NSA building massive database of US domestic phone records

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ned
Pekka, you leap to unwarranted conclusions. The DB is not intended to spy on ordinary Americans for any purpose. It is intended to help detect terrorists.

My shooting strangers in the face with a Desert Eagle .50 isn't intended to kill ordinary Americans for any purpose. It is intended to help prevent my getting mugged.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Arrian
The beauty of that argument, of course, is that it requires no proof of anything, besides the lack of an attack. See! The NSA is keeping us safe!

-Arrian

I never said or even implied there must be a huge number of plots foiled but not reported; that would be as asinine as saying my desk must keep tigers away. I only said it would be equally asinine to assume the few foiled plots announced in the media are the only ones that have occurred. None of us have access to that information, and we never will.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Seriously phone records are the property of the carriers. Its not as if these records are not available for public consumption anyway.

Your phone records are for sale

January 5, 2006

BY FRANK MAIN Crime Reporter


The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.

Criminals can use such records to expose a government informant who regularly calls a law enforcement official.

Suspicious spouses can see if their husband or wife is calling a certain someone a bit too often.

And employers can check whether a worker is regularly calling a psychologist -- or a competing company.

Some online services might be skirting the law to obtain these phone lists, according to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has called for legislation to criminalize phone record theft and use.

In some cases, telephone company insiders secretly sell customers' phone-call lists to online brokers, despite strict telephone company rules against such deals, according to Schumer.

And some online brokers have used deception to get the lists from the phone companies, he said.

"Though this problem is all too common, federal law is too narrow to include this type of crime," Schumer said last year in a prepared statement.

The Chicago Police Department is looking into the sale of phone records, a source said.

Late last month, the department sent a warning to officers about Locatecell.com, which sells lists of calls made on cell phones and land lines.

"Officers should be aware of this information when giving out their personal cell phone numbers to the general public," the bulletin said. "Undercover officers should also be aware of this information if they occasionally call personal numbers such as home or the office, from their [undercover] ones."

Test got FBI's calls in 3 hours

To test the service, the FBI paid Locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours, the police bulletin said.

Representatives of Data Find Solutions Inc., the Tennessee-based operator of Locatecell.com, could not be reached for comment.

Frank Bochte, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he was aware of the Web site.

"Not only in Chicago, but nationwide, the FBI notified its field offices of this potential threat to the security of our agents, and especially our undercover agents," Bochte said. "We need to educate our personnel about the dangers posed by individuals using this site and others like it. We are stressing that they should be careful in their cellular use."

How well do the services work? The Chicago Sun-Times paid $110 to Locatecell.com to purchase a one-month record of calls for this reporter's company cell phone. It was as simple as e-mailing the telephone number to the service along with a credit card number. The request was made Friday after the service was closed for the New Year's holiday.

'Most powerful investigative tool'

On Tuesday, when it reopened, Locatecell.com e-mailed a list of 78 telephone numbers this reporter called on his cell phone between Nov. 19 and Dec. 17. The list included calls to law enforcement sources, story subjects and other Sun-Times reporters and editors.

Ernie Rizzo, a Chicago private investigator, said he uses a similar cell phone record service to conduct research for his clients. On Friday, for instance, Rizzo said he ordered the cell phone records of a suburban police chief whose wife suspects he is cheating on her.

"I would say the most powerful investigative tool right now is cell records," Rizzo said. "I use it a couple times a week. A few hundred bucks a week is well worth the money."

Only financial info protected?

In July, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission seeking an end to the sale of telephone records.

"We're very concerned about Locatecell," said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the center. "This is the company that sold the phone records of a Canadian official to a reporter 'no questions asked.' "

Schumer has called for legislation to criminalize the "stealing and selling" of cell phone logs. He also urged the Federal Trade Commission to set up a unit to stop it.

He said a common method for obtaining cell phone records is "pretexting," involving a data broker pretending to be a phone's owner and duping the phone company into providing the information.

"Pretexting for financial data is illegal, but it does not include phone records," Schumer said. "We already have protections for our financial information. We ought to have it for the very personal information that can be gleaned from telephone records."

fmain@suntimes.com

Again its all just Meh...., been there done that by anyone.

Chicago Sun times

[Imran Siddiqui]

Awww, sweet (and a counterpoint to Ogie's)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

(Yes, a biased site, but some great analysis here)

Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records

This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. Here’s why:

1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

Where's my cash?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

They got no case when the small print of every teleco describes that their policy regarding sharing info allows them an out. Moreover since all subscribers are informed of these policies they have customer consent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
They got no case when the small print of every teleco describes that their policy regarding sharing info allows them an out. Moreover since all subscribers are informed of these policies they have customer consent.

Language in a contract doesn't mean anything when a federal law contradicts it.

The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:

The Stored Communications Act says this information is protected from the government unless it goes through the 5 exceptions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, apparently the EFF has already filed suit (against AT&T):

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Cepting the contract implies consent to use the teleco services knowing this is their policy hence customer consent which if memory serves was exception 3.

Now earlier to my posting about the likes of locatecell.com if the telecos discover customer lists and customer transactions are being transferred to teh likes of locatecell.com illegally without their consent then the telecos are within their rights to press charges on locatecell.com

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, apparently the EFF has already filed suit (against AT&T):

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

Looks like AT&T's response is to leave the government defend it first.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Cepting the contract implies consent to use the teleco services knowing this is their policy hence customer consent which if memory serves was exception 3.

Easy argument is that the customer did not really consent to those provisions since the full license agreement isn't given to you until you sign up for services (ie, it's "inside the box"). This was exactly the argument that is used all the time against computer manufacturers, and has been successful in some Circuits in the past (Gateway lost a case due to that argument).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Well, that's the pretext.

And who have they caught? Just some poor wacko who wanted to break down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch.

What I find insulting is the contention that this program has "prevented" or "foiled" further terrorist attacks. The same sort of WMD fear-mongering that got us into this mess.

i love it. If theres a terror attack, then the Admin has failed, and all the measures taken are pointless. If theres no terror attack, then its all hysteria.

[lord of the mark]

Id say the best thing is to have the congress look into

1. Exactly how this is being used.
2. What the dangers are
3. What the benefits are

I can imagine it being abused. I can imagine it being quite useful.

Hysteria does not help.

[-Jrabbit]

So to sum up, the federal government (NSA) has coerced and/or intimidated three major telcos into breaking the law.

Nice.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Easy argument is that the customer did not really consent to those provisions since the full license agreement isn't given to you until you sign up for services (ie, it's "inside the box"). This was exactly the argument that is used all the time against computer manufacturers, and has been successful in some Circuits in the past (Gateway lost a case due to that argument).

Save they give subscribers the ability to modify the privacy policy to be held tomore stringent standard in the event subscribers wish their privacy to be more fully protected.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can imagine it being abused. I can imagine it being quite useful.

Hysteria does not help.