Someone Is Watching You (Part N, For N Large)

by hilzoy

Via everyone, USAToday reports:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added. (...)

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information."

Remember: the Republicans are the party of limited government. And clap harder!

The only major telecom company that refused to participate was Qwest:

"According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial. (...)

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events."

You can find out what services Qwest offers in your area here. If I hadn't just signed a two year contract with Verizon, I would switch immediately, since this is the way I want my telephone company to think about my privacy, and about the law.

I just wish it were as easy to switch my government.

UPDATE: Yikes! No sooner do I post this than I discover another spying story:

"The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program."

That's a clever way to ensure that a program never has to undergo legal scrutiny: just deny everyone who might investigate it security clearances! It would be interesting to know on what grounds these lawyers' applications were denied. Is there anything in their backgrounds that would suggest that they are security risks? If not, can the government simply decide not to give one of its own employees clearance for no reason whatsoever?

One lesson of all this: the Bush administration has no confidence in its own legal arguments. If it did, it would not have taken every opportunity to avoid judicial review or oversight. Some conservative bloggers may be convinced that everything they have done is perfectly legal, but apparently the Bush administration does not share their confidence.

Comments

[Ugh]

As I noted on Drum when I read this - cue the Bush defense meme:

1. This report is not true.

2. Even if it is true, it's perfectly legal.

3. Even if it's not legal, the law is outdated and needs to be changed.

4. And in any event the President can ignore the law because of his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief.

5. And this is a vital program necessary to protect the United States from terrorists who have the power to destroy life as we know it.

6. Democrats are pussies!

[tzs]

Is there anyone who isn't appalled by the NSA's putting itself beyond any oversight or any checks and balances?

Bush et al, I guess.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

If you want a market-based signal resisting the Bush Administration on this particular issue, you should consider switching your phone service to Qwest.

[KCinDC]

I wish Verizon didn't have a monopoly on cell phone service that works in the Metro.

[Morat20]

*shrug*. Anyone whose ever watched business -- or any organization -- could have told you that rot at the top spreads quickly.

What fascinates me is that the dark rhetoric of "How bad it will be under Bush" -- often used as a "It could get this bad!" worst-case example -- has actually come true.

We're past the Onion's "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity are at an end" and into the Twilight Zone.

All that's really left is declaring martial law and refusing to step down after his term's over. Pretty much ever other dark, dire, over-the-top prediction has come true. It's kind of sad that we're down to "Will probably step down when his term in office is over, even if a Democrat wins" is considered a [i]high point[/i].

[hilzoy]

Seb: I put a direct link to Qwest in the post. AsI said, I'd switch in a heartbeat if I hadn't just locked myself in.

[KCinDC]

No wonder I'd never heard of Qwest wireless. Looks like it's in only 14 states.

[Jackmormon]

I have to say I'm not surprised by this news.

[john miller]

Imagine the marketing possibilities this opens up for Qwest in those 14 states.

"Chose us, we won't give your records to the government."

[CharleyCarp]

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.

This is from the President's http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/washington/11text-bush.html>statement today. I don't find it reconcilable with the USAToday story.

Can anyone advance an interpretation wherein the President, plainspoken man that he is, isn't lying?

[Uncle Kvetch]

cue the Bush defense meme:

I'm confused, Ugh...doesn't "Clinton did it too" have to be in there somewhere?

[Slartibartfast]

I guess this is the logical next step. Wonder how much the telecoms are getting for our phone records?

[Tim]

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.

He means there are some cronies they haven't got around to yet. Either that or everyone they're looking at is automatically guilty.

[KCinDC]

Charley, maybe in the brave new post-9/11 world, phone calls are to be considered public and don't count as part of our "personal lives".

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Sorry, Hilzoy. I don't know how I missed your link. I think I read here, then read there or something.

[CharleyCarp]

Since they're talking about every single cal made, I suppose it's all in the meaning of 'innocent.' If one believes in original sin, for example . . .

I walked past the WH on the way back from lunch today. There's a lone protester standing out front, in the drizzle, with a sign protesting this.

Better is the reaction on the Hill. Leahy looks like he might carry the ball on this, and, along with Specter, on the clearance issue. I think today would be a fine day for Rove to tell one of his friends in the press, again, about how Republicans are going to make avoiding investigations the central plank of their 2006 campaign.

[KCinDC]

I'm not holding my breath for Specter. I've seen this play too often from him (and McCain, and Graham, and all the other "independent" Republicans in Congress). Make strong statements about spying (or torture, or ignoring the law, or whatever the administration is doing), and then when it comes time to actually do something, cave and allow the administration keep doing what it's doing.

[Catsy]

I never thought I'd be raising a cheer for QWest. Anyone who lived through the days of when they were US West knows how legendarily bad their customer service was.

That said, right now I have QWest wireless and landline service, and both have been almost flawless for quite a while. Jess and I are on a family plan where we have two phones that have unlimited minutes calling each other or our home phone line, which consistutes 99% of all the calls we make. It's wonderful. Switch if you have the option, and be sure to send them a letter explaining why you're giving them your business--and a letter to the other company explaining why they're losing it.

[Jimbo]

So much for election. Noone will have security clearance. Maybe only Jeb. Later on, Jenna.

[SomeOtherDude]

Right-Wingers sure love them a Big Government!

[cleek]

every day, Dale Gribble seems a little less crazy.

[Ugh]

I'm confused, Ugh...doesn't "Clinton did it too" have to be in there somewhere?

It can be swapped out with #6, using them both at the same time kind of messes up the message, not that they haven't done it before.

[dmbeaster]

Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said.

Its important to stress that laughable phoniness of this "caveat" (although the article does sort of do so).

It is already routine for the government to get the names, addresses, etc. associated with telephone numbers -- its called a "reverse directory." In fact, anyone can do it these days provided that the number is listed.

So the story should be that the government is getting a record of all of your telephone calls -- not some data base unconnected to individuals.

[javelina]

As a Manhattan resident, I have no choice - Verizon is the only local service provider. I did resist getting wireless from them & use T-Mobile instead, but don't have a sense of their policies.

And we use Working Assets for long distance. Anyone have any idea what's up with that company?

I'm planning to give both providers a call next week when I'm not on the road.

As for Verizon, I'm sure they're awaiting my unhappy-customer letter with bated breath. Have seen some pretty funny posts on blogs about responses people got when they phoned the company, including at least 2 Verizon reps accusing callers of being unpatriotic. One of the bloggers ended up reading passages from Benjamin Franklin to the customer service person.

[Bruce Baugh]

I'm really, really tired of the Bush administration fulfilling so many paranoid fantasies, and I'm just as tired of otherwise reasonable people acting as thought here can be any moral and legal rationale for this kind of crap. I don't demand brilliance or wonderful humanity. I will settle for mediocrity and a general appreciation for the rule of law. I just really don't want to deal with people pretending that this is sensible, coherent, worth respecting, or even vaguely true to American ideals.

[kvenlander]

I imagine a lot of Arab Americans are going to wonder why nobody calls them any more.

Do the MZM contractors in various three and four letter agencies have access to this database?

Wonder who has called Seymour Hersh in the last 24 months on any of his phone numbers?

[cleek]

Wonder who has called Seymour Hersh in the last 24 months on any of his phone numbers?

Dana Priest is wondering the same thing.

[Ugh]

Let's see:

1. This report is not true.

Bush: the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans"

2. Even if it is true, it's perfectly legal.

Bush: "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful"

3. Even if it's not legal, the law is outdated and needs to be changed.

He skipped this one, today at least.

4. And in any event the President can ignore the law because of his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Bush: "I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them"

5. And this is a vital program necessary to protect the United States from terrorists who have the power to destroy life as we know it.

Bush: "After September 11th" ... "if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying"

6. Democrats are pussies!

Bush: "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy."

(maybe I stretched on a couple)

[John Thullen]

Market, schmarket.

Qwest is a $6 stock, driven there by some folks now on trial for screwing employees, retirees, and shareholders.

As soon as you move your account to Qwest, the company will be bought out by one of the corporate spy-whores like Verizon.

Better to dress up like Indians and throw all of your pagers, cell phones, PDAs, etc. into Boston harbor.

Better yet: Convince 5 million Americans to call someone abroad and disguise their voices as Ann Coulter. Threaten to blow up the New York Times.

That should help the Bush Administration (I don't confuse them with my government) work the kinks out of its NSA data-mining project.

Once the 5 million are rounded up and disappeared (or rewarded for their efforts with HUD contracts), General Hayden can testify that the program works. Bush's numbers will rise and the Republican Party can pad their lead in the House and Senate next Fall.

Red State, Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney can then point out that the Republican Party manages the government with great efficacy.

[cleek]

Red State, Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney can then point out that the Republican Party manages the government with great efficacy

Ahh... RedState. Where hot topics include Clinton or McCain - Who would nuke Iran first?.

[Trickster]

Speaking as a guy who was questioning whether Bush was the worst President ever by the end of 2001, let me simply state that this is the worst thing they have done yet. This is horrifying.

I'm loath to speak of impeachment, but it's that time.

[Ugh]

Speaking or redstate, I haven't seen anything over there on this (at least not on the front page or "redhot") has insty or any of the other righty blogs put anything up on this?

[cleek]

Greenwald has a few links to righty bloggers on this.

[Steve]

The reaction from the right is kind of like "leakers endanger our national security" and "now the terrorists all know to use Qwest."

Perhaps the most offensive reaction can be found here although maybe I'm the only one offended by it.

[javelina]

Yes! Glenn Greenwald answers my Working Assets questions:

I am happy to report that Working Assets, the telecommunications company whose publishing arm is the publisher of my book, was the only telecom company to sign onto the ACLU's lawsuit seeking an injunction against the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program.

[Ugh]

Do you suppose this moves the Iran bombings up a month or two?

[hilzoy]

javelina: yay! (WA is my long distance carrier.)

Some right-wing reactions: Michelle Malkin: NEWSFLASH: NSA DOING ITS JOB! PowerLine: NSA Accused of Protecting U.S. From Terrorists. StrataSphere: Another Day, Another National Security Leak. Mark Levin at NRO:

"I honestly am appalled at the arguments I hear against our intelligence activities in the face of an enemy who has already infiltrated our country and unleashed attacks from within, killing thousands of our fellow citizens. I get the impression that too many do not take this war seriously."

Riehl World View:

"I heard the libs are upset because of the high numbers of calls to 900 numbers from households self-described as Democrat. Interestingly enough, followed up by high numbers of calls to their Mothers to weepingly apologize for their consistent pattern of self-abuse."

Right Wing Nuthouse:

"There are apparently no limits to which the cadre of leakers who are working in our intelligence agencies will go to undermine legitimate national security interests in furtherance of their own, private agendas."

Sister Toldjah: The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA. protein wisdom:

"More attempts by our “adversarial” press (and their leak-happy counterparts in the CIA) to gin up controversy (...)

But then, to many of those who are vociferously opposing the program, this isn’t about civil liberties concerns. It’s about a hatred of Bush and “his” war(s), and a desire to pin crimes on his administration—which itself is really just the useful idiot component of a CIA and media attempt to undermine our foreign policy so that those two shadow branches of government can re-assert their power over the cultural discourse.

In the process, however, they continue to aid the terrorists."

I sense a pattern emerging.

[cleek]

"I'm From the Government, and I'm Here to Help"

remember when The Right thought that was the funniest thing evah ?

[KCinDC]

The CIA and the media are working together to "re-assert their power over the cultural discourse"!? Really, was there any trace of this bizarre vision of the CIA in the right-wing fantasy world before the WMD fiasco?

[cleek]

the tricky treasonous treacherous traitor, Trent Lott, confirms.

[Tim]

Do you suppose this moves the Iran bombings up a month or two?

Interesting point. Can a President start a war with 25% approval and not get tarred and feathered?

[SomeOtherDude]

A bit OT, yet it pertains to the growing Christian theocratic movement, here in the United States.

They love Big Government, as long as it is run by a man of God and who knows Jesus Christ as Messiah and as their Lord and Savior....and is a total righ-wing lunatic!
-------------------------------------
Features from the latest edition of Fresh Air
New Book Examines Christian Nationalism
May 11, 2006 | NPR · Journalist Michelle Goldberg, a senior writer for the online magazine Salon, and covers the Christian Right. In her new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, she writes that Christian nationalists believe the Bible is literally true -- and they want to see the nation governed by that truth.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

[Ugh]

hilzoy -

Thanks for the links. And here I thought this might shake some of them loose.

To echo KCinDC on Jeff Goldstein: the media is a "shadow branch" of the government?!!?And what makes him think the leak is coming from the CIA, rather than the NSA (or former NSAers)? What a sorry, sad, scared little man.

[Ugh]

Good ole Moe Lane, continuing his journey towards something

I might as well say it, now that USA Today's decided to usurp Presidential privilege on declassification: there's a whole heck of a lot that you can do with, say, five years' worth of phone logs that the enemy doesn't know that you have.

[bob mcmanus]

"I'm loath to speak of impeachment, but it's that time."

Impeachment is soooo first term. It is time for the grownups to take over.

You know what? When the President says he has the right to imprison and/or kill any American citizen on his simple will or whim...which has been their position for years...do you wait for goons to come knocking at your door? Or expect the law and courts to protect you? Or his bribed congressional cronies to restrain him, contrary to recent experience? Or elections to be fair?

Bush simply saying such things, or asserting as a principle the right to say and do such things, should have stopped this country dead in its tracks.

[Jackmormon]

Was anyone else surprised and impressed that it was USA Today that got this scoop? It's not exactly the first newspaper I think of when I think "hard-hitting investigative reporting." Whoever leaked this program wanted Mom, Pop, and the Grandparents deep in the heartland to know about it.

And this "a CIA and media attempt to undermine our foreign policy so that those two shadow branches of government can re-assert their power over the cultural discourse" is hilarious.

[bob mcmanus]

"five years' worth of phone logs that the enemy doesn't know that you have" ...Moe Lane

"the enemy" ??? Would someone explain the use of the word in the context of that sentence?

I was right about Moe long ago, and Katherine was wrong, if anyone remembers that fight. I never had such a gut reaction to Sebastian or Slart or even Tacitus. I feel sorry for von and Charles. Time has proved my instincts pretty accurate.

[hilzoy]

For what it's worth, my read on the Hayden nomination is that it's being opposed by DoD, and supported by Negroponte and the CIA. That inclines me to suspect that the source of a leak against Hayden right before his hearings are supposed to start is not from the CIA.

[Chuchundra]

As I'm fond of pointing out, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that come 2009 Hillary Clinton will inherit all of these extended executive powers that Malkin et al are so happy that Bush has.

I'm sure that they trust that she'll use them wisely.

[Pooh]

it's not beyond the realm of possibility that come 2009 Hillary Clinton will inherit all of these extended executive powers that Malkin et al are so happy that Bush has.

The standard response...let me see if I recall...oh yeah -

DIEBOLD, Bitches!

(apologies to the Kitty if that's too much)

[Fledermaus]

If you want a market-based signal resisting the Bush Administration on this particular issue, you should consider switching your phone service to Qwest.

I'm really shocked and impressed by Qwest on this. I've been on a tirade against them since they were US West, admittedly over a silly billing dispute that happened 8 years ago (yes, like all good midwesterners I know how to hold a (pointless) grudge). But this makes up for it.

[dmbeaster]

That inclines me to suspect that the source of a leak against Hayden right before his hearings are supposed to start is not from the CIA.

I think its from old-school NSA people who are appalled at what he has done to their agency. These are people schooled in the concept that they don't do their dirty tricks on Americans -- spying is after all just a form of legalized law breaking.

Now they have to listen to jokes about how NSA stands for "Now Spying on Americans." And Hayden is the champion of that sickness at the NSA.

[radish]

Huh. What you can do with five years' worth of phone logs that "the enemy" doesn't know that you have, that you can't do with five years' worth of phone logs that the enemy does know you have?

Seriously. I can't think of anything. Can you? In my line of work we refer to this kind of logic as "security through obscurity," and by and large we mock it mercilessly because amateurs are inexorably drawn to it and it's proven pretty much useless in the real world. It's not totally without value in certain circumstances, but almost all of the time it's a guaranteed losing strategy. Cf. works of Moynihan, Daniel Patrick.

BTW (and FTR) here's my Fearless Prediction™ about the next horrifying-but-not-surprising revelation about the "programs" in question.

There's no point having a list like the one mentioned by USAToday unless you have something to correlate it with. Sure, they have lists of serious bad guys, but those are pretty small lists. It wouldn't be worth duplicating a bunch of mindbogglingly massive databases that are already maintained in duplicate by the telcos just to look up people who already have a legitimately compiled dossier and history of roving warrants.

However, what if you were the NSA and you just happened to have this monster database, and some other (non-clandestine, non-military) organization just happened to be maintaining a haphazard, broadly inclusive watchlist of its own? You certainly couldn't get a warrant based on someone's inclusion on such a watchlist, but -- as the NSA -- you'd have no choice but to track the people on that other watchlist, and compile records of who people on that watchlist talked to, and who they emailed, and so forth, because heaven knows you wouldn't want to be accused of dropping the ball. No sir.

And you wouldn't want to ask too many questions about how people got on that other org's watchlist because that would be obstructionist pre-9/11 "chinese wall" type thinking and anyway it's not really your problem is it? If the Unimatary President says the list is good then it's good.

Okay ObWi commenters, can anybody think of a well-known free-from-oversight watchlist that qualifies?

And if it turns out to be correct don't forget where you heard it [implied] first...

[Barry Freed]

Was anyone else surprised and impressed that it was USA Today that got this scoop? It's not exactly the first newspaper I think of when I think "hard-hitting investigative reporting." Whoever leaked this program wanted Mom, Pop, and the Grandparents deep in the heartland to know about it.

Damn, but you're a sharp one.

[cleek]

Was anyone else surprised and impressed that it was USA Today that got this scoop?

i was, but i left it at mere "hmm. that's different". i like where you took it.

[Doug H.]

Okay ObWi commenters, can anybody think of a well-known free-from-oversight watchlist that qualifies?

Two, off-hand: The Federal Do-Not-Call List, or the Federal Double-Secret-Probation Flight List.

[Catsy]

I was thinking of the do-not-fly list, too. All sorts of people make it onto that who have no business being a target of legitimate government scrutiny, but who just happen (by sheer coincidence, I tell you!) to be politically or ideologically undesirable to this administration. And there's no appeal or oversight whatsoever.

[john miller]

Just a comment about the comments.

I have read the entire thread and I have not seen one comment defending this practice except those lifted from other sites.

Where are the trolls?

[bob mcmanus]

You're Not Getting Your Oversight ...Kagrox at Next Hurrah

A Democratic Congress will be able ro investigate, oversee, and curb abuses? Not really. Only if Bushco permits it. Kagrox gives examples of Bush comtempt for Republican oversight committees. If we blame the Republican Congress for not asserting itself and getting tough, kagro explains that supoensa can be ignored, and that Contempt of Congress actions are completely dependent on the Justice Department for enforcement. An old separation-of-powers safeguard. The choices are stark and brutal.

That leaves two alternatives:budgets as weapons, but honestly, the Executive can simply move money where it likes.

And impeachment. And Karl Rove and his crew are bluffing when they talk about the Briar patch of scandals. This is typical Rove strategy, attack your opponent at his strength, and hope he gets defensive or timid. The best response this year is to run right at them.

To tie to hilzoy's next post, indeed, "throw the rascals out." Throw them out because they won't impeach. You can impeach a President simply and solely for not cooperating with oversight and investigations. The inaction is the adequate evidence. It is really the only independent power a Congress has. Impeachment.

This Congressional campaign, and all the work of the supporting blogosphere, should be entirely and single-mindedly about impeachment. Nothing else. There is no serious purpose in talking about Universal Health Care. It ain't gonna happen, and looks weak and insincere to pretend otherwise.

Throw the rascals out. Put in people who will impeach Bush. No other message or subject. Run right at em.

[cleek]

relying on the Dems to "run right at them" seems like a waste of hope

[John Thullen]

We can still work universal health care into the campaign by mentioning that the universe of Republican Congresspeople and the entire Bush White House will be covered for medical maladies while they serve out their prison terms. And a doctor needs to be present for those who receive the death penalty.

We'll need a tax increase for all of that, of course, which may cause suicides among a good part of the Republican base.

I sense a strategy here.

[Gromit]

Over at Tacitus.org, I'm a little disturbed to see so many moderate Democrats arguing that the program itself is okay, but just needs to be brought under the oversight of Congress.

Presumably, the private call logs of Congress and the FISC judges (certainly their calls into and out of DC, at least) are in that database, right?