Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: Washington Post

An independent executive branch board has concluded that the National Security Agency’s long-running program to collect billions of Americans’ phone records is illegal and should end.

In a strongly worded report to be issued Thursday, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) said that the statute upon which the program was based, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, “does not provide an adequate basis to support this program.”
...
The divided panel also concluded that the program raises serious threats to civil liberties, has shown limited value in countering terrorism and is not sustainable from a policy perspective.

“We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html?tid=pm_pop

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Racist Ron Paul supporters.....

.....

[msanthrope]

4. They are, if they expect the President to do Congress's job. What you have here, though, is a

perfect way to make the Republicans put up or shut up--

Section 215 of the Patriot Act is a statute....and ONLY CONGRESS can change it. SCOTUS can modify or strike it, but since reauthorization is coming up in March, and there is no 215 litigation pending before the Court, this report should be the PERFECT opportunity for RAND PAUL, the Republicans, and the Democrats in CONGRESS to advocate for the change of 215.

Of course, 215 is Sensenbrenner's brainchild. Sensenbrenner has been lauded here on DU for his supposed anti-NSA stance. So now we will see if he puts his money where is mouth is....

CONGRESS has a chance to fix 215. Let's see if they do.

[eomer]

8. The report concludes essentially that Section 215 doesn't need fixing.

They conclude that Section 215 does not allow the wholesale collection.

So it actually is the President's job to direct the NSA to stop the wholesale collection in order to bring the Executive branch in compliance with existing law (as interpreted by this panel).

[2banon]

10. hmm. haven't read it yet. thanks for the heads up. n/t

[msanthrope]

12. Read more than the conclusion, and you will see that this poster is imprecise. nt

[msanthrope]

11. That's the problem when you read only the 'conclusion.' Specific statutory construction

is the only bulwark against another administration interpreting the powers of 215 too broadly. What the report indicates is that 215 is open to abuse...and regardless if I think President Obama is correct in his current interpretation of 215, the republicans have a chance to curb 215 in a manner that leaves little debate....

The problem with leaving data collection protocols under Executive actions, is, of course.....a change in the Executive.

[eomer]

23. It's basically impossible for legislation to be a bulwark against this type of abuse.

The statute language already is quite clear - the Executive Branch had to abandon "words have meaning" in order to interpret it the way they did. So no matter what words you write in the law an Executive Branch willing to go that far can still do anything they want.

So I see just two ways to remedy this: the Executive Branch can return to self-constraint from wildly unjustifiable interpretations or else the courts (probably ultimately the Supreme Court) can render an interpretation that the Executive Branch would have to comply with.

I don't know which of those would be more likely to solve this problem, either way there are pitfalls.

[msanthrope]

26. No--it's not. If you accept that the most powerful branch of the government, as defined

by our Constitution because they are the branch most easily held accountable to the people, cannot prevent abuses, cannot construct laws that prevent abuses, you have given the bastards an EXCUSE to not do their jobs.

Congress made the Patriot Act. MAKE THEM FIX IT.

[eomer]

30. The Executive Branch is ignoring the clear language that prohibits what they're doing.

That statute requires that records sought by the government ... be relevant to an authorized investigation.

The Executive Branch interprets that to mean that every single record that exists is relevant to an authorized investigation because "you need a haystack" in order to search for a needle. This level of intentional misconstruing of statutory language renders any and all laws meaningless, literally.

[msanthrope]

31. No--they are using the imprecise language of the statute! AND, Congress can still BAN

the collection outright, modifying 215.

So there are two Congressional options--modify 215 to exclude, or draft an outright ban.

[eomer]

84. There is no way that the language of 215 can reasonably be interpreted to justify what they're doing

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

This language clearly says that for a US person to be investigated there must be some basis of activities of that person ("shall ... not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States&quot . And it clearly states that a collection of tangible things can only be made as part of such an investigation.

The NSA's interpretation, as explained by hack James Clapper, is absurd and outrageous. Clearly the legislature intended for collection to be only as part of an actual investigation of a person for some purpose. A claim that the above wording justifies collecting data on every single person in the US just in case it is needed in an investigation is really beyond the pale. Are you really saying that or am I not understanding correctly?

While it's surely true that changes in some of the laws are needed, the entire body of our laws is a moot point unless and until we return our country to the rule of law. These outrageous interpretations - this one and to cite another example, John Yoo's absurd interpretation of the Geneva Conventions - are in fact a refusal on the part of the Executive Branch to submit itself to the rule of law. The President could make a tremendous step in the right direction by ordering some specific interpretation of this law that is reasonable and making it clear that he has done so in order to return us to the rule of law.

[Titonwan]

104. "The NSA's interpretation, as explained by hack James Clapper, is absurd and outrageous."

So True. StarFleet Commander Keith Alexander is in outer space too.
Great post, btw!

[2banon]

9. Thanks for the reminder wrt that asshat Sensenbrenner

But let's not forget DiFi's role in this. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that she personally cooked that up with him.. (what a team).. No, it's not just the R's but powerful people like Difi will have a very significant role wrt to any reform of 215.

I think it would be more accurate to say that she will make sure NO real or significant changes are made whatsoever. Oh she will do a bit of window dressing - but no more than a bit of lipstick on the pig that is the Patriot Act.

[msanthrope]

13. Well--- I think you and I are in agreement here....strict stautory construction of

215 would benefit everyone.

So when do we make Congress do their job????

[2banon]

17. I remember trying to make Congress do "their job" and vote the Patriot Act down.

Among several other evil congressional decisions.

So many on DU involved in that effort.

It was a real wake up call on just how corrupt and arrogant they are ignoring the will of the people. "Tone Deaf" would be a compliment.

Senator Russ Feingold was our "lone voice in the wilderness" on this front. He was courageous and the genuine article. <big sigh>

[msanthrope]

20. And now we have a chance to modify one of the more repugnant sections. 215 needs a hiding. nt

[2banon]

22. Give it the "ole college try"? Worth doing.

But make no mistake, Difi is our chief opponent on this front.

[JDPriestly]

114. The point of the OP is that the independent review group adjuged that the NSA activities

are illegal. The NSA's activities violate 215. So why would Congress need to change it?

The President needs to enforce the law and shut down NSA's illegal activities. Not all of the NSA's activities are illegal. The program needs far more reform than President Obama is proposing. What is more, if it hasn't help stop or catch terrorists, it is a waste of money. We should stop funding it.

[struggle4progress]

115. The Commission's conclusions are useful for political work but have no legal force

The wide construction of 215 dates back to a successful attempt by W's AG Gonzales to persuade FISC that 215 should be so construed. Since the current FISC arrangement is a construction involving all three federal branches, lack of administrative or congressional objection to the FISC construction of 215 will likely produce judicial reluctance to interfere

[Titonwan]

2. It's about time.

NSA Apologists Try to Smear Snowden as a “Russian Spy” … Exactly Like Authorities Tried to Smear Daniel Ellsberg, Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/nsa-apologists-try-smear-snowden-russian-spy-exactly-like-tried-smear-daniel-ellsberg-ben-franklin.html
As some one here said- 'same ole same ole'.

[msanthrope]

5. Well, we will see if Congress reauthorizes 215. Do you think Obama should veto it, if it passes? n

[Titonwan]

105. I guess it's what the NSA have on him.

Right now, judging from his appointments (to bankers, pharma lobbyists, Wall St., and the war industry)- he would veto changes.
Timmy Geitner, Larry Summers, John Brennan (ad nauseam) aren't exactly bragging property in regards to people you want advising you (unless yer a conservative). Or keeping most of the Republican appointments from the previous adminstration (Petraeus, Gates, et alia).
Tail wag dog.

[msanthrope]

3. Excellent--Congress should act, and soon! nt

[christx30]

14. Nothing is more permanent

than a government program. Especially one that gives this much power. There could be a program that cloned Papa doc Duvalier, and the administrator would fight tooth and nail to keep it going. It gives him too much power. Obama likes the the NSA.
This program isn't going anywhere.

[msanthrope]

16. Indeed, a government program established under the auspices of Article 1, Section 8

tends to be pretty inviolable. (Check that, and you'll get that civics inside joke.)

A statute authorizing Executive actions tends to be so, too. (Check Youngstown you'll understand.

The Executive is not the authorizing power here---CONGRESS is, and if you understood civics, you would understand that for all their grunting and groaning, they could take away the teeth of the NSA with a single vote....

[christx30]

69. But they never will.

I said Obama, but it's the whole power structure. They will never give up the unconstitutional powers they have taken.

[mindwalker_i]

15. I was about to say that "Congress" and "act" shouldn't be in the same sentence

But that wouldn't be true. They would definitely act if the issue were to cut money that helps people, give money to a well-connected corporation, or secure the freedoms of a company or lobbyist.

But for protecting the freedoms of Americans beyond the freedom to shop, it's not gonna happen.

[msanthrope]

18. They are too invested in blaming Obama, instead of doing their jobs. nt

[dickthegrouch]

7. Duh /nt

[Jesus Malverde]

19. Good, we need to dismantle the bush national security state...nt

[randome]

21. Can anyone think of an alternative to metadata storage?

It seems to me that having it readily accessible can be a good thing if the goal is to find other contacts of a terrorist. If there are no alternatives and the NSA stops storing the data, are we comfortable with saying "Oh, it's okay if a few co-conspirators get away, we can live with that."?

Regardless of whether the storage has been proven to be of help in the past, doesn't it make sense that it could be useful in the future?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

25. That would make sense if...

...the NSA wasn't storing a massive amount of data on Americans. ...Which data can be used at any future date to frame any American for any alleged crime.

Russia & China have been doing this for decades; and the "Patriot Act" is based largely on Russian law which gave the KGB carte blanche to be judge, jury & executioner in the former Soviet Union.

Does this answer your question?

[randome]

34. But they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans. Not that we know of.

They are forbidden from spying on Americans. When Americans are overseas, it's a dicey proposition when you're tracking a suspect and also inadvertently track an American they might cross paths with.

But where do you get the idea that the NSA is systematically spying on Americans?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Indi Guy]

42. I mean no disrespect when I ask - You really don't know?

I hope you follow up on these links so you can be knowledgable about the degree to which the agency has been surveilling us.

• Widespread, untargeted, domestic surveillance on millions of Americans -- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
  
  
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC) that directs Verizon to provide “on an ongoing daily basis” all call records for any call “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and any call made “between the United States and abroad.” -- http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
  
  
• The order does not require content or the name of any subscriber and is issued under 50 USC sec.1861, also known as section 215 of the Patriot Act. -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861
  
  
• USA Today published a story disclosing that the NSA had compiled a massive database of call records from American telecommunications companies. ...NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls -- http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?csp=1
  
  
• In May 2011, Senator Ron Wyden, one of the few courageous voices fighting against the government’s domestic surveillance program, said this in a debate about reauthorizing Section 215:
  "I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry."
  Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act -- https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act

Confirmed: The NSA is Spying on Millions of Americans

...and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm looking forward to your response.

[randome]

45. First 2 links are in regard to the metadata, just phrased differently.

Third is about the FBI.
Fourth is about the metadata.
Fifth is Senator Wyden's apprehensions.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

None of it shows the NSA is systematically spying on Americans. It is against the law for them to do so. I have no problem pulling them back, cutting their budget, etc. But exaggerations are likely to do the opposite, and prevent any pull-back from occurring.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. The OP points out that the NSA is storing massive amounts of data on Americans

That's been known since June.

But the board found that it is impossible that all the records collected — billions daily — could be relevant to a single investigation “without redefining that word in a manner that is circular, unlimited in scope.”

[randome]

46. They're still talking about the metadata, though.

My question is, is there an alternative to storing the metadata? If not, is it a good idea to have it available in case of an attack?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Then edit your post to remove "they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans"

Because we all know they are. If you claim your question is "is there an alternative to storing the metadata", then get rid of the falsehood that "they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans".

[randome]

51. "Massive amounts of data" implies 'data vacuuming' to me.

And that's not happening. Again, not that we know of.

I hardly consider the few hundred phone calls I've received or made in the past few years "massive amounts of data". But that's just me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Well, that 's your idiosyncratic interpretation; 'massive' does not imply 'vacuuming'

It's not just your metadata they're storing; it's the metadata for all Americans. You do get that, don't you? It's not 'just you'. Multiply you by 300 million and you get 'massive'.

[randome]

54. Is there an alternative? SHOULD there be an alternative?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. You still haven't edited your falsehood (nt)

[randome]

56. I honestly don't consider metadata phone records to be 'massive amounts of data'.

If you want to talk about 'massive amounts of data', let's talk about the IRS. Or your health records. Or the millions of social security applications made every year.

I worked for SSA at one time. I reviewed and copied marriage certificates, divorce certificates, medial records, birth certificates, tax returns. Now THAT is 'massive amounts of data'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. There's probably as much in one day's metadata as in all the certificates for a person

Say 10 calls; for each, who they were to, when they started, when they ended, who called whom, what cell you and they were in, if not a landline. And they do that every day. Far more than what you get from someone's birth, marriage and divorce records.

If the government is searching people's medical records for patterns, that too would be a scandal. But, again, medical records accumulate slowly. Most days, nothing at all is added to them. 10 year's of phone metadata will be far larger. A year's phone metadata will be far larger than someone's tax return, too - that's probably less than 100 numbers and a few names, typically. That would be a few days' metadata.

[randome]

59. Okay, but there is no evidence that this data is being searched...

...other than through the 4 levels of approval and when a legally justifiable reason exists. Of course the data COULD be abused. So could the SSA's data. And the IRS's. Why are people so upset that the NSA keeps a much smaller set of data on-hand?

Why would we completely ignore the fact that both SSA and IRS have much more data on all of us?

My guess is that people are searching for heroes in this 'going nowhere' economy and when Snowden popped up, he was something a lot of people could latch onto. If so, I can understand that. But it seems to me that the bulk of our energy should be spent on ridding ourselves of GOP control of the House. November 4th of this year is much more important than slapping the wrist of the NSA for something they might someday do.

And I disagree that the metadata equals what SSA or the IRS has on file. I've handled claims for disability benefits. Those folders have massive documentation. I've handled tricky income tax questions. More massive files. Of course this was in the day before PCs took over. The data is the same, just a different format.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I believe I've just shown the metadata is far larger than SSA or IRS data

You said 'Okay,...' - as if you accepted that argument - and then you've stated, without trying to explain why, that you still believe there's much more data in a tax return than a years' phone metadata.

Please try to explain why you believe this. It makes me think you don't understand the situation.

[randome]

62. My 'okay' was impetuous. (I'M MULTI-TASKING HERE!) I disagree with you about the metadata.

The information SSA has is immense. Everyone's lifetime earnings information. Birth, death, marriage, divorce, medical records. Determinations as to paternity, financial solidarity, etc., etc., etc.

Can't someone answer these two questions?

Is there an alternative to metadata storage? SHOULD there be an alternative?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. One birth. No death (for anyone living). An average of 2 marriage/divorces combined.

An average of less than 2 employment start/end dates, and earnings, per year. A few records, per year, of bank and savings accounts, mortgages, charity donations. Medical records that typically don't change in a whole year, apart from perhaps "checkup - everything as before). Compare that to 10 calls every day (and that's a low estimate - this is both incoming and outgoing calls, work as well as personal). The phone metadata will be far larger by the end of the year.

[randome]

67. SSA is about so much more than retirement or disability.

Survivor's benefits. Widow/widower benefits. Proof of paternity needs to be established. If a parent does not survive, a payee must be established. If a 'child' continues going to school, proof of that needs to be established. Medical records sometimes go back many years to prove someone's disability.

Your lifetime FICA earnings are recorded and stored. SS is an insurance program, you know, so all that needs to be evaluated to see if you've paid in enough. And if you receive a pension or disability from some other organization? That always complicates things.

Believe me, it's a lot of data.

Self employment? Another doozy! Someone continuing to work after retirement? More complications! And more documentation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. Again, that accumulates yearly, not daily

There are 365 days in a year. That's why the phone data is a lot larger. You only have 2 parents, so recording them doesn't take up much room. You make thousands of phone calls a year.

[Titonwan]

106. Thanks for the posts

and your patience.
Meta data is far more dangerous than even reading or listening in. Patterns can be made and when you have a backlog of files (dossiers) on someone- you have extreme temptation to abuse it for all sorts of reasons (blackmail, intimidation, political or corporate advantage, etc.). They need to stop collecting meta data and storing it for years on end. Rounding up Jews wasn't hard- the Gestapo knew exactly where everyone lived (and whether they were Jewish or not). Why, dossiers.
Again, some get it. Thanks.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

27. Lots of things could be useful......

.....

[randome]

35. Of course.

I could see the law/rule/regulation/whatever changed so that only the metadata could be collected in this manner. Or stop all of it. But it makes sense to me, from a law enforcement standpoint, to allow the metadata storage as a 'disaster mechanism', to be used only in the event of an emergency.

Which is how it's structured now. Even Snowden couldn't get his hands on the metadata. The NSA requires 4 levels of approval before it can even be viewed. That seems pretty safe to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[ForgoTheConsequence]

36. Seems pretty safe......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/2011-ruling-found-an-nsa-program-unconstitutional.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/31/nsa-powers-have-been-abused


For years, as new data came into the NSA's database containing virtually every phone call record in the United States, analysts would search over 17,000 phone numbers in it every day. It turns out only about 1,800 of those numbers – 11% – met the legal requirement that the NSA have "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the number was involved in terrorism.

[randome]

37. And it was the government that brought the situation to the attention of the judge.

The collection is part of a broader program under a 2008 law that allows warrantless surveillance on domestic networks as long as it is targeted at noncitizens abroad. The purely domestic messages collected in the hunt for discussions about targeted foreigners represent a relatively small percentage of what the ruling said were 250 million communications intercepted each year in that broader program.

And the problems have -supposedly, of course- been fixed.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to understand how conflated digital data is these days. It's harder to separate data than it is to simply collect it. I'm not so much trying to 'defend' the NSA as point out that every large organization that deals with immense amounts of data has similar problems.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

39. oh lordy lordy......

So the quality of life for 99 percent of Americans slips and slips and slips while more and more trillions are transferred to the pockets of the MIC contractors....and you somehow think this is a good investment?

How many trillions can we afford to spend to protect the infinitesimally small number who might be harmed by terrorists? (And that's assuming the MIC can actually prevent those attacks through intel, which has not been demonstrated.)

Life is valuable, yes. But more lives are ruined by this draining of the Treasury than by terrorist attacks. D'oh.

[randome]

41. I doubt it costs much of anything to transfer data from the telecoms to the NSA.

That's not a defense of the NSA, just a fact of life. I agree, we spend too damned much on military and surveillance. Cut it back. My question was whether or not metadata storage can actually be useful. It makes sense to me that we would want it to be available if another disaster occurs.

Since public perception trends against keeping it, I'm guessing there is a reason they still want it available. 4 levels of approval makes blackmail an extremely remote possibility.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

48. have you ever considered the possibility that some day dissent could be criminalized?

And that in the bulk data a case could be made against anyone?

You apparently trust big brother much more than most of the public does.

[randome]

52. Of course that's possible. It's always possible.

But we always walk a fine line between giving powers to law enforcement and preserving our freedom. That will always be the case.

The FBI has the 'power' to arrest us all right now. So do all the other alphabet agencies. Phone metadata that is well-guarded? Not much of a concern to me.

If dissent is criminalized one day, the IRS would be one of the first places a tyrant would turn. You know what prevents that from happening now? The laws, rules and regulations we make to prevent it. In other words, our much-maligned bureaucracy.

Actually, nothing 'prevents' abuses from occurring. But the bureaucracy makes it easier for some of us to sleep at night.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

74. a tyrant would turn first to the IRS...

...as a means of quashing dissent?

Hoo boy. Back to the history books for you!!

Seriously, that is dangerously naive. I know the RWNJ have that specific fear. It's very strange to see it here on DU.

You need to change your sig line: "Bureaucracy makes it easier for some of us to sleep at night."

Fortunately, your ilk is shrinking. I hope it's not too late to shake the complacent.

[randome]

77. IRS and SSA have much more personal data about individual Ameicans.

The NSA has phone metadata records. Of course the metadata COULD be abused. And in fact it was, for a while, when the NSA voluntarily reported that some agents had been disciplined for abusing the system. That happens in every organization. Every one. Which is why the current system was created to require 4 levels of approval before the metadata can be viewed.

Like I said, I have no problem with stopping the metadata storage. It simply seems like a waste of time to someday be able to say, "See? We stopped this!" And no one will understand what it was that we stopped.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

78. Did I misunderstand you?

I thought you were saying that the IRS would be a means of repression through taxes. Not a source of personal data.

Even if you are saying that IRS would be the first place to look for personal data, that is not the danger we face. The IRS AFIK does not have content of communications between two citizens, the ability to link one citizen to another even if the links are tangential and immaterial, the ability to track locations and movements, and so on. The surveillance state does have that capability, and wants to store it all.

The trajectory of the surveillance state is toward ever more. We cannot be comfortable with today's arguably "acceptable" point on that trajectory without envisioning where that path leads. The goals of the IC are not static. There is never going to be enough. The maw is gaping, slobbering, panting for more. More power, more profit, more more more.

Only ostriches (or collaborateurs) can ignore the risks.

[randome]

80. Yes, I meant personal data. Sorry I wasn't clear.

But the NSA doesn't have 'content of communications', either. All they have are numbers and date/time stamps. They are expressly forbidden from spying on Americans. Yes, they have awesome abilities. So does the FBI. The CIA. Everyone else who carries the weight of authority. But there is no evidence that the NSA is engaged in wholesale spying on Americans or doing nefarious things in the dead of night.

Shut the metadata collection down, I'm fine with that. But what will we have prevented? The possibility that the NSA might someday be a danger? Isn't that the justification for the NSA keeping the metadata in the first place? For the possibility that it might be needed someday?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

81. I don't believe they don't have content.

You are way more inclined to trust a lying, super-secret, power-hungry, arguably criminal enterprise than I am.

[ronnie624]

44. The GWOT is completely unjustifiable.

Terrorism poses absolutely no threat to the ruling order of the United States, and the threat to individuals pales in comparison to other things, like accidents in your own home and murder with firearms. But the real monster is the damage we are doing to our biosphere. We need to divert resources to that area as quickly as possible.

The real threat to the political power system of the US, comes from a grassroots movement for reforming our filthy legislative and policy making establishments. That is what this vast data collection apparatus is designed to prevent.

[randome]

47. I agree with everything you said except for the last.

Since the NSA requires 4 levels of approval to even view the metadata, it sounds like it's pretty well locked away from nefarious blackmailing schemes.

Hell, the IRS has more data on all of us and we know their procedures are pretty solid because no one is alleging they are using that information for any evil purposes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[neverforget]

100. Where do you get this "4 levels of approval" from? I can't find it.

Thanks in advance.

[randome]

103. 'Levels of documentation' would be more accurate.

http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-data-collection-faq

Does the NSA do anything to protect Americans’ privacy?

Yes. First, the NSA is only allowed to intercept communications if at least one end of the conversation is outside of the U.S. -- though it doesn't have to distinguish domestic from foreign communication until the "earliest practicable point" which allows the NSA to record bulk information from Internet cables and sort it out later. When the NSA discovers that previously intercepted information belongs to an American, it must usually destroy that information. Because this determination cannot always be made by computer, this sometimes happens only after a human analyst has already looked at it.

The NSA also must apply certain safeguards. For example, the NSA must withhold the names of U.S. persons who are not relevant to ongoing investigations when they distribute information -- unless that person’s communications contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to a range of national security and foreign intelligence concerns.

Also, analysts must document why they believe someone is outside of the U.S. when they ask for addition information to be collected on that person. An unknown number of these cases are audited internally. If the NSA makes a mistake and discovers that it has targeted someone inside the U.S., it has five days to submit a report to the Department of Justice and other authorities.

I think I had the '4 levels of approval' mixed up with the PRISM program but you can sort of see the same thing if you count computer logs of queries made as another safeguard.

That's how bureaucracy works. Enough 'paperwork' and 'paper trails' (although no one uses paper anymore) to slow everyone down for reviews.

Still, my use of '4 levels of approval' is not exactly what I thought it was since I confused the metadata storage with PRISM approvals. But all this documentation needs to be signed off on so it's 'roughly' accurate. But I'll use the phrase 'levels of documentation' from now on

There is also the fact that only 22 NSA employees (not contractors) have access to the metadata, which is another safeguard.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/01/the_nsas_metadata_program_is_perfectly_constitutional_commentary.html

Critics of the metadata program rightly worry about the risk of government abuse. The recent report on the NSA by the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies points out that an NSA employee with a grudge against someone can look up that person's phone number, plumb the metadata for evidence that he dials up Alcoholics Anonymous or a suicide hotline, and then blackmail or harass him. But the same point can be made about any government depository of information--your financial records (on file with the IRS) or your medical records (on file with Medicare or Medicaid)--and thousands of government employees can access those records, whereas only 22 NSA employees can access the metadata, according to the President's Review Group. We should demand safeguards, but the metadata program has safeguards aplenty. If we accepted the theoretical risk of government abuse as a reason for shutting down government programs, we wouldn't have many such programs.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

58. Are you seriously arguing that we should give up our privacy now on the off chance that someday

the information might be useful in tracking down some future conspirator?

You forgot the sarcasm smiley. : either that or you are so I don't see how you function.


But then there is this:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4


Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure


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.

Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791

[randome]

61. I'm asking a couple of questions.

Is there an alternative to the metadata storage? SHOULD there be an alternative?

And the 4th Amendment never even comes into play here since third-party business records have been ruled to not fall under that umbrella.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

63. The alternative is to investigate crimes after they happen. There is NO reason to treat us all like

like criminals in case one of us becomes one.

I am just answering your question.

[randome]

65. And I appreciate an honest response. Really!

I don't have a problem with stopping the NSA from storing the metadata but I don't have a problem with them having it in the first place, either. But that's just me.

My sense is that enough people care about this that Obama felt he had to do something to address their concerns. Unfortunately, his reform suggestions sound too convoluted to work well so we may as well scrap it completely.

I just feel that "Keep your stinking hands off my metadata!" is not much of a battle-cry compared to all the real, known problems we have today. If the metadata storage is stopped, it seems like it would be a hollow victory with nothing to show that our lives have been improved.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

66. The cost of Billions could be saved. The data has been stored for years and has

Never been shown to have been of ANY benefit in stopping or identifying any terror suspect or activity.

And you want to know the improvement stopping it will have?

Please put the horse back in front of the cart.

What justifies the cost of doing it tin the first place?

[randome]

68. The cost is likely negligible. Data is easily transmitted and stored.

I think the idea is that it would be very useful in the future should another disaster occur. But I can address the counter-point to that: we could put more efforts toward making the planet a peaceful one. However, I'm not sure how one does that with the likes of the Taliban and Al-Quaida.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

71. The data center alone cost $1.7 Billion to build. You call that 'likely negligible'. You ignore my

question about what value we get for the expense.
You continue to postulate some value for a possible future investigation?
Please either answer the question or quit repeating the same old tired talking points.

[randome]

72. I thought we were talking about the metadata.

That's the cost I meant is likely negligible. They discard the metadata after, what is it, three years? Five? Fit that much data on a cheap USB drive. That data center in Utah? I'd like to know what it's designed for, too.

And that's the 'value' of the metadata. It's potential use in the event of another disaster. What is the value of an insurance policy? Same thing. Get rid of it, fine, but that's only my opinion on why they want to keep it. It's certainly not because they're blackmailing everyone because...well, because we have no reason to think they are.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

73. The data center is there to store the metadata forever. It is never discarded. An insurance policy

pays off and has a stated payoff. What is the risk the metadata is protecting us against? What is the stated benefit form its' insurance?

Circular logic and straw men is that all you have?

[randome]

75. Geeze, ease up! I'm only explaining what I think they are thinking.

And no, the metadata is not stored indefinitely. It is discarded as I said. And even if it wasn't, they wouldn't need some massive data center, just a few more USB drives.

Now was I standing over someone's shoulder when the last batch of expired records was expunged? No. But I have no reason to think the NSA is trying to use this data for nefarious purposes anymore than I have reason to suspect the IRS or SSA is doing the same.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

76. Prove it.

[randome]

79. You should know how this one goes by now.

Prove the FBI isn't going through your garbage every night. You can't, can you? Neither can I. I tend to worry about the things that are likely to happen, not be fearful of maybes or could-bes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

83. You said the data fits on a drive and is discarded. You said it, I say prove it.

[randome]

87. I'm an IT developer. I can't prove shit to you as an anonymous poster whom you will never meet.

But I know how the world works today. Data is ridiculously easy to collect, collate and disseminate. Hundreds of billions of records such as are described by the metadata can easily fit on a portable USB drive. If it's in text format, it takes up even less space.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

91. You make statements of fact. When challenged you change the statement to an opinion. From now on

please preference your "opinions" 'In My OPINION'.

If you can't prove your statements admit you made them up.

The issue is not about the storage space of data, the discussion is about the FACT that our government is spending Billions to collect and store every bit of information it can collect.

This is not limited to "metadata" is includes every email, tweet, IM, everything that is transmitted over the internet or electronic communications of the world.

[randome]

92. Is that a fact?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[ronnie624]

107. How Drones Help Al Qaeda

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&

It's the Occupation, Stupid

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupation_stupid

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

NSA director admits to misleading public on terror plots

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/nsa_director_admits_to_misleading_public_on_terror_plots/

NSA stores metadata of millions of web users for up to a year, secret files show

Metadata provides a record of almost anything a user does online, from browsing history – such as map searches and websites visited – to account details, email activity, and even some account passwords. This can be used to build a detailed picture of an individual's life.

The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that the NSA keeps only the content of messages and communications of people it is intentionally targeting – but internal documents reveal the agency retains vast amounts of metadata.

An introductory guide to digital network intelligence for NSA field agents, included in documents disclosed by former contractor Edward Snowden, describes the agency's metadata repository, codenamed Marina. Any computer metadata picked up by NSA collection systems is routed to the Marina database, the guide explains. Phone metadata is sent to a separate system.

"The Marina metadata application tracks a user's browser experience, gathers contact information/content and develops summaries of target," the analysts' guide explains. "This tool offers the ability to export the data in a variety of formats, as well as create various charts to assist in pattern-of-life development."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/nsa-americans-metadata-year-documents

[randome]

109. The 'vast amounts of data' relate to non-Americans.

The 'metadata' referred to in your links is a different type of metadata than what the NSA stores for the telecoms. And relates to non-Americans. Not saying that's right, just that it's often conflated with 'The NSA is spying on us!' When they aren't, at least that we know of

And you really don't need to convince anyone that the Iraq War made things ten-fold worse all over the world. That will go down in our history as one of our darkest hours.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[ronnie624]

110. Your post typifies your propensity for pulling 'facts' out of your ass. n/t

[randome]

111. Then tell me why you think the metadata referred to above relates to Americans.

When the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on Americans. The problem with many stories that appeared last year is that the writers often failed to ask basic, journalistic questions. When they want to excite a few eyeballs, they publish without giving the full picture.

There is no evidence that the metadata referred to above pertains to American citizens. And the question was apparently never asked, which presents a poor picture of journalists today, IMO.

But you're right, I don't know any of this for a fact. But I won't make assumptions without someone furnishing some basic evidence, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[ronnie624]

112. Whatever 'metadata' the NSA isn't collecting

is being collected by its allies in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, and shared with the US government. You can bet they have all of their bases covered. Our government has a history of lying to us and using "national security" as a pretext for all kinds of nefarious reasons, so I don't believe anything the NSA says. The purpose of the program, in my opinion, is to prevent a departure from the global economic status quo. The terrorism rationalizations simply do not add up if one understands the facts of the issue and applies some fundamental logic.

[randome]

113. The sharing of data, IMO, is the more serious issue.

We don't even know what kind of safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. I'm betting they have some, otherwise the world would be awash in schemes of blackmail and coercion. But we don't know and we should.

I see that as a more serious issue than the phone metadata, which is protected by a wall of bureaucracy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. That's really creepy thinking.

But to answer your question, there's one acceptable alternative, and that's a specific warrant for specific individuals when there's reasonable cause to believe they've committed a crime.

[randome]

96. How would they find the phone numbers of potential co-conspirators if they don't have the metadata?

Go door-to-door to every telecom in the country?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. How did they do this before they started spying on all Americans. There's your answer.

[randome]

98. Telecoms and the Information Age are relatively new phenomenon.

Intelligence agencies adapt to the changes. I still have received no answer to my questions.

Is there an alternative? You sort of answered that but going door-to-door isn't very practical.

And SHOULD there be an alternative?

Saying there should not be an alternative is a valid answer, I think, but you'd be saying, essentially, that we'll take our chances. Again, a valid answer. I'm just curious why so few are willing to answer those questions.

I think the reason is that no one wants to 'go on record' as saying we should take our chances and then have it flung back in their faces in the event of another disaster.

If that's the case, imagine how hesitant politicians are to make that same assessment. I'm sure we're all in agreement that cowardice rules most of our elected officials.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

102. Insert the Ben Franklin quote about the balance between security and liberty FOR THE1000x

You've heard it on "record" many times here on DU and from the likes of Bernie Sanders.

But you knew that

[neverforget]

101. Warrants are so quaint.

But with terrorism, they're now in the way of spying.

[JEB]

24. Can the NSA defenders point to even a single instance

where all this invasion of our privacy has helped stop an act of terrorism?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. I cannot.

But it could, apparently that's enough justification for some.

[JEB]

29. That and the massive piles of US Treasury money at stake.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing.

"If I know every single phone call that you made, I am able to determine every single person you talked to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive."

[Maedhros]

88. It is also worth pointing out (repeatedly) that having this kind of metadata

makes it nigh impossible for reporters to protect confidential sources and therefore freedom of the press is severely undermined.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. good that the truth is coming out - but on some levels the right response to this report is simply

"well dah"

[davidthegnome]

38. No kidding.

There are thousands, if not millions of American citizens that could have told them that in the first place. Ok, well maybe it's more like a few hundred - the ones that are actually familiar with the Patriot Act.

I found this little gem most interesting: “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,”


Huh. Well, here I thought this was all very necessary for stopping terrorism and such - I mean, hasn't that been the justification all along? It must be stopping all kinds of terror plots, or else they surely wouldn't do it. Right? Right.

Further: “Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

Really? How very shocking.

[polynomial]

40. Is God a terrorist?

I don’t think so…

It has been described that this Metadata did not do too much in the way of capturing or suppressing terrorist so far.

To be honest from my view but needing to know more, there is more to the whole story. Not only is the NSA insider operations so secret and connected to the one percent the reporting connected very well to our mainstream media, is also compromised and complicit to an obnoxious hubris arrogance using technology of the cable and airwaves against Americans.

In Metadata just knowing point to point information is in itself a huge chunk of natural uncommon knowledge. Using certain algorithms and modular arithmetic very specific behaviors can be determined.

One huge item metadata reveals is energy consumption, or predictions, consumer behaviors, credit card actions relative to banking transmissions, voting behavior that gerrymanders a secure vote for the obvious neglect and gridlock in America now is enduring, worse those perpetrator stymie block good things but formulate legislation to profiteer for the few one percent rather than prosper for the many.

America is in a mess because of the concentrated metadata information system given to subcontractors that are traitors to the economic system. Snowden saw that and had the courage to be a whistle blower. What is not talked about are those deep inside the Congress and the Senate connected to the subcontractor like Booze Allen or the Bin Laden family group also connected to our very own Bush Nazi party family totally connected to harboring and giving advantage to the enemy. The Bush Nazi are true and a tough issue for the mainstream media to admit to, ignoring them for decades.

The America children can feel this imbalance and from my view will take what they think is the appropriate way out. When Americans finally get a grip to understand our current culture via Hollywood is absolute violence and murder with theft using common weapons. Look at any video store, or even decades old westerns icon movies with the wild-west guns killing and robbery televised every day or video store DVD’s with cover jackets that explain how to join an adventure by shooting somebody to death. All legally a cultural thesis contrasted to a good moral society trending out of control.

Its not the kids that are at fault, it’s our secret society of one percenters that make it so…Chaos is profitable.

[grasswire]

50. yeah, it's only one hop from Bush to bin Laden family.

Just one hop. From Clinton to bin Laden family, two hops.

[Jefferson23]

70. Recommend. n/t

[indepat]

85. Then just why is big brother spending gazillions to watch us if not for

countering terraism? May I suggest to: keep the populace in line by quelling dissent of the policies and actions of an out-of-control corporatist government which acts almost exclusively for the benefit of large corporations and the uber-wealthy. The proof is in the tax code, the annual budget, the legislation signed into law et al.

[struggle4progress]

86. Link to the report (pdf, 238pp):

PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD
Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
JANUARY 23, 2014

[struggle4progress]

89. Membership of PCLOB:

David Medine, Chairman (nominated January 2013, confirmed May 2013, term ends 2018)
Rachel Brand (nominated December 2011, confirmed August 2012, term ends 2017)
Elisebeth Collins Cook (nominated December 2010, confirmed August 2012, term ends 29 January 2014, renominated December 2013, nomination returned by Senate January 2014, renominated January 2014)
James Dempsey (nominated January 2011, confirmed August 2012, term ends 2016)
Patricia Wald (nominated March 2013, confirmed December 2013, term ends 2019)

More details

[struggle4progress]

90. Excerpt from Executive Summary:

... There are four grounds upon which we find that the telephone records program fails to comply with Section 215. First, the telephone records acquired under the program have no connection to any specific FBI investigation at the time of their collection. Second, because the records are collected in bulk — potentially encompassing all telephone calling records across the nation — they cannot be regarded as “relevant” to any FBI investigation as required by the statute without redefining the word relevant in a manner that is circular, unlimited in scope, and out of step with the case law from analogous legal contexts involving the production of records. Third, the program operates by putting telephone companies under an obligation to furnish new calling records on a daily basis as they are generated (instead of turning over records already in their possession) — an approach lacking foundation in the statute and one that is inconsistent with FISA as a whole. Fourth, the statute permits only the FBI to obtain items for use in its investigations; it does not authorize the NSA to collect anything.

In addition, we conclude that the program violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That statute prohibits telephone companies from sharing customer records with the government except in response to specific enumerated circumstances, which do not include Section 215 orders. Finally, we do not agree that the program can be considered statutorily authorized because Congress twice delayed the expiration of Section 215 during the operation of the program without amending the statute. The “reenactment doctrine,” under which Congress is presumed to have adopted settled administrative or judicial interpretations of a statute, does not trump the plain meaning of a law, and cannot save an administrative or judicial interpretation that contradicts the statute itself. Moreover, the circumstances presented here differ in pivotal ways from any in which the reenactment doctrine has ever been applied, and applying the doctrine would undermine the public’s ability to know what the law is and hold their elected representatives accountable for their legislative choices.

The NSA’s telephone records program also raises concerns under both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We explore these concerns and explain that while government officials are entitled to rely on existing Supreme Court doctrine in formulating policy, the existing doctrine does not fully answer whether the Section 215 telephone records program is constitutionally sound. In particular, the scope and duration of the program are beyond anything ever before confronted by the courts, and as a result of technological developments, the government possesses capabilities to collect, store, and analyze data not available when existing Supreme Court doctrine was developed. Without seeking to predict the direction of changes in Supreme Court doctrine, the Board urges as a policy matter that the government consider how to preserve underlying constitutional guarantees in the face of modern communications technology and surveillance capabilities ...

.... Based on the information provided to the Board, including classified briefings and documentation, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. And we believe that in only one instance over the past seven years has the program arguably contributed to the identification of an unknown terrorism suspect. Even in that case, the suspect was not involved in planning a terrorist attack and there is reason to believe that the FBI may have discovered him without the contribution of the NSA’s program.

The Board’s review suggests that where the telephone records collected by the NSA under its Section 215 program have provided value, they have done so primarily in two ways: by offering additional leads regarding the contacts of terrorism suspects already known to investigators, and by demonstrating that foreign terrorist plots do not have a U.S. nexus. The former can help investigators confirm suspicions about the target of an inquiry or about persons in contact with that target. The latter can help the intelligence community focus its limited investigatory resources by avoiding false leads and channeling efforts where they are needed most. But with respect to the former, our review suggests that the Section 215 program offers little unique value but largely duplicates the FBI’s own information gathering efforts ...

The Board also has analyzed the Section 215 program’s implications for privacy and civil liberties and has concluded that they are serious. Because telephone calling records can reveal intimate details about a person’s life, particularly when aggregated with other information and subjected to sophisticated computer analysis, the government’s collection of a person’s entire telephone calling history has a significant and detrimental effect on individual privacy. The circumstances of a particular call can be highly suggestive of its content, such that the mere record of a call potentially offers a window into the caller’s private affairs. Moreover, when the government collects all of a person’s telephone records, storing them for five years in a government database that is subject to high-speed digital searching and analysis, the privacy implications go far beyond what can be revealed by the metadata of a single telephone call.

Beyond such individual privacy intrusions, permitting the government to routinely collect the calling records of the entire nation fundamentally shifts the balance of power between the state and its citizens. With its powers of compulsion and criminal prosecution, the government poses unique threats to privacy when it collects data on its own citizens. Government collection of personal information on such a massive scale also courts the ever-present danger of “mission creep.” An even more compelling danger is that personal information collected by the government will be misused to harass, blackmail, or intimidate, or to single out for scrutiny particular individuals or groups. To be clear, the Board has seen no evidence suggesting that anything of the sort is occurring at the NSA and the agency’s incidents of non-compliance with the rules approved by the FISC have generally involved unintentional misuse. Yet, while the danger of abuse may seem remote, given historical abuse of personal information by the government during the twentieth century, the risk is more than merely theoretical.

Moreover, the bulk collection of telephone records can be expected to have a chilling effect on the free exercise of speech and association, because individuals and groups engaged in sensitive or controversial work have less reason to trust in the confidentiality of their relationships as revealed by their calling patterns. Inability to expect privacy vis-à-vis the government in one’s telephone communications means that people engaged in wholly lawful activities — but who for various reasons justifiably do not wish the government to know about their communications — must either forgo such activities, reduce their frequency, or take costly measures to hide them from government surveillance. The telephone records program thus hinders the ability of advocacy organizations to communicate confidentially with members, donors, legislators, whistleblowers, members of the public, and others. For similar reasons, awareness that a record of all telephone calls is stored in a government database may have debilitating consequences for communication between journalists and sources ...

[treestar]

93. Up to the courts

Who knows why people have problems with that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. Possibly because we aren't sheep?

[Luminous Animal]

99. Well, some of us aren't.

[treestar]

116. You have to be a sheep to believe the in the rule of law?

I'm starting to get it.

Yeah, maybe we should be free to do whatever we want. Interpret the Constitution as we see fit and live that way. George Zimmerman did. Why should people who work for the NSA have to keep things secret? They should just reveal whatever they want to reveal. People who think abortion is wrong should not have to perform them or pay for them in any fashion. They don't agree with Roe v. Wade, and only sheep would follow the law.

[DCBob]

108. So if there were cases where the program helped thwart terrorist activities then it would be ok?

I suspect there have been.. they just arent aware of them. There is also a possibility this program deters criminal activity just by being there. The perps are afraid to use their phones which could cause plans to go awry due to poor communications. Its not clear to me its not helping.

[TheKentuckian]

117. No, it wouldn't be "ok". It might not be a complete joke and a waste.

[sadoldgirl]

118. There is another possiblity

I have heard on the Thom Hartman show, that the NSA is not allowed to check the content. If however they convey the raw information to another country ( Israel was mentioned ), which is not bound by any restrictive law about the contents, then that other country can give that information back to the NSA. In that case no law is broken. Has anyone heard the same thing by chance?
This becomes then a nice tool to get rid of inconvenient groups, if the government wishes it. Possible?

[riderinthestorm]

119. Yes. More than plausible. I'm sure its happened, just like rendition for torture...

Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2014, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Edited to add, welcome to DU!

[Titonwan]

120. Of course, it is.

"This becomes then a nice tool to get rid of inconvenient groups, if the government wishes it. Possible?"
And I think you got something there about letting a proxy government (Israel) do the dirty work for us (while still ostensibly not 'breaking the law').
That's the same rational for torturing folks down at Guantanamo Bay- technically it isn't U.S. soil, so we can do what we please there (amongst other black sites overseas), according to Bush's OLC. (And now you know why Obama threw Dawn Johnsen under the bus for OLC appointment- she would have stopped this crap cold).
I'd like to see proof (from Snowden through Greenwald) verifying we still do torture- just way out of sight of the citizens of this country's eyes.
Obama made Bush's surveillance state look quaint, by comparison. Not good defending Bush's programs by accelerating them- especially since the RNC is trying to hang this illegal activity on this white house instead of the previous one.
Thank you Edward Snowden for which none of this would be getting discussed if not by his brave act of patriotism to the Constitution and not a secretive private business spy contract obligation. Everything Booz-Allen does is murky and smacks of corruption. These are the people guarding our private information.