the hysteria already.

The press is so full of shit and half-trughts that its obvious this was planted and slanted to damage Hayden and the President.

I want the sumbitches who leaked this at CIA shot. Out front of the building in Langley where all can see what happens to traitors who value their politics above their nation's security. Put their heads on f*cking pikes.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 13:23|| 2006-05-11 13:23|| Front Page Top

#7 Oldspook, what do you mean, "leak?"

I thought anyone who was paying attention would have already known that this stuff has been going on for the last thirty years or so.

(Which is why the tone of the discussion is kinda bothersome to me. I keep wanting to tell these people to take their winnings, shove them up their behinds, and DON'T COME BACK TO THE CAFE' AMERICAIN EVER AGAIN! Shocked MY ASS.)

Posted by Phil 2006-05-11 13:38|| 2006-05-11 13:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Note that the USA Today article makes a specific point to tell its allies (the terrorists) which telco to use by naming QWest as the only one not giving this info to the NSA.....

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-05-11 13:40|| 2006-05-11 13:40|| Front Page Top

#9 Hell, if the NSA wants to know how many times I called my wife on my cellphone, they can have it.

Seriously, another blogger pointed out on The Strata-Sphere
...here is why this reporting is dangerous. Of course the leftwing nuts want to point out the brave groups speaking to power, so they alert the terrorists to shift all their communications over to Qwest because Qwest is not partnering with the NSA to help find potential 9-11 terrorists here in the country:

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwests refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest.

USA Today just tipped off the terrorist how to avoid detection and put the people in Qwests areas in danger because now it is known those areas have the least protection and should be targeted! What are these people THINKING! Someone needs to go to jail.

It is gonna take many more american civilian deaths to wake these morons up.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-11 13:43|| 2006-05-11 13:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Or have they? Maybe the NSA and Qwest is just setting up a honey trap. All the really good NSA gear being located in Colorado.

Posted by ed 2006-05-11 13:53|| 2006-05-11 13:53|| Front Page Top

#11 SteveS: The use of 'pen register' in the topic here is misleading since it implies a tap

A pen register is not a tap. In the old days, a device was attached to a phone line which would record the dialing pulses on paper tape. What the NSA is collecting is exactly what is collected by a pen register.

The ECPA was codified in 18 U.S.C. 206. The definition in Section 3127 states, "such information shall not include the contents of any communication".

Applying pen registers without a court order is illegal. From Section 3121, "Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)".

The article states that no warrants were issued for this program. Further, it says that Qwest strongly resisted the NSA arm twisting, and the NSA was unwilling to go to the FISA or even the Attorney General to enforce it. In fact, the NSA dropped their request.

Gen. Hayden was head of the NSA when this program was established. It's his responsibility. If the leak is accurate, the issue appears to have a lot more traction than the (legal) offshore comms monitoring issue. I hope the Administration hasn't been blindsided and is prepared to address this.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 13:55|| 2006-05-11 13:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Here's the Wikipedia entry on CALEA. It was passed by Congress in 1994, back when the Democrats controlled it.

You can also check their entry on Echelon to find LOTS of information and links about pre-9/11 mass wiretapping. Including a link to Executive Order 12139, signed in May 1979, during the dark days of uber-right-wing neocon theocrat fascist James Earl Carter.

Posted by Phil 2006-05-11 13:56|| 2006-05-11 13:56|| Front Page Top

#13 The ECPA was codified in 18 U.S.C. 206. The definition in Section 3127 states, "such information shall not include the contents of any communication".

Phone numbers are not content; they're envelope.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-05-11 14:16|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-05-11 14:16|| Front Page Top

#14 KBK you omit that the protections of a court order apply only to a demand for data by LAW ENFORCEMENT. And even then the protection is lowest, given that the courts have already established that this data has no constitutional protection, nor any reasonable expectation of privacy, and the burden is the lowest one there for law enforncement, with even a "SHALL ISSUE" clause.

Furthermore, this is not law enforcement, this is NSA action under a different title, and a different EO. And the NSA didnt demand it with legal repercussions like law enforcement - they REQUESTED it. A far different circumstance. The companies could have said NO just as Qwest did. If you are angry, go after the telcos, the volunteered the data. Call them evil when they are trying to help prevent another 9/11.

Another thing: the reference to a "pen register" as a technical term is only to enhance the drama and obfuscate the issue - it calls to mind a "tap" in the minds of non-techincal people, with all the connotations that carries. Any telecom pro knows this a CDR, not "pen register". Its data, not a device. If you want mention this device without sensationalism, then call it what it is: the CO swicth, like a big old AT&T ESS5 or Nortel DMS-100, not a "pen register". Same goes with the data - connection records, not complete Call records. This article and the hysterical reactions it generated formthe shrill leftists are due to the basically propagandistic use of loaded phrases and prejudicial language in an attempt to avoid revealing all the facts impartially.

The problem here is the intent of the press is to dramatize and publicise, not to tell the whole of the truth - and for obvious political reasons in terms of the timing of the confirmation of this completely legal program.

You cannot "unsay" a word - and the damage here was intentional and will be hard to get the WHOLE truth known now, in the proper neutral context becasue the poisoning of the well of public knowledge and prejudicing of the public discussion has already taken place by the slanted article and its writer and obviously politically motivated instigator.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 14:20|| 2006-05-11 14:20|| Front Page Top

#15 Phone numbers are not content; they're envelope.

Exactly.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 14:20|| 2006-05-11 14:20|| Front Page Top

#16 KBK: What the NSA is collecting is exactly what is collected by a pen register.

As you say, a pen register is a device connected to a specific phone. The data collected is the same, but there are no pen registers involved here. What we are talking about are existing phone company Call Detail Records.

There is NO sinister device connected to anyone's phone ( other than the telco switch ). To use the term 'pen register' is misleading and just adds to the hysteria.

Posted by SteveS 2006-05-11 14:21|| 2006-05-11 14:21|| Front Page Top

#17 Let me try again with another help for liberal (morons) on this:

Say YOU are the NSA and I'm the phone company. You say "Hey I want to know about a bunch of calls so we can see if there are patterns we can detect - maybe it will help us prevent the next 9-11 if we can find patterns". I say "OK but I can't reveal this data to law enforcment or other individuals without a court order, but if it will help prevent an attack, here you go - with the provision that there will be NO identifying data sent with it and access will be properly legally restricted."

Then I tell you that 703-555-4567 called 704-555-9876 on Sep 11, 2002 at 3:06, and they talked for 5 minutes.

As NSA:

Do you know who those numbers belong to?
Can you give me an exact location? (and remember area codes no longer apply with VOIP and cell phones basically anywhere)
Do you know who made the call?
Can you tell if it was fax, data or voice?
Can you take any actions at all against the person?

What privacy has been violated?

And before you speak, remember you are legally barred from looking up the caller ID data, consulting any database or resouce from the phone companies or civil areas or other domestic enforcement agencies.

The answers are obvious - No you do not know who the numbers belong to, do not know who made the call, do not know how they communicated, do not know where they are or what they talked about, and in fact, no privacy was violated - since to make that call they had to give that data to the phone companies involved in order to complete and route the call. And no you cannot tke any actions since you dont know hwo the number belongs to. The ONLY way you can do this is to hand over "probable cause" to the FBI based on data you legally have, and have them get a court order for the CDRs and such. The most you can do is tip the FIB and then they are legally bound by the Constitution for further action.

Again, what private info can YOU tell me with ONLY that data - where's the violation?

Morally, ethically and legally and constitutionally: THERE IS NONE.

Period.

End of Discussion.

End. Of. Story.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 14:38|| 2006-05-11 14:38|| Front Page Top

#18 SteveS: To use the term 'pen register' is misleading and just adds to the hysteria.

I used the term 'pen register' because that term is what connects the activity with the applicable law.

The definition is:

"the term pen register means a device or process which records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, provided, however, that such information shall not include the contents of any communication..."

So the term also includes any modern computerized process which produces the same result.

The intent of The Electronic Communications Privacy Act Title III appears to be to limit the collection of 'envelope' information. However, the definition of 'pen register' continues:

"...but such term does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider or any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business."

This is interesting, because these days there is no practical difference between the billing/cost accounting records and processes and a pen register. So maybe this provides the way around the EPCA Title III that the Administration is going to need during the upcoming confirmation hearing. The question becomes, what is the privacy status of the billing records? There's been a lot of discussion lately about selling cell billing records.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 14:45|| 2006-05-11 14:45|| Front Page Top

#19 Here is another way of explaining it:

What about the government collecting data on who sends mail to whom? All they have to do is scan the *addresses* in the From and To on the OUTSIDE of the letter, and the postmark date (remember they dont care about the name, the number, street city state and zip are what matters).

Is that wrong? Are you shocked they do this millions of times each day?

It happens every day - the USPS needs that data to deliver the mail, and you voluntarily provide it in a public place: the outside of the envelope. And they use automated equipment to do it. And this gives a hard and solid location, and usually a name as well - something a phone number does not.

Your phone company knows this kind of info, and any customer care rep or technicial can access this. As a matter of fact, they run analysis on YOUR call records in order to market services to you based on who where when and how long you call people. They even sell your number and aggregate analysis in call lists used by telemarketers.

So ask yourself, do you trust Qwest with yoru privacy more than you do an agency charged with your protection from 9/11 type attacks?

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 14:46|| 2006-05-11 14:46|| Front Page Top

#20 Get more paranoid, OS. Everybody associated with intelligence, telecommunications or oversight knows what is going on and how it is done. So why is this coming out now? When Hayden is going to CIA? Either Hayden didn't do such a good job at NSA, Goss didn't finish at CIA, or the leak is legislative.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-11 14:46|| 2006-05-11 14:46|| Front Page Top

#21 Problems with wireless phones and privacy is that they are BROADCAST on publicly licensed spectrum. Used to be 9and still is) that you can pick off conversations with HAM equipment if its tuned right. Same goes for those cordless house phones just about everyone uses.

No expectation of privacy, and no protection for it. You give up that privacy when you get theat convenience. Like taking off the Burka - everyone knows who you are but you're not suffocating under all that masking.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 14:58|| 2006-05-11 14:58|| Front Page Top

#22 And before anyone throws this one out here's Franklins CORRECT quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Remember that!

Essential liberty is nto at issue: the privacy of CDRs is *not* essential to liberyt according to the Supreme court, and consider that you give them away every time you allow your caller ID to work. You give this data up as a convenience to make phone calls.

And its neither LITTLE nor TEMPORARY safety we are purchasing with this info. Preventing another 9/11 is hardly LITTLE, and reducing/degrading/eliminating terrorists' ability to operate freely within the US is hardly temporary saftey - it is permanent part of our existence from now on, 9/11 changed the nature of that threat forever.

Such cost of not purchasing such safety prior to 9/11 was large (destruction) and permanent (death) to those who paid the consequences that day in NY, the pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 15:04|| 2006-05-11 15:04|| Front Page Top

#23 OldSpook:

It took me about five seconds to google my phone number, which produced my name, address, a map, and a satellite image of my house.

Agreed, VOIP is an issue for the NSA, and that is why there has been recent legislation requiring ISPs to provide the technical means to institute taps and monitoring (CALEA, as Phil mentioned).

As far as the USPS goes, sure, the information is developed when the envelopes are scanned, but is it retained (and for how long)? I'm pretty sure there are serious laws regarding the divulging of postal information without a court order.

No, I don't like to have all my personal information in the hands of the credit card companies, etc. with computers building the associations.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 15:21|| 2006-05-11 15:21|| Front Page Top

#24 Actually if its based on the envelope, there are few if any restrictions on mailing, as long as you dont open (tamper with) the envelope. No reasonable expectation of privacy there at all, no more than your voter registration records 9which you give up privacy of your name and address for in exchange to be able to vote).

And the USPS does retain records - although I think its more in aggregate to project demand and set proper shipping capacity.

FYI: Lichtbau and Risen released this info back in december.

So its pretty obvious that the timing and manner of presentation of this story ("Big Brother" used quite often on TV with the mock "Cocnerned Newperson Look", and the prejudicial and half-truth nature of the article as written) seems to obviously be purely politically driven, as if to smear Bush and prevent Hayden from being confirmed.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 15:31|| 2006-05-11 15:31|| Front Page Top

#25 It does look to be perfectly timed.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 15:33|| 2006-05-11 15:33|| Front Page Top

#26 OldSpook:

BTW, ham radios and scanners are 'cellular blocked'. Maybe 1% of today's hams could figure out how to remove the block. My GSM cell is lightly encrypted, and that takes care of the rest. None of the neighborhood snoops are likely to have interception ability, it costs several thou.

But I do have a hardwired landline that I use for banking and credit card access etc. I wouldn't think of touchtoning my cc numbers or partial ss numbers, much less announcing them over a radio.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 15:38|| 2006-05-11 15:38|| Front Page Top

#27 From what I can figure given my experiences, someone with an agenda found a ignorant gullible headline grubbing "journalist" (possibly with an anti-administration bias) and an ignorant/similar editor at USA today - and played them like a fiddle to drive this story (thats already been covered in the NYT 6 months ago) back onto the front page.

Put vanity, greed and prejudicial bias in a bowl, and mix with ignorance, and its doesn't take much "fruit-punch for the ego" to push that sort of person exactly where you want them to be - and do what you want, pretty much when you want.

And if the reporter or editor had BDS, its even easier: People driven by hatred are especially susceptible since hatred is self-blinding more than any other emotion.

I wonder what the politics of the USA Today writer and editor are? Anyone want to take bets?

I digress:

Regarding hate, look no further than Kos kids and their BDS (Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton) or Fundy Islamist Splodeydopes, or even Fundy Pseudo-Christians like Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and his sheep for examples of what rage and mindless fury can do in terms of manipulation.

Love and compassion cause you to see but look past transgressions and opposition, while hate and rage drive you to completely deny and destroy anything that runs counter to your hate.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 15:49|| 2006-05-11 15:49|| Front Page Top

#28 Well I'm old school (go figure heh) - any self respecting general HAM should be able to build an antenna and reciever based on the circuits and chips that are out there. I hand built (once I got certified) several custom receivers. Then again not everyone is a geek-at-heart like I am.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 16:25|| 2006-05-11 16:25|| Front Page Top

#29 Lots of old memes are being floated lately... a return to Abu Ghraib, campaign issues from the summer of '04, the return of the son of NSA wiretaps, etc. etc.

I think the public (and the blogs) are being used as a focus group to see which issues will stick this summer as we head into Campaign '06.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-05-11 16:32|| 2006-05-11 16:32|| Front Page Top

#30 I wonder what the politics of the USA Today writer and editor are?

Check this for more. As for our reporter, she made the morning shows, at least GMA:

Sawyer then interviewed Leslie Cauley, the USA Today reporter, with a "Big Brother: Why is NSA Tracking Your Calls?" headline on screen for much of the interview: We want to turn now to the reporter who broke this story in USA Today. She is Leslie Cauley and joining us this morning from Washington. Good to have you with us, Leslie. Let me get this straight. What are the odds that every person watching this show this morning has had the records of their phone calls turned over to the government?

It's a very good bet, Cauley replied. The short answer is the chances are that your cell phone calls as well as your home phone calls have been tracked."

"Cell phones, too! Sawyer exclaimed. Later, after Cauley pointed out that personal data such as names and address are not collected, Sawyer asked: Question about legalities there. Any chance that this information could be passed on to other government agencies, the FBI, CIA?"

Cauley asserted: "A high likelihood that in fact is what's going on right now."

Sawyer: "Well, as we said a seismic story this morning and thanks for joining us, Leslie. And it's certainly going to be part of the hearings when the new nominee for the head of the CIA appears because he's also the head of the NSA right now."

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-11 16:33|| 2006-05-11 16:33|| Front Page Top

#31 Like anything else, I have nothing to hide and am therefore not threatened.

As for al Qaeda, find em and kill em all.

Posted by Captain America 2006-05-11 17:35|| 2006-05-11 17:35|| Front Page Top

#32 OldSpook:

The article Lichtblau and Risen released last December was qualitatively different. It concerned tapping communications of a small number of people who were making international calls and who were suspected of terrorist conncections. I think that was legal.

This program appears to be about monitoring the 'envelopes' of a very large number of calls, both ends of which are in the USA, and where there is no anticipation of wrongdoing. Expect a major uproar.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 18:20|| 2006-05-11 18:20|| Front Page Top

#33 What this program does (or at least can do) is create on a mega-scale a network map - something that would look like an airline route map, but with phone numbers instead of cities. You can find similar maps of server traffic. Its value is that when a 'suspect' phone number is identified one can immediately see the network of the numbers that connected with it. Let's say one of those numbers 'downstream' on that network also shows connections to another suspect number; that might constitute enough probable cause to obtain a warrant to tap a phone, or at least to identify the phone number owner for further investigation. At least it would if I was the judge. Automated, the system can do this analysis to billions of connections a day, world-wide, and identify patterns and connections worth closer investigation. It is probably the most powerful tool available to find a needle in a haystack, and does so with virtually no threat to innocent citizens. Assuming it is used in accordance with the law, opposition to it is the height of stupidity and/or political hypocracy.

The bad guys are now (actually, it came out first many months ago) on notice that the program exists, so they will certainly redirect their communication to less efficient paths. This makes it harder to catch them but it also makes it harder for them to operate. The ultimate downside will come when they actually believe the program has been stopped IF it actually IS stopped. Wheels within wheels.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-05-11 18:56|| 2006-05-11 18:56|| Front Page Top

#34 KBK you are wrong.

Licthbau and Risen mentioned this data.

"Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation."

Reference December NYT story on Christmas Eve Link

And this from the NYT today:

The New York Times reported last December that the agency had gathered data from phone and e-mail traffic with the cooperation of several major telecommunications companies.

So nope, your assertion is flat wrong - this is looking more and more like a political hatchet job aimed at Hayden and trying to get Bush as collateral damage, aided and abetted by the complicit fools in the MSM, especially the DNC's broadcast arms (CBS, NBC, ABC) who are lying by omission, and distorting & sensationalizing the hell out of this.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 19:25|| 2006-05-11 19:25|| Front Page Top

#35 Tony Snow response in 5....4...3...

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-11 19:31|| 2006-05-11 19:31|| Front Page Top

#36 One thing to remember - that it would involve some SERIOUS lawbreaking by the NSA and NSA personnel to abuse this data in any way. Ask anyone who works there how protected "US Persons" are, and how seriously such subjects are treated. I know for a fact that its a career *ending* move if you scrap over the line in that area - and it always has been since the late 70's. The protocols and checks on gathering and retention of such data are extensive, punishments severe and swift.

Also read Sen Feinstiens comments today - she was obviously briefed on this program quite a while back and seems unconcerned (at least for now). The Senate Intelligence Committee (and probably the House as well) were thoroughly briefed on the NSA pattern-analysis program, just as they were on the NSA al-Qaeda intercept program that actually listened in on calls between known overseas terrorist numbers and domestic callers who were talking with them.

The Media is doing the liberals job by rushing to smear without forehought other than "getting" the administraiton and makeing a splash.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 19:37|| 2006-05-11 19:37|| Front Page Top

#37 Put yourself in NSA's shoes for a moment.

You are in charge of gathering information to prevent catastrophic loss of life. Your enemies are operating within the borders of your own country. You are a GS-13 NSA analyst that probably graduated at the top of your class and could easily walk into a corporate job that would pay 3 times your current salary. Why do you think that analyst is there? To catch you talking to your pot dealer over the phone? To support the agenda of a narrow minded politician? To take away your civil liberties or freedom of speech? I don't think so. How about to make a positive impact on the world by gathering and protecting information to prevent terrorists from carrying out acts of violence and to stop hostile countries from threatening the security of the United States and its allies. Because that is what the NSA does! I agree that the government should not have unrestricted unilateral power to surveil American citizens, or anyone for that matter. However, a tool like the database being discussed would be extremely valuable to the intelligence community in order for it to be able to respond quickly to an imminent threat. With appropriate oversight, such a system may prevent and probably already has helped prevent domestic acts of terrorism. Remember our elected officials still call the shots and make the rules. If politicians misuse the database then we as a society have a mechanism to remove them from office. It's called free elections. Everyone complaining about the NSA database voted in the last election right? Before you criticise the actions of our government, and I do feel that the current administration deserves criticism, remember that it is your government and you have the power to change it by speaking out and being politically active. Make your feelings known by writing to your congressmen and senators, and vote!!

(sent to me in email)

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 19:39|| 2006-05-11 19:39|| Front Page Top

#38 NSA and Data Banks

To find unknown terrorist cells and networks hidden throughout the billions of people around the world, and here in the United States, you must rely on data "sifting", eg. Data analysis.

The NSA *are* Data banks.

with out Data Banks the NSA would be like...

Butchers without meat

Grocery stores without groceries

Gas stations without gasoline

DhimmCraps without TREASON

Posted by RD 2006-05-11 20:12|| 2006-05-11 20:12|| Front Page Top

#39 OldSpook: KBK you are wrong.

Well, I hope you are right, but I'm not so sure. The article you referenced appears to be concerned with international calls, i.e. one end terminating in the USA. This program appears to cover domestic calls (envelope only) with both ends in the USA:

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

I've read 1984: I'm against the program.

I understand the goals and methods of the Isamists: I'm for the program.

President Bush has the hardest job in the world. The MSM has the easiest.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 20:14|| 2006-05-11 20:14|| Front Page Top

#40 "I've read 1984: I'm against the program.

I understand the goals and methods of the Isamists: I'm for the program."

Heh. Were you against the program before you were for it or for it before you were against it? Both? All of the above? I'm starting to think that one or more of those Ks stands for Kerry.

Posted by SteveS 2006-05-11 20:58|| 2006-05-11 20:58|| Front Page Top

#41 SteveS: one or more of those Ks stands for Kerry.

LOL. The problem is these things are like ratchets. You can put the program in place, but it's very hard to eliminate it later. Now all you have to do is wait for an abusive administration to come along (and it will eventually).

So my preference is to keep surveillance to a minimum, and to have proper checks and balances (which don't appear to exist in this case).

If we must have these programs, then have proper sunset provisions so they will be discontinued once the threat passes.

Right now, we need this program. But I have no confidence that Congress has the ability to monitor the situation or even understand it. But you can count on them to demagogue it.

Posted by KBK 2006-05-11 21:17|| 2006-05-11 21:17|| Front Page Top

#42 Is this the source of the other story that was up here a while ago regarding the NSA / FEDs tapping into the raw optical streams on some (many?) of ATT main switching centers?

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-05-11 21:19|| 2006-05-11 21:19|| Front Page Top

#43 The NSA is probably doing less infringment into my privacy than the markiting companies that buy my credit card info, work my spending habits and monitary worth, then target me with advertisings.

I am certain the NSA and the GS 13s there have better things to do than listen to me and my wife ~~fight~~ say loving things to each other over the phone. Some folks who have a sence of over self importance and paranoia really need to get a life out there. Where I see this interesting is when the other intel is linked with the proper analysis it could help in getting warrants and running the trap on ashhats that we need to capture before they kill Americans.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-05-11 21:44|| 2006-05-11 21:44|| Front Page Top

#44 No content means no content. Just the 2 numbers and the length.

If, under the other NSA program, someone from Karachi calls someone in Virginia and a keyword is detected, then they take that US number and look for it in other foreign intercepts, in known terr DBs, and in this DB. They want to know who this local (now) suspect is talking to. If they find hits of local numbers that also received foreign calls where keywords were recognized, or were known terr numbers, then they are really onto something. A cell. That's the point. Period.

The courts have already ruled on this particular data - more than once. It is not an invasion of privacy. America wants to be safe, first and foremost. To the black helicopter crowd: stop parading your looney fears and focus on the facts. This is smart stuff and only demagogues and loonies could possibly be worried. So take another swig of Pepto, your conspiracy fantasies do not take precedence over America's safety.

Mine this data for all it's worth, please.

Posted by Thrang Glomolet7219 2006-05-11 21:58|| 2006-05-11 21:58|| Front Page Top

#45 I beleive that this program is justifiable and needed. And that it must have sufficent oversight - and that it is getting that oversight as part of the laws and restrictions on NSA's ability to intercept and act on communications of US Persons.

Remember this is not the communications, but the external data about the communications - terminal IDs, start and end times, stuff that your phone company keeps, uses and sells to marketing companies.

I have worked in the IC (hence my moniker)and the respect for the legal and Constitutional protections of US Persons is utmost on behalf of the professionals in the IC.

The thing is, until that terminal ID is mated up with name/address, and singled out for attention by the proper legal DOMESTIC agency, its not considered a "US person". Remember this is all computer analysis - the volume of data alone prcludes any individual attention.

Its merely a nexus in a mapping of vectors based on terminal ID number and time.

And its set up in such a way that its quickly searchable for identifiable patterns - because the Telcos cannot do this themselves - they dont have the computers for it, nor is there any rela business need for that fast of a capability. But if you have a terrorist cell being activated, and you need to see if there is a call pattern and a number involved in it, then speed is of the essence. That is probably the reason they want this database.

Now the agency may have its overseas numbers checked against this matrix via a blind system - meaning there is a two-key + two person lock that needs to be passed, and nobody on the sending or reciveing end knows whats being queried. This limits "jsut digging" and insures that the law and rules are followed. They check a number against this nexus to see if they are in a "pattern of interest" region of the call databases time-space mapping. If so, it will be sent to the FBI or DHS as a Tip that this number and its call patterns may be of interest. But it will be done only under those circumstances (somethign triggers a number as "interesting") - and the recieving agency will, BY LAW, have to get a court order to get the Call Detail Records and set up surveillance.

I.e. the NSA data probably cannot be transferred or used by the FBI until they have a court order, and probably not even then - the FBI will have to go get the CDRs directly from the phone companies with their specific court orders.

To do it any other way would not produce legally actionable intelligence, and thus be a waste of very limited resources both at NSA and at FBI/DEA/DHS.

To put it another way:

Unless this data is used only as a "something interesting might be happening here" tip to the FBI, its not usable because the NSA has no way to operate inside the US against US Persons.

And unless the FBI jumps through the hoops and gets the court orders it needs (which for CDRs are pretty trivial), they cannot jump in and arrest the supposed terrorists.

And if the FBI or NSA messes up any of this, they will be forced to let the terrorists go, causing a huge uproar - and compromising any other intelligence they could have gathered to unwind any terrorist cells found with this data.

People "in the business" know these limitiations and costs, we know why the rules are there, and we play by them. Its what we do - protect and defend the Constitution and the people whose rights it preserves.

Jack Bauer is just TV - nobody that breaks as many rules as him would survive long.

So don't read into the conspiracy nuts, nor those who woudl ahve you beleive in this malevolent government thats silencing critics. Leave that tin-foil-hat BS to the Kos kids - who, if there was this big conspiracy they thing of from their insane fantasy of Fascist Nazi Bushitler, would be disappearing rapidly.

In sum: give it a rest. This program is legal and very unlikely to be abused, and very likely to help prevent terrorist actions by speeding our ability to link bad guys via Call Detail Records, once we find the first part of the terrorist cell.

And yes I would trust it in the hands of Hillary Clinton or John McCain, neiother of whom I would trust as far as I coudl throw them. Why? Because of the laws and the kinds if people that actually run and oversee things like this program. I know them - and have trusted them with my life in the past, and would do so again.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-11 23:35|| 2006-05-11 23:35|| Front Page Top

#46 Thanks, OldSpook. That's more or less what I thought, but it helps to have the right words to argue with. :-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-11 23:57|| 2006-05-11 23:57|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:57 anymouse
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:50 DMFD
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:46 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 trailing wife
23:44 Oldspook
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:43 Barbara Skolaut
23:39 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 Oldspook
23:32 11A5S
23:31 the Twelfth Imami
23:27 3dc
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:24 bombay
23:18 3dc
23:15 SteveS
23:03 trailing wife
23:02 AzCat
22:56 Robert Crawford
22:55 Frank G