I haven't read the whole piece, but I don't know that it's clear that the Bush Administration is doing anything unexpected for any Administration, given where we are right now. It seems possible that reporters numbers are being watched as part of the CIA leak investigation. I don't like it, but it's not clear that the Administration is using its phone number net to derive information here.
This sort of information (AFAIK -- I hate opining on legal matters without researching them properly) -- when and to or from what numbers calls were made -- requires a warrant under federal law. I doubt that a judge would hand out a warrant to put a pen trace on ABC reporters generally just because of the risk they were getting leaks.
Someone more knowledgable than I could possibly talk me out of it, but I'm really pretty firmly convinced this is beyond weird.
That is, it seems possible that what the Administration is doing may be legal by anyone's interpretation. The policy, however, sucks, and is bad for the country. But no one seems willing to second guess the Administration on that score.
But couldn't they get such warrants as a part of the CIA leak investigation? Once you have the OK on that, it seems pretty necessary to look at contacts with people at organizations that published the leak. And it's not like we don't know that they have tame judges (like, until recently, Luttig).
And at home I got a call from Tony Rome
The FBI was tappin' my telephone
I never live alone
I never walk alone
My posses always ready, and they're waitin' in my zone
Although I live the life that of a resident
But I be knowin' the scheme that of the president
Tappin' my phone whose crews abused
I stand accused of doing harm
'Cause I'm louder than a bomb
There's a lot of poll obsession on lib blogs lately, trying to get a glimmer of hope that people in this country are against the gov having their phone records. There's less talk of why. Talk centers around 2 things, as far as I can tell: 1) We don't trust these guys as far as we can spit, and 2) it's probably illegal. Ok as far as they go, but they're not really substantial points.
Some points of my own: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that what was revealed is that the gov agencies now have direct access to phone records, instead of having to go ask the telcos for them. As a terrorist-fighting tool, I suppose the value of this is having all the records in one place, rather than disperse. I suppose I may have even thought that the government already had something like this. I can't say that I'm really against it. Some oversight and independent review would make me more comfortable, but, to what end? Some agent is going to randomly going to look at my phone records for amusement? Of course we're not worried about that. But what if they start looking for political opponents phone records? Well, they could have gotten those anyway, though with a bit more trouble. My basic contention here is that to image corrupt people abusing this database of phone records is to imagine a situation in which having that database isn't significant to the bad they can/would do. Does that make sense? I'm wondering that, under the corrupt-government scenario, would this database even matter? It's not like corrupt spooks haven't tapped phones and whatnot before now, when they didn't have this system. Perhaps it will make it a bit easier, but I can't see how it's really significant.
So, in short, I can imagine how this system could be used to significant good, but I can't imagine a likely scenario in which it will be really significant in doing bad.
that all said, i am as troubled as anyone by this administration's trashing of the constitution, and the Slate article i linked to at the beginning of this post is the best i've read on this subject.
But what if they start looking for political opponents phone records? Well, they could have gotten those anyway, though with a bit more trouble.
Well, no. There are laws against using the federal law enforcement or intelligence apparatus to spy on political opponents. Now, it is possible that those laws get broken -- I'm sure they have at times -- but while the laws stand, any of the worker-bees in the FBS, or the NSA, or whoever, can come forward and blow the whistle. When it's being done like this, sort of under cover of law, its much harder to make it stop.
No small part of the problem is that we're training people to trust the government to do this sort of stuff. To know more and more about you, in all sorts of private ways, for your own good. (Insert least objectionable libertarian rant here.)
The risks are trivial. We are the strongest nation on earth by a long shot. There is no nation on earth -- not even those headed by crazy people, as in N. Korea -- that would openly pick a fight with us. Terrorists killed .001% of us on 9/11. That was and remains tragic. I cannot conceive what the families of those lost have had to go through. But we probably still had a larger population in the US at the end of the day than we started with.
For me, basic civil liberties like the right to a trial are worth 3000 people a year, every year.
When it's being done like this, sort of under cover of law, its much harder to make it stop.
This is a bit unknowable, but I hope not. I hope that the public outcry over politically-motivated spying, whether legal or illegal, would be big enough to cause some changes.
But what are other people's views on this program? I concur that spying for political purposes is a big temptation and must be guarded against, but I can also see the use of having a ready database for tracking criminals' phone calls.
Tim, someone already had the records of your phone calls, they can be acquired fairly cheaply (though i understand they're supposed to be cracking down on that), and it's still the case that no one's actually looking at them.
Of course, there's possibly some program that screens the content of your calls, but that's a different program than this NSA stuff, isn't it?
To expand on 17: Of course it would be useful, form a law enforcement point of view, for the government to have the right to inspect every element of your private life whether or not there is probable cause to suspect you of any connection to wrongdoing. We aren't opposed to it because it wouldn't be useful, we're opposed to it because it's a totalitarian nightmare. Where's a libertarian when you need one?
Honestly, #16 may be the scariest thing I've read on blogs. Entirely because you're a smart and good guy, with the same basic committments as me, and probably a greater committment to the greater good and all that than I have. And you think it's OK for the government to monitor criminals in an open-ended fashion?
Re: 20 - shouldn't have been a question mark at the end. What scares me is that if you think it's OK, then so does everyone else. Which is pretty much something that I never thought possible.
Tim, LB, let's not move beyond the area of discussion. I think that what's in question is access to a history of dialed numbers, and perhaps calls received?
I don't really like the idea of someone looking at my phone history, which is stored by my phone company. And there is potential abuse there, in the event of another Red Scare or such (though in which case abuse would probably happen anyway). So, perhaps the database is good to compile, but you should have a warrant or some such to access it?
So, perhaps the database is good to compile, but you should have a warrant or some such to access it?
Which was the law before this mess. The phone company has the information, and if the government can convince a court that it has a particular need for a specific piece of information, it can have it. Not a problem.
Being able to frolic merrily through the records at will, and decide, e.g., that it's too risky to allow my friend in the JAG Corps to work on anything sensitive given the amount of time she spends on the phone with a subversive blogger? Problem. Severe problem. That hasn't happened yet, as far as I know, but I am not willing to trust the honor system.
The centralized database is tied directly to the necessity of getting warrants for querying that database. (As opposed to having each query approved by a judge and then sent to the telco who returns the results, and won't process the request without a judicial order.)
You old civil rights hippies! I honestly grew up thinking the government had all this access, anyway. And that my phone conversation/internet activity/email could be hacked and monitored anytime. Not a good thing, but, like mosquitos and roaches, just one of the evils of life we have to put up with. But, yes, I'm with you on the idea of needing a warrant.
32: As far as we know, the database doesn't include the contents of domestic phone calls, only their source, destination, time, and duration.
For really serious civil rights, people need to start using strong encryption for most of their communication. That won't prevent pattern analysis of calls (without additional effort to spoil that) but establishing that the default mode of communication is secure would, I think, help to change a lot of attitudes toward privacy for the better.
As far as we know, the database doesn't include the contents of domestic phone calls, only their source, destination, time, and duration.
And we just sentenced a guy to life in solitary confinement without parole for a non-existent role in 9/11. In essence, for being in contact with the wrong people. Not much protest because Moussaoui isn't a particularly sympathetic figure, but once the precedents start getting set, it's worthwhile to remember Niemöller.
One thing we don't know right now, or at least I don't know, is who currently has access to this database? What are the requirements for access? Could they use it for such stuff as job interviews, as LB fears, or is access more stringent than that?
B, you may not be affected by this program, but the government may have records of the content of all of your communcations. I'm not sure they do, but c'est possible!
One thing we don't know right now, or at least I don't know, is who currently has access to this database? What are the requirements for access?
We won't ever know under these circumstances, because there is no fucking oversight. There is no control over what the administration does with this information beyond their personal senses of honor. That's not good enough for me, regardless of the identities of the people in power: I used to live under a government of laws, not of men. I'd like to get back there.
And we just sentenced a guy to life in solitary confinement without parole for a non-existent role in 9/11. In essence, for being in contact with the wrong people.
Oh come ON, apostropher. He was guilty of not doing his moral duty to warn the US government that the US was about to face its largest ever terrorist attack. He was complicit in 9/11. That's not overblown rhetoric, that's reality. He was complicit in the deaths of 3000 people, by his own free admission. The sentence handed down was just, insofar as it could be.
33: It doesn't matter if they have access to the content or not. Well, it does, but they shouldn't have access to any of it without a warrant. There's a big difference between a phone company having access and the government--which has the power to prosecute, to imprison, and to create secret files--having it. And while I agree that practically speaking one should encrypt one's communications, the onus shouldn't be on citizens to evade government surveillance.
FWIW, I suspect that the content of my communications has been tracked, more or less, for many many years, just based on my personal connections.
You're absolutely right about his 'moral duties'. Usually, though, we try to put people in jail only for violations of the law. And there really isn't a law against failing to tell the government things they would like to know.
LB, this isn't the first of these programs, so "we used to..." isn't accurate, I don't think. And, there is some oversight in that quite a few people in different departments had to know about this. And that's something of democracy. And a few congressman were briefed. Yes, they were sworn to secrecy or some such, but, were it really bad, we do hope that they would have made a choice to act. Our government is still functioning. I am of course upset over these precedents, and wish Bush impeached, but at the same time, I do not think he has a carte blanche to do whatever totalitarian stuff he would like. The NSA could balk, the pentagon could balk, and congress, as I said, could balk. Yes, I agree that the judiciary should be involved. But I don't want to overly-alarmtist about this either.
Yes, the sentence was just, and as I've written at my own blog, I don't have any problem with it. The point remains, though, that he didn't actually do anything, and is guilty mostly of association. I don't have a problem with it on its own, but once I put it in context of the government establishing databases of every possible contact, stripping habeas corpus from citizens, et cetera, et cetera, I start getting very, very bad feelings.
"they shouldn't have access to any of it without a warrant."
Agreed, of course.
"And while I agree that practically speaking one should encrypt one's communications, the onus shouldn't be on citizens to evade government surveillance."
While you're technically right, my point was that so much of the attitude we're seeing about "why are you worried if you have nothing to hide" is tied to cultural mores that might be changed if more people would use encryption as a matter of course.
Part of what I find confusing here is the factual premise. If it is true that the government is tracking the phone calls of journalists (or anyone else for that matter) in violation of the law, it is something we should all be angry about. However, the mere fact that they are tracking journalists' calls as part of a criminal investigation does not bother me one whit, as long as they are doing it legally.
The article to which you linked does not say one way or there other what the basis for the tracking was--and I am sure that there are ways to do it legally; the Supreme Court has made clear that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such information, even without a warrant.
So, is your point that journalists' calls should not ever be tracked? Or is it that you assume, without knowing the facts, that the government is tracking these calls illegally?
[not picking a fight here, it just is unclear to me from the post and comments what we are arguing about here]
Or is it that you assume, without knowing the facts, that the government is tracking these calls illegally?
This, in light of the recent revelations about the NSA database of call information. If this turns out to be pursuant to a warrant (which, if I have the law straight, is required by statute although not by the Fourth Amendment), and it looks as though that warrant was properly granted in relation to a criminal investigation, I'll be very prepared to apologize for overreacting, and I'll go back to being outraged about the larger NSA issue.
try to put people in jail only for violations of the law. And there really isn't a law against failing to tell the government things they would like to know.
I think we disagree on the facts here. He confessed to doing a lot of things which were crimes--taking material steps in a plot to kill people and blow things up is a crime, whether or not the killing or blowing up happened. It may well be that he wildly overstated his role in 9/11, and since he plead guilty, not all the facts of what he did have come out, but I think there is a lot of evidence that he committed crimes.
43: If it turns out that access to this database is really open and easy, I'll be more upset. If they are storing content, I'll be more upset. If it turns out that this database is being used to deny people jobs or for political payback, yes, I will be plenty upset.
Part of the deal here is that phone records are only useful in three scenarios: a) the person has done something wrong, b) the monitors are corrupt, or c) the monitor is stalking his ex-girlfriend. Otherwise, phone records are completely uninteresting, and there are not many scenarios, relatively speaking, under which (a), (b), (or even (c)) become of concern. I'm not even worried about a slippery slope, at the moment. This stuff is airing, there are investigations, and something is going to be worked out.
So, short answer: I'll get worked up if the violation is egregious* or if nothing seems like it's being done to correct it.
*I tend to be more concerned about restrictions on my rights of what I can do, rather than my rights to privacy. Rights to privacy seem to stand in to protect rights to act as we will. e.g. Progressives couldn't obtain the natural right to have sex however they wished, so they cloaked it behind a right to privacy. Similar with abortion. And, with this, I should have a right to not be messed with unfairly by the government, but, absent that, I'll take a right to privacy. But still what I really want is the right to be treated fairly, and then I, personally, don't care so much about my privacy.
I'm with apostropher here -- he appears to have associated with very bad people, and to have known very bad things, and I'm not particularly sad about his sentence. Still, you can't deny that the government made huge hay of the fact that he knew about 9/11 beforehand and didn't tell anyone, and that is not a crime. I was reacting largely to Robin's characterization of his 'moral duty'.
Part of the deal here is that phone records are only useful in three scenarios: a) the person has done something wrong, b) the monitors are corrupt, or c) the monitor is stalking his ex-girlfriend.
This is so wrong -- or at least, c) covers a hell of a lot more than you say it does. Phone records let you track down whistleblowers even when they aren't committing crimes. They let you find embarrassing personal information about your enemies. They let you know who in your own organization may have political affiliations you disagree with. And that's off the top of my head, and I'm naive about this stuff.
I'll happily defend other people's right to privacy, though, should they want it. I suppose I should approach this NSA deal through that angle. Maybe the press should to? Not, "your info is being obtained by the government."! But, "you wife's/daughter's/husband's...etc.." info is being obtained by the gubbermint!
This, in light of the recent revelations about the NSA database of call information.
Thanks. I really was not trying to set you up to eat crow here. I was just confused about what we were talking about.
You and I likely disagree strongly about how reasonable it is to assume that the Government has acted illegally to track the calls, but since I have not yet seen the explanation of how the NSA call tracking thing was legal, it most certainly is not wildly unreasonable to assume that the Government acted illegally in this instance too. And if they did, it is, to put it mildly, troubling.
We protect privacy not only because it acts as a shield against intrusion on other rights, but because we want to live in a society in which the government is not intrusive. I don't want a governor on my car that informs the police every time I exceed the speed limit, or if roll through a stop sign. It would be creepy.
to 54: I was thinking of those things under (b), and that's what I meant by "relatively." Even given a government corrupt enough that you'd have to worry about that, it's still only going to effect a very small segment of the population. Which is not a reason to defend such a program, but it's in line with my noting why the public outcry over this isn't a wildfire. (And I do think it would be very, very hard to get away with that kind of stuff. Not to do, mind you, but to get away with it.)
61: I agree, but, in keeping my intuitive distinction, such car-monitoring would have very immediate concrete effects on my actions.
Under the Pen Register Act, I thought that federal law enforcement only had to demonstrate that an individual's log of phone-calls was RELEVANT to a criminal investigation (a very low burden).
1) The leaks of the CIA programs were crimes.
2) There is an ongoing criminal investigation.
3) The calls received/made by the journalists who reported the leak are obviously relevant.
So if they have obtained these reporters' phone-records, they've acted well within the law.
So if they have obtained these reporters' phone-records, they've acted well within the law.
Not if they haven't "demonstrated" that fact to a court. How far does your argument go? Are all ABC reporters' phone records 'relevant' to a crime investigation? For all time periods? What are the limits?
The reason that the Pen Register act requires the relevance to be demonstrated is to provide oversight -- in the absence of such oversight, there are no limits as to what may be monitored.
And, Michael:
Even given a government corrupt enough that you'd have to worry about that, it's still only going to effect a very small segment of the population.
And anyone who worries that they might be in that segment. Anyone with a government job -- are they going to worry about phone calls to Democratic party headquarters to volunteer on a campaign? Probably no one's watching, but you can't tell, can you. You only need to actually monitor a few people to control a lot more through fear.
Given the clear relevance of these records, the low burden required by the PRA, and the fact that the investigation is likely operated by the FBI, I don't see any reason for them not to obtain a warrant.
Furthermore, this is a criminal investigation. Those arrested will presumably be prosecuted. Think any AUSA wants the NSA call-log program within ten city blocks of the investigation?
Andrew, from looking at the statute, it looks to me like there has to be a court order (except in an emergency, and then only for a short time). I think we agree that there is no problem if such a court order exists. I think LB's post is predicated on the assumption that the Government did not get such an order.
70: It seems to me there are at least two reasons to be troubled. First, assuming that the government did not get an order, the illegality. Second, even if legal it's bad policy. Michael just made the case above that we need not worry about privacy because if something really bad was happening, people would leak. Except that people did leak, and no one cares. It's my understanding that the reason the government doesn't usually go after leakers is because it's usually politically untenable--once the dirty laundry is out, public opinion won't let prosecution go forward. Not true here. And that strikes me as worrisome.
67: That assumes that the records are being monitored by a US Attorney in connection with the preparation of a criminal case, rather than by someone else within the administration keeping track on who is contacting reporters generally. Which could be true -- I just don't see any reason to take it as a premise.
I don't see any reason for them not to obtain a warrant.
I don't see any reason for them to have done half the shit they've done, and yet....
what I really want is the right to be treated fairly, and then I, personally, don't care so much about my privacy.
The point, though, is that your right to privacy means that you don't have to *depend* on being treated fairly--that is, you don't have to rely on the magnanimity of some Big Daddy figure to be "fair" to you, because you're an adult, and you can be trusted to make decisions for yourself.
I do see you point, but I have to say that this worries me very little. I know this was discussed in an earlier thread, but if someone wants to intentionally break the law, they do not get a pass just because they think they are doing the right thing. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I am pretty sure that the decision should be left up to someone else. Reporters and CIA analysts have to follow the law just like everyone else. Freedom of the press is the freedom to print without prior restraint (and even that is not unlimited--for example, if a CIA agent signs an agreement not to write a book about certain aspects of his or her job, the publication of such a book could be restrained). Freedom of the press is not a free pass to ignore laws which apply to everyone else.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I am pretty sure that the decision should be left up to someone else.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. What is worrisome is that the somebody else--here, the public--doesn't care. All I'm really professing is something akin to the belief that the guy who tortures a terrorist (or hell, even an innocent person) who has knowledge of the location of a nuclear bomb that is about to go off should get pardoned. I don't think you disagree with that.
We're not supposed to rely on the goodwill and bravery of a brave soul who decides to leak information at the risk to their welfare, job, health, life, reputation, etc. If that person does it, great, but they are breaking the law, and even if everyone lauds them in an after-school special tear jerker, solitary claps rising to applause in the end, that's not supposed to be the check on the system.
We're supposed to have separation of powers here. Want to make a database to search the number connections all Matrix-style? Get Congress to pass a law. Want to get some records from my phone company? Get a subpoena, that's what we have judges for. Can't get a subpoena? STOP. The checks and balances are all built in! We're not reliant on altruistic leakers.
But if we *did* decide to rely for our security on altruistic leakers, think what an encouragement this would be to volunteerism and altruism. It would improve the national character no end.
By all means, prosecute leakers that actually damage national security.* Under the criminal laws, with all the protections (including a jury) that goes with them.
I too presume that the ABC reporters story is a warrantless deal -- otherwise, whoever tipped them off is in way bigger trouble than he/she can imagine.
* Telling the 'enemy' something 'he' already knows does not qualify. Neither does embarrasing the President, the Secretary of Defense, or Dusty Foggo.
80: Hmm. If one says one "I agree with X", and X is a sarcastic statement, it's easy enough to see that one is agreeing with the intent behind X. But lingustically, is that really accurate?
SCMT: Except that people did leak, and no one cares.
Well, if you mean care in the sense of disapproves, only slightly more than half the country is with you, I suppose. It could be more, but it's no small percentage. And there are going to be Senate hearings. And much outrage expressed on popular talk shows.
you don't have to rely on the magnanimity of some Big Daddy figure to be "fair" to you, because you're an adult, and you can be trusted to make decisions for yourself.
Pls be fair. My three examples all concerned issues that sought resolution in both legislation and then the judiciary. I don't think there's any appeal to a "Big Daddy" figure. And "fair" doesn't need to be in quotes because, again, the resolution to such things are through the passage of laws or the issuing of legal rulings. It's all quite concrete.
Michael: That would be great if it meant anything, but does anyone really think (a) the hearings are going to full-fledged inquiries, or (b) that the President is going to walk back from this policy?
A question for the lawyers: If the leaker(s) get caught, will they be able to ply a "for the greater public good," or "according to my moral principles" defense?
What I meant was that in saying you'd rather have fairness than privacy, that the question of "fairness" (in court) wouldn't even come into question (and shouldn't) if you had a reasonable expectation not to have to defend your private behavior. That preferring fairness implies the existence of someone who is *being* fair, whereas having privacy implies independence.
Tim, there's certainly a chance you're right. I suppose the only things we can do are (a) try to force the politician's hands by threats of not voting for them, and/or (b) not voting for them and pressing for others to vote against them, as well. I, personally, feel like I really should write more newspaper editorials.
B, I see, and this may take us in circles, but my perspective is that establishing privacy still suggests that behind that curtain things may go on which are in a sort of gray area, morally and legally. I'd rather legislators simply strike sodomy laws from the book, strike anti-abortion laws, and whatever else, so that there was nothing any longer for privacy laws to protect, because there was nothing being threatened any longer.
Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).
The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.
. I'd rather legislators simply strike sodomy laws from the book, strike anti-abortion laws, and whatever else, so that there was nothing any longer for privacy laws to protect, because there was nothing being threatened any longer.
As a general rule, I like my rights broad and unenumerated, rather than limited to a list.
Tim, I'm not appealing for laws that say, "The buggery SCMT engages in with Ogged is now legal," but merely to get rid of the prohibition on it. Te right would be simply unenumerated after that.
Oh, and the post up at Drums does indeed worry me. Yeech.
92: I'm pretty good with that. I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
What if it's a law calling for bakers (or some other industry, but lets say bakers) to pay at least a minimum wage or work their employees no more than a maximum number of hours per week? I would favor either and both of those laws, but I think they could reasonably be described as proscribing "private non-damaging behavior."
Let me preface myself by saying: I think it's a perfectly acceptable legislative decision to decide that shifting some percentage of an indiviudal employer's or a business associations's revenues to its lowest paid employees and that the benefit of passing a law requiring that outweighs the (perhaps nonexistent) cost of less incentive to hire, produce, innovate, or whatever someone thinks the incentive is being taken away from doing.
With that said, while I agree that a worker is being damaged by not having a living wage, I disagree that it's always (or maybe even usually) his or her employer who is so damaging the worker. So I don't buy that this private non-damaging principle governs when lawmaking is permissible.
The hours thing might be different, but I'm not sure.
I agree that you can't really blame the employer for existing. You have a system that rewards employers who treat their employees like shit. What do you expect? On the other hand, you *can* blame the employer by setting up a system of punishments that serve as incentives for employers to offer decent working conditions.
Or, you could just mandate a national minimum wage and acceptable working conditions and enforce it.
Why is the hypothetical regarding legislation targeted at a particular baking company?
85: Nullification[Link reformatted. LB] is always out there, even if no one is allowed to mention the word.
This, also, is why one need not legalize torture to account for the apologists' ticking-time-bomb scenario: if Jack Bauer actually saves Manhattan, he doesn't get prosecuted, or convicted. What the apologists want to cover is where the torturer thinks there might be a ticking bomb, but it turns out there isn't. If the story is good enough, you still might get nullification, but it had better be really good.
This post by Orin Kerr and this by Marty Lederman recite and discuss the possible statutes that regulate the NSA access to the U.S. call records. Also, some of the comments here seem unaware of the scope of the database that was obtained by the NSA from the telcos. we're talking about all the call records, not a few selected call records. And the uses appear to go beyond exposing reporters' receiving classified leaks from government sources (c.f. Chris Amanpour, etc.).
That assumes that the records are being monitored by a US Attorney in connection with the preparation of a criminal case, rather than by someone else within the administration keeping track on who is contacting reporters generally. Which could be true -- I just don't see any reason to take it as a premise.
Judging by other reports on the government's reaction to these leaks (e.g. polygraphing certain CIA employees and publicly firing them), and the deep sensitivity of what was leaked, it's difficult for me to believe that this is NOT a criminal investigation. They want blood for these leaks. But I guess we'll see.
Also, w/r/t problems posed by getting at the leakers via reporters:
We would not want the altruistic leaker to leak classified information EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, we simply end up with 15 or more people who decide individually whether a program should be classified. If everyone agrees, it remains classified. If one person dissents, it's front-page news. So I'm not sure that the threat of criminal prosecution is a bad thing. It ensures that the altruistic leaker thinks long and hard about how important the leak is before he decides to disclose sensitive information.
Also, surely there were ways to leak the information to appropriate parties (every member on the Senate Intel. Com.) without publishing it to the world.
Also, surely there were ways to leak the information to appropriate parties (every member on the Senate Intel. Com.) without publishing it to the world.
Not without divided government or a responsible Republican Party; the Senate has been in step'n'fetchit mode for five years now. Or the Republican Senate leadership simply doesn't have the same understanding of basic American norms that many of us do. I'm agnostic as to which it is, though I worry that it's the latter.
"Color of law' and 'completely legal' are hardly the same thing -- facts seem to be missing to make any judgments one way or the other on the latter.
And law too -- I'm having trouble finding the current version of 18 USC 2709 in a free space. A couple of versions I've seen present non-trivial difficulties for using NSLs with reporters. Note to obfuscators: "non-trivial" is not the same as "insurmountable."
I don't have a free link, but off Westlaw the relevant language from 18 USC 2709 looks like this:
request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
which suggests to me that this use of NSLs is improper. While there is certainly an argument that could be made that the phone records in question are relevant to a leak investigation, a leak to a reporter, while it may be illegal, is neither terrorism nor a clandestine intelligence activity. These are whistleblowers and reporters, not terrorists and spies, meaning that under my initial reading of the law, the FBI should have gotten a court order under the PRA.
But of course, the PATRIOT Act, while it puts these limitations on the purposes for which NSLs may be used, provides for no oversight to enforce those restrictions. And as we see here, the FBI has ignored them. It's a very bad law.
M/tch -- next thing you know you go for a walk in your once-bucolic neighborhood and find the gutters littered with hymens and assorted paraphernalia of decadence.
Read the comments to the linked post.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:48 AM
Terrifying, no?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:56 AM
So, who's up for organizing the Resistance? I'll bring beer.
You're so on the list, now.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:58 AM
ITMFA.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:00 AM
It's the only respectable place to be. Anyway, I have friends in the Federalist Society.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:00 AM
I haven't read the whole piece, but I don't know that it's clear that the Bush Administration is doing anything unexpected for any Administration, given where we are right now. It seems possible that reporters numbers are being watched as part of the CIA leak investigation. I don't like it, but it's not clear that the Administration is using its phone number net to derive information here.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:05 AM
This sort of information (AFAIK -- I hate opining on legal matters without researching them properly) -- when and to or from what numbers calls were made -- requires a warrant under federal law. I doubt that a judge would hand out a warrant to put a pen trace on ABC reporters generally just because of the risk they were getting leaks.
Someone more knowledgable than I could possibly talk me out of it, but I'm really pretty firmly convinced this is beyond weird.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:09 AM
That is, it seems possible that what the Administration is doing may be legal by anyone's interpretation. The policy, however, sucks, and is bad for the country. But no one seems willing to second guess the Administration on that score.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:10 AM
I wonder if any of those pro-Bush comments on that article are astroturf.
I wonder how many comments on the internet are astroturf.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:11 AM
requires a warrant under federal law.
But couldn't they get such warrants as a part of the CIA leak investigation? Once you have the OK on that, it seems pretty necessary to look at contacts with people at organizations that published the leak. And it's not like we don't know that they have tame judges (like, until recently, Luttig).
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:14 AM
It's possible, of course.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:20 AM
Posted by Chuck Labs | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:39 AM
Since we're talking about the NSA stuff...
There's a lot of poll obsession on lib blogs lately, trying to get a glimmer of hope that people in this country are against the gov having their phone records. There's less talk of why. Talk centers around 2 things, as far as I can tell: 1) We don't trust these guys as far as we can spit, and 2) it's probably illegal. Ok as far as they go, but they're not really substantial points.
Some points of my own: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that what was revealed is that the gov agencies now have direct access to phone records, instead of having to go ask the telcos for them. As a terrorist-fighting tool, I suppose the value of this is having all the records in one place, rather than disperse. I suppose I may have even thought that the government already had something like this. I can't say that I'm really against it. Some oversight and independent review would make me more comfortable, but, to what end? Some agent is going to randomly going to look at my phone records for amusement? Of course we're not worried about that. But what if they start looking for political opponents phone records? Well, they could have gotten those anyway, though with a bit more trouble. My basic contention here is that to image corrupt people abusing this database of phone records is to imagine a situation in which having that database isn't significant to the bad they can/would do. Does that make sense? I'm wondering that, under the corrupt-government scenario, would this database even matter? It's not like corrupt spooks haven't tapped phones and whatnot before now, when they didn't have this system. Perhaps it will make it a bit easier, but I can't see how it's really significant.
So, in short, I can imagine how this system could be used to significant good, but I can't imagine a likely scenario in which it will be really significant in doing bad.
that all said, i am as troubled as anyone by this administration's trashing of the constitution, and the Slate article i linked to at the beginning of this post is the best i've read on this subject.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:45 AM
But what if they start looking for political opponents phone records? Well, they could have gotten those anyway, though with a bit more trouble.
Well, no. There are laws against using the federal law enforcement or intelligence apparatus to spy on political opponents. Now, it is possible that those laws get broken -- I'm sure they have at times -- but while the laws stand, any of the worker-bees in the FBS, or the NSA, or whoever, can come forward and blow the whistle. When it's being done like this, sort of under cover of law, its much harder to make it stop.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:55 AM
No small part of the problem is that we're training people to trust the government to do this sort of stuff. To know more and more about you, in all sorts of private ways, for your own good. (Insert least objectionable libertarian rant here.)
The risks are trivial. We are the strongest nation on earth by a long shot. There is no nation on earth -- not even those headed by crazy people, as in N. Korea -- that would openly pick a fight with us. Terrorists killed .001% of us on 9/11. That was and remains tragic. I cannot conceive what the families of those lost have had to go through. But we probably still had a larger population in the US at the end of the day than we started with.
For me, basic civil liberties like the right to a trial are worth 3000 people a year, every year.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:56 AM
When it's being done like this, sort of under cover of law, its much harder to make it stop.
This is a bit unknowable, but I hope not. I hope that the public outcry over politically-motivated spying, whether legal or illegal, would be big enough to cause some changes.
But what are other people's views on this program? I concur that spying for political purposes is a big temptation and must be guarded against, but I can also see the use of having a ready database for tracking criminals' phone calls.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:58 AM
but I can also see the use of having a ready database for tracking criminals' phone calls.
Are you kidding me?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:59 AM
Tim, someone already had the records of your phone calls, they can be acquired fairly cheaply (though i understand they're supposed to be cracking down on that), and it's still the case that no one's actually looking at them.
Of course, there's possibly some program that screens the content of your calls, but that's a different program than this NSA stuff, isn't it?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:02 PM
To expand on 17: Of course it would be useful, form a law enforcement point of view, for the government to have the right to inspect every element of your private life whether or not there is probable cause to suspect you of any connection to wrongdoing. We aren't opposed to it because it wouldn't be useful, we're opposed to it because it's a totalitarian nightmare. Where's a libertarian when you need one?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:02 PM
Michael:
Honestly, #16 may be the scariest thing I've read on blogs. Entirely because you're a smart and good guy, with the same basic committments as me, and probably a greater committment to the greater good and all that than I have. And you think it's OK for the government to monitor criminals in an open-ended fashion?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:07 PM
It's good to be reading Schneier's security blog nowadays.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:08 PM
Re: 20 - shouldn't have been a question mark at the end. What scares me is that if you think it's OK, then so does everyone else. Which is pretty much something that I never thought possible.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:08 PM
Fascism is only really possible with a populace ready and willing to give up its civil liberties.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:10 PM
Tim, LB, let's not move beyond the area of discussion. I think that what's in question is access to a history of dialed numbers, and perhaps calls received?
I don't really like the idea of someone looking at my phone history, which is stored by my phone company. And there is potential abuse there, in the event of another Red Scare or such (though in which case abuse would probably happen anyway). So, perhaps the database is good to compile, but you should have a warrant or some such to access it?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:15 PM
23: The secrecy of my dialed numbers doesn't strike me as a particularly "strong" civil liberty. In part because they're not even that secret.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:16 PM
So, perhaps the database is good to compile, but you should have a warrant or some such to access it?
Which was the law before this mess. The phone company has the information, and if the government can convince a court that it has a particular need for a specific piece of information, it can have it. Not a problem.
Being able to frolic merrily through the records at will, and decide, e.g., that it's too risky to allow my friend in the JAG Corps to work on anything sensitive given the amount of time she spends on the phone with a subversive blogger? Problem. Severe problem. That hasn't happened yet, as far as I know, but I am not willing to trust the honor system.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:19 PM
but you should have a warrant
Yeah, that's the point, Michael. Otherwise, you've just slid way down the slippery slope toward a police state.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:22 PM
I think phone call history is valuable enough to warrant protection from unlimited access by federal agencies.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:23 PM
Which was the law before this mess.
Right, but they didn't have the centralized database. I'm curious as to whether there's objection to that in itself.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:24 PM
The centralized database is tied directly to the necessity of getting warrants for querying that database. (As opposed to having each query approved by a judge and then sent to the telco who returns the results, and won't process the request without a judicial order.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:26 PM
You old civil rights hippies! I honestly grew up thinking the government had all this access, anyway. And that my phone conversation/internet activity/email could be hacked and monitored anytime. Not a good thing, but, like mosquitos and roaches, just one of the evils of life we have to put up with. But, yes, I'm with you on the idea of needing a warrant.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:27 PM
To the government having a database of my private communications? Yes. Yes, I object to that.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:27 PM
32: As far as we know, the database doesn't include the contents of domestic phone calls, only their source, destination, time, and duration.
For really serious civil rights, people need to start using strong encryption for most of their communication. That won't prevent pattern analysis of calls (without additional effort to spoil that) but establishing that the default mode of communication is secure would, I think, help to change a lot of attitudes toward privacy for the better.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:31 PM
As far as we know, the database doesn't include the contents of domestic phone calls, only their source, destination, time, and duration.
And we just sentenced a guy to life in solitary confinement without parole for a non-existent role in 9/11. In essence, for being in contact with the wrong people. Not much protest because Moussaoui isn't a particularly sympathetic figure, but once the precedents start getting set, it's worthwhile to remember Niemöller.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:37 PM
One thing we don't know right now, or at least I don't know, is who currently has access to this database? What are the requirements for access? Could they use it for such stuff as job interviews, as LB fears, or is access more stringent than that?
B, you may not be affected by this program, but the government may have records of the content of all of your communcations. I'm not sure they do, but c'est possible!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:39 PM
One thing we don't know right now, or at least I don't know, is who currently has access to this database? What are the requirements for access?
We won't ever know under these circumstances, because there is no fucking oversight. There is no control over what the administration does with this information beyond their personal senses of honor. That's not good enough for me, regardless of the identities of the people in power: I used to live under a government of laws, not of men. I'd like to get back there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:45 PM
And we just sentenced a guy to life in solitary confinement without parole for a non-existent role in 9/11. In essence, for being in contact with the wrong people.
Oh come ON, apostropher. He was guilty of not doing his moral duty to warn the US government that the US was about to face its largest ever terrorist attack. He was complicit in 9/11. That's not overblown rhetoric, that's reality. He was complicit in the deaths of 3000 people, by his own free admission. The sentence handed down was just, insofar as it could be.
Posted by Robin Green | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:48 PM
33: It doesn't matter if they have access to the content or not. Well, it does, but they shouldn't have access to any of it without a warrant. There's a big difference between a phone company having access and the government--which has the power to prosecute, to imprison, and to create secret files--having it. And while I agree that practically speaking one should encrypt one's communications, the onus shouldn't be on citizens to evade government surveillance.
FWIW, I suspect that the content of my communications has been tracked, more or less, for many many years, just based on my personal connections.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:53 PM
his moral duty
You're absolutely right about his 'moral duties'. Usually, though, we try to put people in jail only for violations of the law. And there really isn't a law against failing to tell the government things they would like to know.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:54 PM
LB, this isn't the first of these programs, so "we used to..." isn't accurate, I don't think. And, there is some oversight in that quite a few people in different departments had to know about this. And that's something of democracy. And a few congressman were briefed. Yes, they were sworn to secrecy or some such, but, were it really bad, we do hope that they would have made a choice to act. Our government is still functioning. I am of course upset over these precedents, and wish Bush impeached, but at the same time, I do not think he has a carte blanche to do whatever totalitarian stuff he would like. The NSA could balk, the pentagon could balk, and congress, as I said, could balk. Yes, I agree that the judiciary should be involved. But I don't want to overly-alarmtist about this either.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:55 PM
Yes, the sentence was just, and as I've written at my own blog, I don't have any problem with it. The point remains, though, that he didn't actually do anything, and is guilty mostly of association. I don't have a problem with it on its own, but once I put it in context of the government establishing databases of every possible contact, stripping habeas corpus from citizens, et cetera, et cetera, I start getting very, very bad feelings.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:55 PM
39: Life imprisonment for a really egregious violation of a good samritan law?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:57 PM
But I don't want to overly-alarmtist about this either.
What are you saving your alarm for? Seriously, what would get you excited, in terms of violations of civil liberties?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 12:58 PM
41: just s/b "just"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:01 PM
And that's something of democracy.
Great. So's Iran, by all accounts.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:05 PM
"they shouldn't have access to any of it without a warrant."
Agreed, of course.
"And while I agree that practically speaking one should encrypt one's communications, the onus shouldn't be on citizens to evade government surveillance."
While you're technically right, my point was that so much of the attitude we're seeing about "why are you worried if you have nothing to hide" is tied to cultural mores that might be changed if more people would use encryption as a matter of course.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:11 PM
Part of what I find confusing here is the factual premise. If it is true that the government is tracking the phone calls of journalists (or anyone else for that matter) in violation of the law, it is something we should all be angry about. However, the mere fact that they are tracking journalists' calls as part of a criminal investigation does not bother me one whit, as long as they are doing it legally.
The article to which you linked does not say one way or there other what the basis for the tracking was--and I am sure that there are ways to do it legally; the Supreme Court has made clear that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such information, even without a warrant.
So, is your point that journalists' calls should not ever be tracked? Or is it that you assume, without knowing the facts, that the government is tracking these calls illegally?
[not picking a fight here, it just is unclear to me from the post and comments what we are arguing about here]
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:19 PM
tracking journalists' calls as part of a criminal investigation
What criminal investigation?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:23 PM
Or is it that you assume, without knowing the facts, that the government is tracking these calls illegally?
This, in light of the recent revelations about the NSA database of call information. If this turns out to be pursuant to a warrant (which, if I have the law straight, is required by statute although not by the Fourth Amendment), and it looks as though that warrant was properly granted in relation to a criminal investigation, I'll be very prepared to apologize for overreacting, and I'll go back to being outraged about the larger NSA issue.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:25 PM
try to put people in jail only for violations of the law. And there really isn't a law against failing to tell the government things they would like to know.
I think we disagree on the facts here. He confessed to doing a lot of things which were crimes--taking material steps in a plot to kill people and blow things up is a crime, whether or not the killing or blowing up happened. It may well be that he wildly overstated his role in 9/11, and since he plead guilty, not all the facts of what he did have come out, but I think there is a lot of evidence that he committed crimes.
He plead guilty to conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, commit aircraft piracy, destroy aircraft, murder government employees and destroy property.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:28 PM
What criminal investigation?
CIA employees leaking classified information, which, whether or not we think it is a brave or good thing, certainly is a crime.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:30 PM
43: If it turns out that access to this database is really open and easy, I'll be more upset. If they are storing content, I'll be more upset. If it turns out that this database is being used to deny people jobs or for political payback, yes, I will be plenty upset.
Part of the deal here is that phone records are only useful in three scenarios: a) the person has done something wrong, b) the monitors are corrupt, or c) the monitor is stalking his ex-girlfriend. Otherwise, phone records are completely uninteresting, and there are not many scenarios, relatively speaking, under which (a), (b), (or even (c)) become of concern. I'm not even worried about a slippery slope, at the moment. This stuff is airing, there are investigations, and something is going to be worked out.
So, short answer: I'll get worked up if the violation is egregious* or if nothing seems like it's being done to correct it.
*I tend to be more concerned about restrictions on my rights of what I can do, rather than my rights to privacy. Rights to privacy seem to stand in to protect rights to act as we will. e.g. Progressives couldn't obtain the natural right to have sex however they wished, so they cloaked it behind a right to privacy. Similar with abortion. And, with this, I should have a right to not be messed with unfairly by the government, but, absent that, I'll take a right to privacy. But still what I really want is the right to be treated fairly, and then I, personally, don't care so much about my privacy.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:31 PM
I'm with apostropher here -- he appears to have associated with very bad people, and to have known very bad things, and I'm not particularly sad about his sentence. Still, you can't deny that the government made huge hay of the fact that he knew about 9/11 beforehand and didn't tell anyone, and that is not a crime. I was reacting largely to Robin's characterization of his 'moral duty'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:32 PM
Part of the deal here is that phone records are only useful in three scenarios: a) the person has done something wrong, b) the monitors are corrupt, or c) the monitor is stalking his ex-girlfriend.
This is so wrong -- or at least, c) covers a hell of a lot more than you say it does. Phone records let you track down whistleblowers even when they aren't committing crimes. They let you find embarrassing personal information about your enemies. They let you know who in your own organization may have political affiliations you disagree with. And that's off the top of my head, and I'm naive about this stuff.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:35 PM
I'll happily defend other people's right to privacy, though, should they want it. I suppose I should approach this NSA deal through that angle. Maybe the press should to? Not, "your info is being obtained by the government."! But, "you wife's/daughter's/husband's...etc.." info is being obtained by the gubbermint!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:37 PM
This, in light of the recent revelations about the NSA database of call information.
Thanks. I really was not trying to set you up to eat crow here. I was just confused about what we were talking about.
You and I likely disagree strongly about how reasonable it is to assume that the Government has acted illegally to track the calls, but since I have not yet seen the explanation of how the NSA call tracking thing was legal, it most certainly is not wildly unreasonable to assume that the Government acted illegally in this instance too. And if they did, it is, to put it mildly, troubling.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:38 PM
he knew about 9/11 beforehand and didn't tell anyone, and that is not a crime.
Should it be?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:39 PM
I'm hoping this prompts more serious coverage of the spying issue, since journalists now presumably feel like the stakes are real.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:41 PM
I retract 55 on account of it was stupid.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:44 PM
Aw, that's just the Jim Beam talking.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:53 PM
We protect privacy not only because it acts as a shield against intrusion on other rights, but because we want to live in a society in which the government is not intrusive. I don't want a governor on my car that informs the police every time I exceed the speed limit, or if roll through a stop sign. It would be creepy.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:53 PM
to 54: I was thinking of those things under (b), and that's what I meant by "relatively." Even given a government corrupt enough that you'd have to worry about that, it's still only going to effect a very small segment of the population. Which is not a reason to defend such a program, but it's in line with my noting why the public outcry over this isn't a wildfire. (And I do think it would be very, very hard to get away with that kind of stuff. Not to do, mind you, but to get away with it.)
61: I agree, but, in keeping my intuitive distinction, such car-monitoring would have very immediate concrete effects on my actions.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 1:56 PM
Maybe I'm missing something.
Under the Pen Register Act, I thought that federal law enforcement only had to demonstrate that an individual's log of phone-calls was RELEVANT to a criminal investigation (a very low burden).
1) The leaks of the CIA programs were crimes.
2) There is an ongoing criminal investigation.
3) The calls received/made by the journalists who reported the leak are obviously relevant.
So if they have obtained these reporters' phone-records, they've acted well within the law.
Take the beer. Leave the Resistance.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:01 PM
So if they have obtained these reporters' phone-records, they've acted well within the law.
Not if they haven't "demonstrated" that fact to a court. How far does your argument go? Are all ABC reporters' phone records 'relevant' to a crime investigation? For all time periods? What are the limits?
The reason that the Pen Register act requires the relevance to be demonstrated is to provide oversight -- in the absence of such oversight, there are no limits as to what may be monitored.
And, Michael:
Even given a government corrupt enough that you'd have to worry about that, it's still only going to effect a very small segment of the population.
And anyone who worries that they might be in that segment. Anyone with a government job -- are they going to worry about phone calls to Democratic party headquarters to volunteer on a campaign? Probably no one's watching, but you can't tell, can you. You only need to actually monitor a few people to control a lot more through fear.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:06 PM
Pen Register Act
Got a link, so we can know what the law actually requires?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:08 PM
that's just the Jim Beam talking
Old Crow.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:09 PM
Given the clear relevance of these records, the low burden required by the PRA, and the fact that the investigation is likely operated by the FBI, I don't see any reason for them not to obtain a warrant.
Furthermore, this is a criminal investigation. Those arrested will presumably be prosecuted. Think any AUSA wants the NSA call-log program within ten city blocks of the investigation?
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:10 PM
C'mon, there's more to retract.
Posted by norbizness | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:10 PM
Your wish is my command.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:11 PM
Andrew, from looking at the statute, it looks to me like there has to be a court order (except in an emergency, and then only for a short time). I think we agree that there is no problem if such a court order exists. I think LB's post is predicated on the assumption that the Government did not get such an order.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:17 PM
70: It seems to me there are at least two reasons to be troubled. First, assuming that the government did not get an order, the illegality. Second, even if legal it's bad policy. Michael just made the case above that we need not worry about privacy because if something really bad was happening, people would leak. Except that people did leak, and no one cares. It's my understanding that the reason the government doesn't usually go after leakers is because it's usually politically untenable--once the dirty laundry is out, public opinion won't let prosecution go forward. Not true here. And that strikes me as worrisome.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:29 PM
67: That assumes that the records are being monitored by a US Attorney in connection with the preparation of a criminal case, rather than by someone else within the administration keeping track on who is contacting reporters generally. Which could be true -- I just don't see any reason to take it as a premise.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:29 PM
I don't see any reason for them not to obtain a warrant.
I don't see any reason for them to have done half the shit they've done, and yet....
what I really want is the right to be treated fairly, and then I, personally, don't care so much about my privacy.
The point, though, is that your right to privacy means that you don't have to *depend* on being treated fairly--that is, you don't have to rely on the magnanimity of some Big Daddy figure to be "fair" to you, because you're an adult, and you can be trusted to make decisions for yourself.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:36 PM
And that strikes me as worrisome.
I do see you point, but I have to say that this worries me very little. I know this was discussed in an earlier thread, but if someone wants to intentionally break the law, they do not get a pass just because they think they are doing the right thing. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I am pretty sure that the decision should be left up to someone else. Reporters and CIA analysts have to follow the law just like everyone else. Freedom of the press is the freedom to print without prior restraint (and even that is not unlimited--for example, if a CIA agent signs an agreement not to write a book about certain aspects of his or her job, the publication of such a book could be restrained). Freedom of the press is not a free pass to ignore laws which apply to everyone else.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:42 PM
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I am pretty sure that the decision should be left up to someone else.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. What is worrisome is that the somebody else--here, the public--doesn't care. All I'm really professing is something akin to the belief that the guy who tortures a terrorist (or hell, even an innocent person) who has knowledge of the location of a nuclear bomb that is about to go off should get pardoned. I don't think you disagree with that.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:47 PM
We're not supposed to rely on the goodwill and bravery of a brave soul who decides to leak information at the risk to their welfare, job, health, life, reputation, etc. If that person does it, great, but they are breaking the law, and even if everyone lauds them in an after-school special tear jerker, solitary claps rising to applause in the end, that's not supposed to be the check on the system.
We're supposed to have separation of powers here. Want to make a database to search the number connections all Matrix-style? Get Congress to pass a law. Want to get some records from my phone company? Get a subpoena, that's what we have judges for. Can't get a subpoena? STOP. The checks and balances are all built in! We're not reliant on altruistic leakers.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 2:52 PM
But if we *did* decide to rely for our security on altruistic leakers, think what an encouragement this would be to volunteerism and altruism. It would improve the national character no end.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:06 PM
(Hoots, stomps, whistles with fingers in mouth)
Indeed.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:06 PM
76: Absolutely.
By all means, prosecute leakers that actually damage national security.* Under the criminal laws, with all the protections (including a jury) that goes with them.
I too presume that the ABC reporters story is a warrantless deal -- otherwise, whoever tipped them off is in way bigger trouble than he/she can imagine.
* Telling the 'enemy' something 'he' already knows does not qualify. Neither does embarrasing the President, the Secretary of Defense, or Dusty Foggo.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:15 PM
78 to 76, not that I don't also agree with 77.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:17 PM
80: Hmm. If one says one "I agree with X", and X is a sarcastic statement, it's easy enough to see that one is agreeing with the intent behind X. But lingustically, is that really accurate?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:50 PM
Also, 76 gets it exactly right.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 3:59 PM
SCMT: Except that people did leak, and no one cares.
Well, if you mean care in the sense of disapproves, only slightly more than half the country is with you, I suppose. It could be more, but it's no small percentage. And there are going to be Senate hearings. And much outrage expressed on popular talk shows.
you don't have to rely on the magnanimity of some Big Daddy figure to be "fair" to you, because you're an adult, and you can be trusted to make decisions for yourself.
Pls be fair. My three examples all concerned issues that sought resolution in both legislation and then the judiciary. I don't think there's any appeal to a "Big Daddy" figure. And "fair" doesn't need to be in quotes because, again, the resolution to such things are through the passage of laws or the issuing of legal rulings. It's all quite concrete.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:09 PM
Further information on the program at issue.
Michael: That would be great if it meant anything, but does anyone really think (a) the hearings are going to full-fledged inquiries, or (b) that the President is going to walk back from this policy?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:11 PM
A question for the lawyers: If the leaker(s) get caught, will they be able to ply a "for the greater public good," or "according to my moral principles" defense?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:13 PM
And there are going to be Senate hearings.
And people will march with puppets, which will have exactly the same effect. Call me when the Dems take back the Senate, yo.
And much outrage expressed on popular talk shows.
Sadly, this is the best hope.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:14 PM
What I meant was that in saying you'd rather have fairness than privacy, that the question of "fairness" (in court) wouldn't even come into question (and shouldn't) if you had a reasonable expectation not to have to defend your private behavior. That preferring fairness implies the existence of someone who is *being* fair, whereas having privacy implies independence.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:16 PM
Tim, there's certainly a chance you're right. I suppose the only things we can do are (a) try to force the politician's hands by threats of not voting for them, and/or (b) not voting for them and pressing for others to vote against them, as well. I, personally, feel like I really should write more newspaper editorials.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:22 PM
I was scrolling down and came upon this sentence in 53:
I'm with apostropher here -- he appears to have associated with very bad people, and to have known very bad things
and thought, "how does LizardBreath know so much about apostropher and his family?"
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:22 PM
89: There's a whole backstory there, which, if known, would make clear as cheap vodka, among other things, why she is known as "Lizardbreath."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:26 PM
89: There's a whole backstory there, which, if known, would make clear as cheap vodka, among other things, why she is known as "Lizardbreath."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:26 PM
Worth repeating, I think.
B, I see, and this may take us in circles, but my perspective is that establishing privacy still suggests that behind that curtain things may go on which are in a sort of gray area, morally and legally. I'd rather legislators simply strike sodomy laws from the book, strike anti-abortion laws, and whatever else, so that there was nothing any longer for privacy laws to protect, because there was nothing being threatened any longer.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:30 PM
from abc news.
Delectable fresh fruits of the Patriot Act:
Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).
The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:30 PM
. I'd rather legislators simply strike sodomy laws from the book, strike anti-abortion laws, and whatever else, so that there was nothing any longer for privacy laws to protect, because there was nothing being threatened any longer.
As a general rule, I like my rights broad and unenumerated, rather than limited to a list.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:33 PM
Tim, I'm not appealing for laws that say, "The buggery SCMT engages in with Ogged is now legal," but merely to get rid of the prohibition on it. Te right would be simply unenumerated after that.
Oh, and the post up at Drums does indeed worry me. Yeech.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:39 PM
92: I'm pretty good with that. I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:11 PM
I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
Liberty!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:18 PM
Comity!
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:21 PM
I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
What if it damages your reputation?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:21 PM
Gimme an example.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:30 PM
Actually I was just joking, obviously not very well.
Perhaps "reputation" s/b "virtue"?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:33 PM
I'm quite willing to sign on to the idea that the state has no right legislating private non-damaging behavior, for or against.
What if it's a law calling for bakers (or some other industry, but lets say bakers) to pay at least a minimum wage or work their employees no more than a maximum number of hours per week? I would favor either and both of those laws, but I think they could reasonably be described as proscribing "private non-damaging behavior."
Also, the state doesn't have rights.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:38 PM
No, working people for subliving wages or outrageous hours is clearly damaging.
And agreed: the state doesn't have rights. Poor choice of words.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:41 PM
"Virtue," in the sense you mean it, is a total tool of the patriarchy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:42 PM
Let me preface myself by saying: I think it's a perfectly acceptable legislative decision to decide that shifting some percentage of an indiviudal employer's or a business associations's revenues to its lowest paid employees and that the benefit of passing a law requiring that outweighs the (perhaps nonexistent) cost of less incentive to hire, produce, innovate, or whatever someone thinks the incentive is being taken away from doing.
With that said, while I agree that a worker is being damaged by not having a living wage, I disagree that it's always (or maybe even usually) his or her employer who is so damaging the worker. So I don't buy that this private non-damaging principle governs when lawmaking is permissible.
The hours thing might be different, but I'm not sure.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:59 PM
I agree that you can't really blame the employer for existing. You have a system that rewards employers who treat their employees like shit. What do you expect? On the other hand, you *can* blame the employer by setting up a system of punishments that serve as incentives for employers to offer decent working conditions.
Or, you could just mandate a national minimum wage and acceptable working conditions and enforce it.
Why is the hypothetical regarding legislation targeted at a particular baking company?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:08 PM
Why is the hypothetical regarding legislation targeted at a particular baking company?
Lochner.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:11 PM
"Virtue," in the sense you mean it, is a total tool of the patriarchy.
Tools are expensive. We don't want them damaged.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:22 PM
85: Nullification[Link reformatted. LB] is always out there, even if no one is allowed to mention the word.
This, also, is why one need not legalize torture to account for the apologists' ticking-time-bomb scenario: if Jack Bauer actually saves Manhattan, he doesn't get prosecuted, or convicted. What the apologists want to cover is where the torturer thinks there might be a ticking bomb, but it turns out there isn't. If the story is good enough, you still might get nullification, but it had better be really good.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:30 PM
Hey, how come my link to the wiki on nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) didn't work in 109? Is there a secret code?
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:32 PM
As far as I know, links work the normal way here. My browser shows the "a" part of the tag but not the "href" part, like it was mal-formatted.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:53 PM
108: Dude, it's my virtue. I paid for it. And if I want to leave it outside to rust, well, I will.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:20 PM
This post by Orin Kerr and this by Marty Lederman recite and discuss the possible statutes that regulate the NSA access to the U.S. call records. Also, some of the comments here seem unaware of the scope of the database that was obtained by the NSA from the telcos. we're talking about all the call records, not a few selected call records. And the uses appear to go beyond exposing reporters' receiving classified leaks from government sources (c.f. Chris Amanpour, etc.).
Posted by bemused | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:57 PM
Well, I'm way behind on the thread, but,
That assumes that the records are being monitored by a US Attorney in connection with the preparation of a criminal case, rather than by someone else within the administration keeping track on who is contacting reporters generally. Which could be true -- I just don't see any reason to take it as a premise.
Judging by other reports on the government's reaction to these leaks (e.g. polygraphing certain CIA employees and publicly firing them), and the deep sensitivity of what was leaked, it's difficult for me to believe that this is NOT a criminal investigation. They want blood for these leaks. But I guess we'll see.
Also, w/r/t problems posed by getting at the leakers via reporters:
We would not want the altruistic leaker to leak classified information EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, we simply end up with 15 or more people who decide individually whether a program should be classified. If everyone agrees, it remains classified. If one person dissents, it's front-page news. So I'm not sure that the threat of criminal prosecution is a bad thing. It ensures that the altruistic leaker thinks long and hard about how important the leak is before he decides to disclose sensitive information.
Also, surely there were ways to leak the information to appropriate parties (every member on the Senate Intel. Com.) without publishing it to the world.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 10:58 PM
Also, surely there were ways to leak the information to appropriate parties (every member on the Senate Intel. Com.) without publishing it to the world.
Not without divided government or a responsible Republican Party; the Senate has been in step'n'fetchit mode for five years now. Or the Republican Senate leadership simply doesn't have the same understanding of basic American norms that many of us do. I'm agnostic as to which it is, though I worry that it's the latter.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:21 PM
Re 109, 110:
Links here need quotes around the URL.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 6:36 AM
116 -- is there anywhere on the interwebs where that statement does not hold true? I thought it was a universal feature of HTML.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 6:41 AM
117: Web browsers are notoriously permissive about doing roughly the right thing with malformed HTML, most of the time. Long live XHTML Strict!
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 7:00 AM
spying was done under color of law
Or put otherwise, this gathering of evidence appears to have been completely legal.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 7:20 AM
"Color of law' and 'completely legal' are hardly the same thing -- facts seem to be missing to make any judgments one way or the other on the latter.
And law too -- I'm having trouble finding the current version of 18 USC 2709 in a free space. A couple of versions I've seen present non-trivial difficulties for using NSLs with reporters. Note to obfuscators: "non-trivial" is not the same as "insurmountable."
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 7:53 AM
I've seen present non-trivial difficulties for using NSLs with reporters
Everything's easier when you own the decider.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:03 AM
I don't have a free link, but off Westlaw the relevant language from 18 USC 2709 looks like this:
request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
which suggests to me that this use of NSLs is improper. While there is certainly an argument that could be made that the phone records in question are relevant to a leak investigation, a leak to a reporter, while it may be illegal, is neither terrorism nor a clandestine intelligence activity. These are whistleblowers and reporters, not terrorists and spies, meaning that under my initial reading of the law, the FBI should have gotten a court order under the PRA.
But of course, the PATRIOT Act, while it puts these limitations on the purposes for which NSLs may be used, provides for no oversight to enforce those restrictions. And as we see here, the FBI has ignored them. It's a very bad law.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:08 AM
You can obtain anybody's phone call records by sending a phone number in an e-mail with credit card number to charge and a few hours later, you got 'em.
Posted by Neo | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:19 AM
Dude, it's my virtue. I paid for it. And if I want to leave it outside to rust, well, I will.
But that'll lower my property values!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:31 AM
I expanded my comment 122 into a new post above.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:33 AM
#122: I think you can see the same language here.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:34 AM
M/tch -- next thing you know you go for a walk in your once-bucolic neighborhood and find the gutters littered with hymens and assorted paraphernalia of decadence.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 8:35 AM
124: Tough nuts. This neighborhood's been getting far too gentrified lately.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 10:09 AM
Oh, huh, 124 was me. Dunno why my name got taken off.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 10:39 AM