Not toeing the line
So, my little snippet about the phone records set off some nerves in comments. Not sure why readers would consider my response to it a surprise. Heck, I’ve even got folks threatening to not read me. Why do I oppose such a measure? Simple. It’s none of the .gov’s business who everyone calls. Period. It’s also unreasonable to maintain such data on anyone who is not suspected of a crime, much less on everyone. And it just wreaks of big brother nannyism. It’s just one of those things I oppose.
Chris details why this stuff is legal (but legal and constitutional aren’t the same):
These records are legally semi-public information, not private. It is legal to collect these records without a warrant, so long as they are not used to SPECIFICALLY TARGET an individual without a warrant (there is a specific pen register warrant for that purpose), or used beyond basic identifying characteristics. Once a trace of interest is found, a warrant can then be applied for for further surveliance.
Does that mean I can call up the phone company and tell them I want all their data from forever? No. It means the .gov can and nothing more. He also writes:
Under the third party exemption, if a third party is allowed to setup or witness what is otherwise a private communication between two parties, the expectation of privacy of the existence of the communication is breached (if it existed at all which in many cases it does not), and the existence and external characteristics of that communication can then be compelled and used as evidence without a warrant.
So, there’s the why they can do it. Also, given that this info was made public months ago and is now resurfacing in light of a new CIA appointee, I find the story to be politically expedient. But what surprised me most was the defense (or passing blame) of the .gov on this issue (such as Blaming Clinton: I don’t care if the guys maintaining databases on me have Ds or Rs after their names. I’m pissed because I’m in their database). The one that takes the cake for the stink of big .gov defense is this from one of my favorite bloggers Kim du Toit. Essentially, he tells us not to worry for a variety of reasons. A sum of those reasons and my responses to them are as follows:
The NSA is collecting only a couple of pieces of information: So? That’s like saying you’ll only stick it in a little bit.
The info isn’t really a privacy violation because it’s just numbers called from and to: So, why do they need to know that I call my mom? They don’t. Period.
If you don’t collect all the data, you can’t narrow the search at all: Or you could just investigate those suspected of terrorists activities and crimes. You know, police work. After all, if you don’t collect all the data on who buys guns . . .
You’re not that interesting: I find this one the most difficult to not laugh about. It doesn’t take much for them to become interested. After all, I’m an otherwise non-interesting person yet I had agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show up at my house and quote my website to me. But, hey, you got nothing to worry about.
And my personal fave of evoking 9/11: Trouble is, this was going on prior to 9/11. Didn’t help much, did it?
It’s another step toward the nanny state and I don’t like it. May not be that big of a deal in terms of violations of privacy but it is significant. Another canary just died.
Update: Glad I’m not the only one. Seems Jeff and Tam concur.