Experts question legality of phone record collection

[struggle4progress]

By Bob Secter and Jon Van
Tribune staff reporters
Published May 12, 2006, 9:27 PM CDT

The furor over the National Security Agency's collection of Americans' phone records intensified Friday, with one telecommunications giant slapped with a $5 billion damage suit for allegedly violating privacy laws and the former head of another firm saying through a lawyer that his company refused to participate because he thought the program was illegal ..

Peter Swire, an Ohio State University law professor who was the Clinton administration's top adviser on privacy issues, said the 1986 Stored Communications Act forbids such a turnover to the government without a warrant or court order. The law gives consumers the right to sue for violations of the act and allows them to recover a minimum $1,000 for each violation.

"If you've got 50 million people, that's potentially $50 billion," Swire said. "I can't figure out any defense here" ..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060512legal-nsa,1,7436566.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[Poppyseedman]

1. "I can't figure out any defense here" .......

The prof should keep his day job.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR04922:@@@D&summ2=1&

gives bushco and the phone companies all the legal cover they need.

[rzemanfl]

3. No way is NSA a "law enforcement agency." n/t

[Poppyseedman]

5. Your are kidding, right.

The NSA has vast powers and authority.

http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm

[rzemanfl]

6. Can it arrest people? Law enforcement agencies have arrest

powers. NSA is an intelligence agency, it may have people terminated with extreme prejudice on the q.t., but if it has arrest powers, that's news to me.

[Poppyseedman]

9. Try calling for OBL in whatever cave he is currently residing in and

the NSA will have you arrested by someone federal agent with the power to do so.

What exactly is your point?

The NSA doesn't have agents will authority to put the cuffs on you? There are plenty of other jack booted thugs with the authority to do so at their bidding.

[rzemanfl]

10. The law you cite applies to "law enforcement agencies." That's

my point. If an agency has to go to another agency to have someone arrested it is not a law enforcement agency.

[Poppyseedman]

12. Does that really matter?

[rzemanfl]

13. If a law is for law enforcement it is not for intelligence gathering.

The State Attorney can get a warrant to search your house for stolen libary books, the librarian can't.

You can bet there are plenty of phone company lawyers sweating about this one, unless the government agreed to hold them harmless from claims arising out of this travesty.

[struggle4progress]

4. AT&T's lawyers get paid enuf to do their own work. Meanwhile, plenty ..

.. of people who under normal circumstances would be regarded as knowing the applicable law seem to be saying that the phone company behavior is actionable ...

[Poppyseedman]

7. I'm not a lawyer and can put up the best defense a stamp can buy

My phone bill lists every phone number I call. I throw it out and it becomes public record.

What the government was doing was looking at phone numbers and making possible matches.

I'm not happy about it, but these issues are the things the MSM throws out there as red meat to the ignorant public to consume. Not that you are ignorant, but this is really not much to do about nothing. This "story" been known for a while.

It is now being pushed because Hayden is up fir CIA director. It's all a political game. Members of Congress have known about this for years, but only now it's a issue?

I'm a little tired of "our" party members playing us for fools. At least the rethugs are upfront telling us we don't care about screwing you.

This is was so important, it seems a little late, like 12 years, to get all excited about government being able to look at our phone records as well as almost every thing else that is supposed to be protected by the fourth amendment.

[rzemanfl]

8. Everything the goverment is saying about this is probably a lie.

There are specific federal laws about what phone companies can and can't do with customer information that have been ignored that likely have been violated even if you believe the U.S.A. Today story is the whole story.

[Poppyseedman]

11. Ha. The government lies.

Well doh...........
The link I posted has the information on what phone companies can and can't do with customer information. I have not read the thing in it's entire, but the government normally has it's ass well covered.

[struggle4progress]

15. "I have not read the .. link I posted" pretty well sums it up.

[struggle4progress]

14. It's a little late to get excited!? What should we do -- lie down and die?

Of course, political tides may influence what gets most coverage.

But .... the fact that many knew this from reading about TIA, and the FISA court's early rebuke of *, and the shifting spying stories from the White House, &c &c &c -- should simply mean our side is well prepared to fight back ..

[rzemanfl]

2. I read the law once today, the only defense they have is consent

(in the terms of service contract) which was raised this morning. It is a real big stretch, (e.g., can an "exigent" circumstance be nationwide, affect everyone with a phone and last for nearly five years? Might terrorists endanger phone company property or employees?) If they were paid anything by the NSA, it looks to me like their only other arguable defense (no damage award) would go away. I can certainly imagine a judge ruling in their favor if he were a Bush loyalist, and the Supremes, of course, are bought and paid for. If the phone companies insisted on the goverment holding them harmless as part of the deal the American people might actually just be suing themselves.