Talk:MAINWAY

Database online?

I found the website http://www.nsatt.org/ which claims to hold a searchable database of the information in question. When you click on someone's name from a search result, it gives their address, first 5 digits of SSN, and a semi-detailed call/email log. I find it very hard to believe this is a real site, as the whois information is anonymous and the netblock it is on does not appear to be owned by the federal government. Anyone else have any useful details/opinions about including this url in the article? Whitesanjuro 08:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering a quick check of the names that come up do not match the addresses in question and the call details appear to be faked, I'm going to say someone has way too much time on their hands. --Bobblehead 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment

Shouldn't there be something in here about the Fourth Amendment, and how this is an obvious affront to it?

Sparsefarce 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have my Criminal Procedure textbook with me, but I think the Supreme Court ruled once that collecting a person's list of numbers called is OK. The logic was that if you willingly give such information to the phone company, you have no expectation of privacy regarding the government having the same data. I'll look it up in a bit, or maybe someone knows what I'm talking about. --Maxamegalon2000 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the case you're think about is Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). The Court said "we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed." However, Congress enacted a statute requiring a warrant in order to employ a pen register. 18 U.S.C. § 3121. - Whitenoise101

That's the one. It does seem a bit counter-intuitive. --Maxamegalon2000 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an obvious affront to it. That would be a legal conclusion that will take time. However, given the fact that the phone companies themselves already compile this data, and sell it for makreting purposes as far as I know, I think it is likely not a 4th amendment issue, even if you find it creepy. The list doesn't belong to you-it belongs to the phone companies-they compiled it. and they voluntarily handed it over. They were not forced to. Therefore, no warrant needed.

This data is not sold for marketing purposes! Phone number databases are, but not calling records. I think that bit of confusion has probably fueled responses like the Washington Post poll where people seemed to think this was somehow reasonable. To be clear, we're talking about a database that says that on Sat. May 13, 2005 at 07:41 EST, (123)555-1212 called (345)555-1234 and remained connected for 20 minutes. While names are not part of the data, those very same marketting databases you discuss (and which the NSA presumably buys) can easily map (123)555-1212 to "Joe Smith, 89 Main St, Somewhere, Virginia, USA". -Harmil 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

well, i think the sentence that's in there now does a good job. Sparsefarce 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if the weasel words were given some source. Which activists? How widespread is this notion? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this database related to ECHELON? And if so, Does ECHELON violate the 4th?--Doom Child 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The inclusion of every single NSA tool into the big 'Echelon' basket is mainly a media contrivance. DavidGC 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be truthful to say that the call database has prompted outrage because of its invasiveness (not necessarily unlawfulness) and big-brotherlike supervision. Perhaps we should omit the fourth amendment if the consensus is that the collection of call data is not unlawful.Adambiswanger1 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should also note that the actual call conversations would have to be seized via a warrant (I assume), and this is merely an investigation of communications, not the substance of those communications.Adambiswanger1 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

i should never assume that the laws are on our side. we can take out the fourth amendment stuff, but there really should be something about how big and creepy this all is. a big brother reference would make me happy. Sparsefarce 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I forsee a new permutation of "In Soviet Russia" jokes. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we know the dates that this project became active? That should be included in this piece if we have that data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.77.69 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

I'm not sure this information has been released, but a careful reading of Presidential speaches after 9/11 might give a good indication. I wouldn't be surprised if the program was hinted at in round-about ways that made those who were aware of the program sit up and take notice. DavidGC 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it A good idea to put some real perspective on what goes on with the rest of society on this matter. look at all the information that is already stored by corporate america. Internet cookies, store saving cards, credit cards, ect... look at the credit rating services; Equifax, Experion, trans Union. All this information is bought, sold, traded, and compiled. America has turned a blind eye to this for over 40 years.MadDogCrog 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...nobody is turning a blind eye. You accept those "things" by your actions. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet, use a phone, or use a Credit Card, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

67.184.184.128 SIGN YOUR POSTS. Yes 67.184.184.128, your logic is sound, no one is forcing you to survive in the US. Your solution is for those who oppose this act should become hermits if they don't like it. I strongly suggest you read this article, about how people have no clue what "freedom" means anymore, or at least the defintion is changing dramatically and worryingly:

Americans: tell me what you mean by freedom? ...the responses are surprising and very disturbing.[1]

I think you are a poster boy/girl for this worrying change. AND 67.184.184.128 SIGN YOUR POSTS, or I will erase your comments.Travb 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

travb-- why do you feel the need to attack people with your Venomous sarcasm. It is of poor taste. And very poor form. Mostly when there is no constructive comment to back up your attacks. I think your too emotional to have a NPOV on this issue at this time.--MadDogCrog 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of call-data records

I added the sentence: "The database may contain over 2 trillion call-detail records of phone calls made after September 11, 2001."

This is based on information in the Washington Post article: According to data provided by the research group TeleGeography, the three companies connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001. [2] -- Petri Krohn 06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:DavidGC removed the reference to call detail records :-( and modified the text to read: we do not yet know what % of calls these companies connected were reported or what % of those actually made it into the database). I restored my version.

Yes, we do not know how many call detail records are involved. It is however clear, that the request was for all records. As long as the government does not provide an account to what records (if any) are excluded, we can assume that all records may be collected. This provides an upper limit to the number of records possibly (= most likely) involved. If more than three companies provided information, the number may be higher.

This is the second sentence of the introduction; if we want to discuss the numbers in detail, it should be done somewhere else in the article. -- Petri Krohn 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As you have just indicated above, this is really an assumption. While it may seem logical that it was, this is an assumption and there are no sourced statements that indicate that 100% of all records were entered into the database, if only records meeting a certain NSA criteria were entered, or if the process of entering the records was halted at any point in light of current investigations into this scandal. We're making a link here based on our own inferrences and not any concrete data. I think the sentence should be reworded to reflect what we actually know, not what we think, even if our assumptions seem perfectly logical to us now.

Since it is the introduction of the article, anything we include there needs to be absolutely accurate with no chance of misinterpretation. I would be more comfortable with the sentence "The database contains call-detail records provided by companies that have connected over 1,9 trillion phone calls since late 2001" since this is what the sourced article actually says.

Also, I did not modify the text to read what you indicated. That was the text in my edit summary.DavidGC 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Several sources have indeed speculated that the size of the database is at least 1.9 trillion call-detail records: Ryan Singel is on Democracy Now! saying: "You don't need quite the data bank of computers that you would need for the phone records, you know, when you're trying to keep 1.9 trillion phone records, you need a data center that's about as big as Google's." [3] I belive it is safe to say that the database may contain so-and-so many records.

It is also noteworthy, that eliminating some records would make the database far less usefull for its intended purpose of datamining.

My own guess is that the database is in fact larger. Phone companies retain call-detail records typically at least for half a year. The oldest racords could thus be pre 9-11. The AT&T database "Hawkeye" is alone said to contain 1.88 trillion records. -- Petri Krohn 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair argument. I'm now comfortable leaving the statement in the article, with the minor change of adding the word "speculation" and taking out the word "may." Cheers DavidGC 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this sounds better :-) -- Petri Krohn 07:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

9770171738 Jitupacharngiya (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

8435742921 Jitupacharngiya (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ECHELON

It's not so bad that it's in the See also section, but I have a feeling it's being put in there for the wrong reasons, especially when it's with the tagline "same technology; different target". Anyone have an argument for/against this? --Grocer 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know anything about it, but it didn't sound very neutral. You can get rid of it if you want. --Maxamegalon2000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I put the tag there because it was removed the first time, presumably because someone thought it was completely unrelated. It is not completely unrelated, but getting into the detail about how two related SECRET programs are related is ridiculous. For one thing, the relationship changes drasticly over time and for another whatever is published could be deliberate misinformation by somebody anyway. ECHELON needs to be either in the article or on a template or in the see also section. Exactly where doesn't matter much. As for the tag, it can stay or go or be replaced, I don't care. WAS 4.250 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not completely related, either. This is about a clandestine phone database. ECHELON is an open agreement for direct spying on signals. The two programs may overlap, and ECHELON's provisions banning domestic spying may no longer be in place, but they are not similar programs at all. The only similarity is their broad scale and the NSA. I'm not going to take it out again, but I think it merits discussion. --Grocer 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Things don't have to be "completely related" to be put into a "see also" section. "See also" is for "Hey, you found this article interesting, so maybe you might find this article interesting" in a link net that uses templates, categories, in-article links and a catch-all "See also" section that some people use to hold stuff till they add it to the article, and others use to recap the most relevant links of a long article like evolution, and others use to spam their favorite articles (this last is not a recommended usage). If I were doing this last unrecommended thing, I would have added H5N1. WAS 4.250 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the tag "same technology, different target" would be misleading and inaccurate here. An Echelon reference in "see also" makes sense, as it's simply giving another example of NSA efforts. However, the technologies most commonly discussed in open sources in reference to Echelon are not at all similar to the technologies being discussed here. DavidGC 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Suing my phone company: want to make $1000?

For more info, please go to: User:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records

Anyone know of any articles about suing phone companies which gave out this information? Please share. Actually, I found some information, I am going to create a special user page, for those who want to sue. I am a law student, and I am going to study this issue and go talk to some law professors I am going to talk to on Monday.[4]

"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." Signed:Travb 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please comment here: User:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records

If this stuff is valid, I think it definitely deserves a mention in the article. Sparsefarce 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• DavidGC,
• geekyßroad^{. meow?}
• 69.228.53.144
• WAS 4.250

--I moved your comments to User talk:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records Signed:Travb 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

... removing people's comments from the talk page to put on your user page is not cool. Don't hijack others out of the conversation. Please use "copy" instead of "cut." --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to check your Terms of Service agreement. I think many agreements signed when obtaining telecommunications service in the U.S. may include a catch-all clause that enables the company to turn over any records asked for by any U.S. government agency, and you would have agreed to this by using the service, essentially waving your right to sue. Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. DavidGC 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (re-posted from [[5]], hope this ok --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 05:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

What I read in another place was there was a catch-all clause, but it says the were obligated to turn over info if there was a subpeona. This still needs to be verified for each phone company involved. --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 07:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (re-posted from [[6]])

You know...I think you may have a case...guess what shocking discovery I just learned of?? The phone companies also routinely print up lists of people's phone #'s along with their name/address and compile it in book form and distribute it free to everybody...they call this the Telephone Book...OUTRAGEOUS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Funny, until you realize the history of what the US government does with this information. Ever heard of the Pinkertons, if you are an average American, probably not.16:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinkertons?? Who are you...Jesse James?? I'm guessing you (like MANY AMERICANS) throw away your phone bill every month...and Jeb and Cecil who work at the local trash dump in your town know every phone call you've made. Perhaps some need a history lesson and should familiarize themselves with the actions of the Clinton Administration regarding this issue. Calm down, catch your breath and expand your knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Let me repeat myself: Clinton's culpability (guilt) does not make Bush's culpability any more or less. I am not familar with the Clintons issues, please tell me more.

Sign your posts with ~~~~ or I will erase them.

You ignored my comment about the Pinkertons, do you know what I am talking about? See the further reading article on the Pinkertons page, read the article. I am getting bored talking with you, because you are telling me nothing new.Travb 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Political discussions aren't useful here, but you may be interested to learn ECHELON was drafted by then cia-man George H.W. Bush. --Grocer 12:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have a tough time proving that the phone company has been turning your information over specifically. If you can find a record of your personal information that the phone company has compromised, you have a case; otherwise, don't bother. Odds are, it will be nearly impossible to verify your claim absolutely. Dave 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

I'm unsure that a section on COINTELPRO is useful here. Based on COINTELPRO's Wikipedia article, it was a covert operation. As this article is about a surveillance program (observing and collecting information), rather than covert ops (influencing or changing events), it seems out of place here. Maybe just a link in "See Also" would suffice? DavidGC 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The laws which the Bush administration is arguably breaking are based on the findings of COINTELPRO, revealed by the Church Committee, I can add this information to the section, if you wish, adding more of a link to COINTELPRO and NSA call database. Most Americans have no idea that the US government has a rich history of prying into their affairs. I feel that this contribution gives historical context to the NSA call database, which is lacking in almost all newsreports which I am aware of.

From my perspective, both of your points are unfortunatly not correct:

Based on COINTELPRO's Wikipedia article, it was a covert operation.

Bush did not announce the NSA call database, it was also a "covert operation"

As this article is about a surveillance program (observing and collecting information), rather than covert ops (influencing or changing events), it seems out of place here.

The NSA call database information is reportedly being used to capture Al-Queda operatives, in a "covert" way, which is being used to "influenc[e] or changing events"

Thank you for posting your concerns here, instead of deleting the section. I appreciate your wikietiquette and wish more wikiusers were like you. Travb 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. A fundamental element of the study of intelligence methods and history is that there is a large difference between covert operations / action and intelligence gathering. Both activities are secret by necessity, so since one action is kept secret does not mean that it is naturally a covert operation (otherwise, nearly all intelligence activity would be classed as covert operations).

In intelligence parlance, "covert operations" / "covert action" does not merely refer to operations/actions that are covert, but it is rather a specific name for activities designed to bring about changes in a covert way. Spying is thus a separate activity from covert ops, though some intelligence agencies (not all) perform both functions. The former is designed to gather information while not being detected and to walk away with that information while not having changed anything else (even if that agency or someone else may take that information and act on it later in an overt or even covert way). By contrast, covert operations are all about changing the course of events through the operation/action itself.

To give a couple outlandish examples, even Ethan Hunt's theft of the NOC List from the CIA in the first Mission: Impossible movie would be considered an intelligence gathering operation, rather than a covert operation / covert action. By contrast, Tom Bishop's attempt in the movie Spy Game to assassinate a terrorist leader by using the doctor to administer a lethal dose would be considered a covert operation / action.

A good resource for studying the history of intelligence and the difference between covert action/operations and spying is Mark M. Lowenthal's Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy and also Roy Godson's Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards : U.S. Covert Action and Counterintelligence, which is particularly relevant here. Based on the descriptions in the media, the program described is actually an intelligence-gathering operation (secretly collecting data) rather than a covert action. DavidGC 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not refering to the technical meaning, which you explained wonderfully, but the broader meaning of the word "covert". i.e. the actions of Bush were covert. As explained above, I believe that COINTELPRO provides a historical context to the NSA call database, which is lacking in most news reports, and is very relevant to this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia would arguably contain the histrical background to the NSA call database.Travb 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. However, there are probably other examples of domestic spying rather than covert operations / covert action that you could use to provide a better historical context. As a happy medium, I think shifting the focus of the Historical Context section from COINTELPRO to the Church Committee or other post-Watergate hearings would fit the bill nicely and would serve to make the same point you are attempting to make -- that domestic spying has occured before and that Congress had enough and decided to crack down on it during the 1970s through legislation. As is, the inclusion of a covert action program as a means of providing historical background for an intelligence-gathering program sort of makes the article appear somewhat confused from the perspective of those who study intelligence issues and is probably not the best way to present the point.

Shifting the focus of the Historical Context section from COINTELPRO to the Church Committee would make your case much stronger, since the Church Committee reviewed a very large array of intelligence programs. Therefore, by shifting the focus, the emphasis of the section would be on a solid case of an exhaustive government examination of intelligence programs, rather than on a somewhat weaker case of a single program that did not focus solely on collection in the same way. --DavidGC 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this has any precedence, not even under totalitarian regimes. This is the first example of mass surveillance. I do not think that even the Stasi had the technology to do it at this scale. The only precedences are in fiction, see Big Brother (1984) etc. -- Petri Krohn 14:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jose" in Customer Service and "Mary" who works in HR at AT&T along with THOUSANDS of other phone company employees have access to your call records (and your name and address) and yet...when an intelligence agency is VOLUNTARILY given these records (just the #'s) to look for terrorist intelligence patterns, you people lose it and go wild. BRILLIANT!! btw, there is precedent...do some research on the Clinton Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Clinton's culpability (guilt) does not make Bush's culpability any more or less.

Anon, I love conservatives rationalization, who will never be victims of the excesses of the US government, telling the rest of us, the "others" that the infringement on our consitutional rights are really no big deal. And sure, some people are destroyed by the actions of the government, but hey, these are "mistakes", and necessary to protect our beloved freedoms, which ironically, we are so welcome to give away. Conservatives can have such a non-chalant attitude because by never questioning the government, the government will never infringe on those conservatives rights. Travb 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument isn't with the Bush Administration...it's with Verizon and the other telephone companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Actually, they were paid to give over the information. Is bribary for private information legal? Anyway, its with both groups. The government legally, shouldn't have this information, and the companies should never have given it away. 12.220.94.199 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The government has to pay any costs that the telephone companies incur while compiling this information...as required by law. That is NOT bribery. btw...do you find it interesting that the lawyers for the telephone companies as well as the career Justice Department lawyers agreed that this was perfectly legal?? It's amazing..."Jose" in Customer Service at AT&T knows your name, address, and who you call everyday, but when a career NSA intelligence official gets JUST your call# details...people throw a hissy fit. Clinton approved a similar program during his Administration...and there's no problem...Bush does the same...and all hell breaks loose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

the argument that the Corporate World should be able to amass, sell, trade, and barter this information and the government can't seems strange to me. I fear the Corporate World as much as I fear my government and yours. And lets stick with the issue please becouse labeling people after one comment shows lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding for the people that might not really fit in those tight boxes.--MadDogCrog 06:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional political reaction

This area seems to bend to one politcal direction and misses the wikipedia neutral point-of-view. This should be deleted or updated with a broader base of comments. I would tag it if I knew how.--MadDogCrog 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to explain what area you are talking about.Travb 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The best way to solve this problem would be to find other political reactions that you would see as balancing the perspective and then add them to the article. I personally have had some difficulty finding quotes from politicians who are vociferously defending the White House on this issue, but part of the reason for their absence may be that controversy makes headlines while agreement generally makes page A23. --DavidGC 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sucks to be in the minority and marginalized, huh? Welcome to my world. Travb 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no emotional stake in either side of this issue. If, after a more exhaustive review, there's found to be an overall lack of political statements on one side of the argument, that would reflect the reality of the overall response. I am growing concerned, however, since I've just reread the article, and it appears to be gradually shifting from a NPOV to a POV article, based on the one-sidedness of items that are gradually being added. At this rate, the article will be POV very soon if it isn't already, and we will need to tag it as such. The article is beginning to fall out of balance. --DavidGC 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

One political reaction might be the new-found "wisdom" that call-detail record did not contain any sensitive information anyway an there is nothing privacy infringing in freely passing them to the government. I do not know it this view has been expressed by anyone more serious than, say, talk radio hosts. -- Petri Krohn 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it an accurate portrayal that there are absolutely no Republican congress members, senators, or other political persons who are defending the White House on this issue? If the Political Reactions section is an accurate portrayal, this appears to be the case. However, if some politicians have defended the White House, their comments should be added to this section for balance and to avoid a POV tag. I'm not sure how the news coverage has been on this issue. --DavidGC 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hadley the White House national security adviser defended the NSA actions: "These are business records that have been held by the courts not to be protected by a right of privacy. And there are a variety of ways in which those records lawfully can be provided to the government." Security chief claims phone spying lawful -- Petri Krohn 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be written by writers who don't like the program. Several times it is called "tapping". After one instance of someone bringing up a possibly applicable law, I added a sentence mentioning that the NSA call database is not technically wiretapping, and thus the particular law mentioned may not apply. Be careful with your logic, folks. Only a redefinition of "wiretapping" would apply to call records. BlueNight 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Form letter to sue your local phone company

Form letter to sue your local phone company

The applicable statute[7] states:

"The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court." (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)

In otherwords, you can sue in civil court, not federal court.

Hopefully SBC settles the case out of court, I send a message (which I will advertise across the internet for thousands of people to repeat), and I make $1000. Everyone wins, except for the phone carriers who handed over this information illegally to the NSA.

Signed:Travb 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

-Nice letter. These companies got caught sleeping with the NSA, now they need to pay.

"USA Today broke the story"

Is it really correct to say "The USA Today broke the story on its front page on 10 May 2006."? The New York times broke this story last December. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html—Linnwood 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the NYT did write on the NSA monitoring phone calls made into and out of the United States, this is not generally viewed as being as significant as what the USA Today report has indicated. The program described by the NYT could have been reasonably assumed to be targeted only at non-U.S. citizens. The USA Today report, however, stated that the program (possibly a different one) involved obtaining information about domestic-to-domestic calls (as well as international ones), including calls made between U.S. citizens. It would therefore be an example of the Foreign Intelligence infrastructure of a country being aimed back at its own citizens, when this role was previously performed only by domestic security / law enforcement organizations. --DavidGC 09:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Linnwood is quoting a conservative talking point, I have heard this on conservative talk shows. Thanks for clearing this up DavidGC, and showing how misleading this statment is. Travb 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your partisan attacks to yourself. This is not a "talking point" but rather a fact. The New York Times did report on this last December.—Linnwood 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question was valid, in my opinion. Please examine both the NYT and the USA Today articles carefully, and you will see that the NYT article does not mention calls between U.S. citizens being monitored under the program discussed in that article. The USA Today story which talks about a possibly-different program focuses on this domestic-monitoring aspect, which is where the new story exists. They are separate pieces of information and, possibly, separate programs, given that one focuses on communications between the U.S. and overseas (possibly only involving non-U.S. persons), while the other includes domestic-to-domestic calls. Based on both articles and other sources, we can assume that the former category has been monitored for a long time. The latter category, however, is a role that has traditionally been reserved for the FBI with warrant in hand. --DavidGC 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times story requires registration and payment of $3.95. I did however find a freely available version at Truthout.org: [8]

In summary, what appears to be happening is this: the government is watching phone records on domestic-to-domestic and domestic/foreign calls, phone records that are available to law enforcement; the government is also listening to selected domestic/foreign phone calls without warrants. This is all with the stated purpose of keeping America unattacked, and catching domestic terrorists, sleeper cells, etc. This is a can of worms, but it's not Pandora's box, in my opinion, as long as the correct branch of the government uses the data, and only for the purposes stated. BlueNight 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Erased unsourced and unconfirmed speculation

Original edit:

Some have speculated that the sources were from the phone companies rather than the government based on the fact that the reporter credited with the story is a business reporter rather than a political one.[9]

This is really a terrible sentence. It starts off with the word "some" WHO? Don't write in wikipedia if you are going to use words "some". It is really bad form.

I attempted to confirm this story, which the wikieditor didn't, and the story got worse. This is what I found:

MARK SHIELDS: One piece of speculation I picked up today -- and it's unconfirmed, but it's fascinating -- this was broken by USA Today by a business reporter, and that the story itself, the question was whether it was leaked by the phone companies that had complied that were worried about potential liability.[10]

Unconfirmed speculation does not belong in the first paragraph of an article on wikipedia.

signed:Travb 10:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Erased info by other user

Erased by User:Philwelch here:

• An unscientific poll conducted on CNN's website found that 25% of internet respondants felt safer as a result of the NSA database while 75% felt it was "creepy" <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/24900.content.html QuickVote results] — [[CNN]], [[11 May]], [[2006]]</ref>.

Reason given by User:Philwelch: "remove useless pseudo-data."

Signed:Travb 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to keep everything deleted out of the article on the talk page unless some people dispute whether it should have been removed—are you disputing this?—Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just bringing it up on talk. I could care less one way or the other.Travb 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Representation of poll data

Travb, I suggest you work out your new table-based system to represent poll data in your userspace before adding it to the article. You've had an inuse template on there for hours now, and it's disrupting all other edits to the article. As people are using this article as a resource, it would be best not to display work-in-process on the current version. I still think your table is unnecessary and a worse way to represent the data (especially since it shows the refuted Washington Post poll as coequal to the other polls) but if you can work out a complete version so we can do a fair comparison I might change my mind. Thanks for your understanding.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:NSA call database/Poll data <-- OK, I've copied over your last version here so you can develop it without disrupting the main article. Truce? :)—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You ignored the {{inuse}} tag, you blamed me for your incivility in editing a section which clearly had an {{inuse}} tag, you reverted my edits four times, after I asked you to stop after the first one, and you clearly misrepresented the facts by stating in your first revert that there had been no edits in an hour, when the last edit was one minute before.[11] Travb 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to move beyond personal attacks here and do something constructive. Please let me know when you're ready to follow.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we've apologized to each other. Now let's get down to substance. Talk:NSA call database/Poll data has Travb's version of the "public reaction" section. I think it's easier for everyone involved if we use that subpage to develop his version of that section before we talk about integrating it into the main article. From what I saw so far, Travb's version was pretty unclear in a few ways. I recognize this is because it's a work in process, but let's complete it before integrating it into the page. We should give our readers a polished article instead of a work-in-process anyway—using sandboxes like Talk:NSA call database/Poll data to develop large changes is a tad less disruptive than using inuse tags, I think. Travb, is this agreeable to you?—Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edit

Old edit:

According to the research group TeleGeography, the three companies connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001.

New edit:

According to the research group TeleGeography, the three companies believed to have provided data connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001.

The new edit does not grammatically work. I don't know what this user is trying to say.

Are you attempting to soften the 500 billion number?

Weasel words: A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue.

Please rewrite this sentence so that it grammtically works. As it stands now, it is missing an "are":

According to the research group TeleGeography, the three companies are believed to have provided data connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001.

But then you have the confusion of data connected in the sentence. Read the sentence fully outloud and see if you notice the problem, and rewrite it, or better, remove the edit please.

Signed:Travb 12:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't weasel words. "The three companies" is ambiguous, "the three companies believed to have provided data" disambiguates it. It would be much less ambiguous if we said "AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth" instead of either of those, however.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

TeleGeography provides data on the number of phone calls, but they do not provide data (or even speculete) whether this data has been passed on to NSA. This information is only based on USA Today. -- ~~

P.S. Have a look at my new article on the secrecy of correspondence -- Petri Krohn 13:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch Please edit the sentence so it is grammatically correct.Travb 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence already is grammatically correct. I do suggest, however, that it's horribly confusing and should be rephrased. How about: "According to the research group TeleGeography, AT&T (including the former SBC), Verizon, and BellSouth connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001." ?—Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that is almost verbatium from the orginal edit, but sounds good, I will add it into the article.Travb 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Glad we can work together constructively :)—Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV-check

User:Skooiman added a ((POV-check)) template on the page. No specific issues have been raised. -- Petri Krohn 22:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm removing the template. Nothing can be done if objections aren't raised. 12.220.94.199 00:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think we're getting very close to needing this on this article, but whoever adds the template needs to state their reasons here. --DavidGC 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Flow of the article

Hi; I dropped by this article from the front page, and I know it's a current event and therefore subject to speedy changes/updates, but I wanted to comment that the flow of the article seems very choppy right now, it could be better-organised and summarised, particularly for people who have no previous knowledge of the topic. It's awkward how it moves from the (very short) summary straight into the Qwest section; I think the introduction/summary should be a lot longer, covering more information. I know I could just *be bold* and edit it myself, but I don't know anything about this topic, or even if the reason it's choppy is because it's been cannibalised by a zealous editor, so if it's OK I'll leave it to editors with more experience with the topic; just giving my feedback from the POV of someone with no prior knowledge of the topic.--Anchoress 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is very choppy as-is, and appears thrown together. Once the editing settles down and fewer new sections are being added, I'll attempt to reconcile the article and create an overall flow, if no one else beats me to it. --DavidGC 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Call records being used to track down leaks?

I read an article in Slashdot alleging that the call record database is being used by the CIA to try to track down people (FBI, CIA, Government) who leak information to the press. This is an issue of some concern, since it is often the case people leaking information are doing so because the State is behaving in an unethical manner. Is anyone else coming across this news? if there is some substance to it, it would I think be relevant to mention it in the main article. Toby Douglass 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case where Sonera, formerly Finnish Telecom used its database of call detail records to hunt down insiders, who where expressing negative views on the company to members of the press, including editors of Helsingin Sanomat. Lucily this story ended well; the CEO Kaj-Erik Relander and officials of the company’s security unit were convicted to prison sentences and those under surveillance received compensation. [12] [13] (By this time the state owned company had lost $50 billion of its value.) -- Petri Krohn 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's currently in the "Uses of the database" section. --65.25.217.79 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Slashdot article you've mentioned. However, the intelligence community would presumably be within their rights to use any database to monitor their own employees with security clearances (the act of acquiring the data for the database is a separate issue). Government employees with security clearances are subjected to a different standard for monitoring, due to the nature of their security clearance. This is something that they agree to upon employment and as part of the process to obtain their clearance, if I recall correctly. Several books on the issue of counterintelligence address this topic, and nearly any book discussing the apprehension of Aldrich Ames should provide a good demonstration of how this mechanism is used. Ironically, employees of the U.S. intelligence commmunity appear to be among the most heavily-monitored people on the planet, as they are not only monitored by their own counterintelligence shops, but also by any other government who discovers their employment and determines they are of interest. --DavidGC 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more speculation on the use: It seems likely that the data is used to construct the terrorist watch list. I have not seen this mentoned, but I suspect someone will be bringing this up soon. -- Petri Krohn 02:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

History of government repression

Toby Douglass, excellent points, I didn't know about this, although it doesn't really surprise me. There is a long history of the US government using what is called a slippery slope--in otherwords, they say that the information is only going to be used one way, but before long, it is used in an other way, broading the government powers to supress. That is why the Cointelpro section is so important in this article, to give a much needed historical context.

I could include other examples of government misusing the information they recieve clear back to the beginning the: Pinkertons. An excellent article on this history is here:

• "From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present". The New Centennial Review. 4 (1): 1–72. 2004. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Exceprts (and I paraphrase):

One of the best means of understanding a current phenomenon is to view it through the lens presented by similar historical contexts. [I]t is entirely appropriate to explore the evolution of todays government powers by examining the following:

1. "COINTELPRO Era" of FBI political repression during the period 1956-1971.³
2. It is appropriate to peel the onion further, examining the antecedents of COINTELPRO, demonstrating its foundation in the post-World War II "Second Red Scare" period,⁴ for instance, and,
3. earlier still, the post-World War I Red Scare, which gave rise to the Palmer Raids,⁵
4. the IWW trials,⁶ and
5. the newly formed Federal Bureau of Investigation's campaign to destroy Marcus Garvey and his United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA; still the largest African American organization in U.S. history).⁷
6. The purpose of this essay is to push the timeline back further still, to the beginning, sketching the template upon which the Bureau was itself constructed, not in the fifth or even the second decade of the twentieth century, but rather in the mid-nineteenth, [with the Pinkertons].⁹

³ Also see David Cole, "The Course of Least Resistance: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism," in Brown, Lost Liberties, 13-32.

⁴ Probably the best overview remains David Caute's The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge UnderTruman and Eisenhower (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978). Also see Athan Theoharis, Seeds ofRepression: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of McCarthyism (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971).

⁵ An excellent examination is provided in Robert W. Dunn, ed., The Palmer Raids (New York: International, 1948). For further background, see Robert K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

⁶ The centerpiece of this juridical offensive was the mass trial—by far the largest in U.S. history (bleachers had to be installed in the courtroom to seat the defendants)—of 113 IWW leaders on an average of 100 charges each, all devolving upon the notion of "sedition" and "seditious conspiracy." Beginning on 1 April 1918, the trial lasted until 31 August when, after having convicted them en masse, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis sentenced 15 of the accused to twenty years imprisonment, 33 to ten years, and 35 to five years. More-or-less simultaneously, mass trials of IWW organizers also occurred in [End Page 56] Wichita, Kansas, and Sacramento, California. In Wichita, 34 persons were tried, and 27 convicted and sentenced to serve from one to nine years imprisonment; in Sacramento, where there were 46 defendants, all were convicted and received sentences of up to ten years. For one of the best treatments of these proceedings, see Philip A. Taft, "The Federal Trials of the IWW," LaborHistory 3 (winter 1962).

⁷ On Garvey and UNIA, see Robert A. Hill Jr., "The Foremost Radical of His Race: Marcus Garvey and the Black Scare, 1918-1920," Prologue 16 (winter 1984). More broadly, see Theodore Kornweibel Jr., Seeing Red: Federal Campaigns Against Black Militancy, 1919-1925 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998).

⁸ See, e.g., my "'To Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy': The FBI's Secret War Against the Black Panther Party," in Kathleen Cleaver and George Katsiaficas, eds., Liberation, Imagination, and the Black Panther Party: A New Look at the Panthers and Their Legacy (New York: Routledge, 2001), 78-79; "The FBI's Secret War Against the Black Panther Party: A Case Study in Repression," in Curtis Stokes, Theresa Meléndez, and Genice Rhodes-Reed, eds., Race in the Twenty-first Century (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2001), 268.

⁹ In terms of legislation, there are of course much earlier examples, notably the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1800. Nonetheless, I locate the point of departure in the juncture at which the apparatus of enforcement of such ideologically repressive statutes is formally established, if not as a component integral to the central government itself, then through the regularized employment of surrogate entities retained for this specific purpose. On the early legislation, see John C. Miller, Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Sedition Acts (Boston: Atlantic-Little, Brown, 1951).

Uses of the database

I have an objection to the portion of this section which reads as follows:

"Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent of ABC News, has reported on May 15th, that he's been warned by several sources that the phone records of employees at ABC News, The New York Times and The Washington Post have been examined in an effort to determine the identity of government whistle-blowers."

The sourced article clearly indicates that they do not know if this has any relation to the NSA database. Based on standard procedure for counterintelligence investigations (which is what the CIA leak investigation would be), the FBI would be handling this investigation, and would simply obtain a warrant for the phone records of the CIA employee under investigation through what is now a speedy and straightforward process, which the FBI is very accustomed to doing. (Several articles by the Washington Post have explained this process when discussing various leak investigations over the past couple of years.) There is no need to bring in the NSA database in this case, even if those at the FBI investigating this would be cleared for it (which is unlikely, given recent revelations by DOJ regarding NSA stonewalling on giving them access to this data). I've removed the paragraph, which should perhaps be moved to another article (perhaps one on leak investigations) where it would be more appropriate. -- DavidGC 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DavidGC, there is little connection.Travb 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

about this part:

Using relational mathematics it is possible to find out if someone changes their telephone number by analyzing and comparing calling patterns.

why do we need a citation for something that can be simply explained? Buffer0 00:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

1. Wikipedia sucks! There is no master article on telecommunications privacy laws. I did however add a category privacy of telecommunications and wrote an article on the secrecy of correspondence.
2. The United States Constitution sucks! Unlike most European constitutions the United States Bill of Rights does not explicitly provide for the secrecy of correspondence. Privacy of correspondence and of telecommunications in general is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This protection is dependent on the reasonable expectation of privacy. In Europe the constitutional principle of secrecy of correspondence is extended to all forms of communication and related data, including call detail records. In the U.S. the privacy of call detail records, and all telecommunications in general, is dependent on public opinion and perceptions; if the government says they are spying on everyone, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Deriving from the Fourth Amendment there is no longer a right to privacy. -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on your #2, an expectation of privacy most certainly still exists. Just because the government is violating it doesn't take it away. Staxringold 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Amber Dempsey, I think the Bill of Rights is a good thing, and it does provide for constitutional protections not found in many nations in the world, including Europe. The reasonable expectation of privacy test, for all its faults, isn't tied to the behavior of governments. Otherwise the determination of what doesn't constitute a search will always be defined by the government's actions, which is counterintuitive. Though there may not be constitutional protection for the disclosure of call records, that's where statutory protections come into play, both on the state and federal levels. --Whitenoise101 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution was written in 1783, prior to the invention of the telephone. Most European constitutions were written after the Second World War. Additionally, a US Supreme Court ruling from 1877 does provide for the "secrecy of letters"—the US uses a common law system where court rulings are more significant than in European systems.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

Deleted sentence:

Gingrich did not criticize the program itself, but rather the way the government has attempted to defend it before the public.

I added a {{fact}} tag to this sentence and another user then deleted it.[14]

To the author of this sentence: I find the best way to ensure my own pet POV (which we all have, but not everyone admits to having) stands wikipedia scrutiny is to reference everything exhastively. If you want the Gingrich statment to stand the scrutiny of those who share opposite POV than your own, the best way to do this is to reference your contributions. Find a newspaper or magazine which has your same POV on a particular subject, and quote that source stating, for example: "Newsweek argues that...."

With you Gingrich quote, I find it highly POV and unlikely, that is why I tagged it with {{fact}}. Gingrich is clearly criticizing the program, and yet you attempt to temper what Gingrich says. I think in this case, when your unsourced statment clearly contradicts what Gingrich said, you will have to quote Gingrich himself as saying "I did not criticize the program itself, but rather I was criticizing the way the government has attempted to defend it before the public." This is the only way that the sentence will withstand brutal wikipedia scrutiny.

Hope this helps.Travb 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I added this to the text, based on the Meet the Press transcript:

• Later on Meet the Press, Gingrich stated that "everything that has been done is totally legal," and he said the NSA progam was defending the indefensible, "because they refuse to come out front and talk about it."<ref name = "newt"> {{cite web | title =Immigration, NSA Wiretapping, and Iraq | work =Meet the Press interview, on www.newt.org | url =http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3051 | accessdate=2006-05-16 }} </ref>

Signed:Travb 13:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Newt quotes about NSA

From Newt's offical page:

MR. GINGRICH: Well, first of all, the amazing thing is—everything that has been done is totally legal. You just look at the, at the specifics of what they’re doing, it is totally legal. The real problem is the Bush administration refuses to come up front and explain it in advance. If you go to the American people and say, “We’re in a long war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam, there are people who want to kill millions of us, your government has to have an ability to track these people down, in the electronic age it has to be real time. Should the Congress guarantee that the United States government is capable of stopping terrorists, detecting terrorists and, if necessary, going back out and finding out who the terrorists worked with, once you know who the terrorists are? I bet this country’s 90 percent in favor of that, as long as there are protections against you as an innocent person having a U.S. attorney use that information for any purpose other than national security.

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday night you said—told “Hannity & Colmes” it was defending the indefensible.

MR. GINGRICH: Because they refuse to come out front and talk about it. As long as this stuff leaks out and then they’re on defense, then you get these kind of absurd magazine covers and then you’re going to have Senator Specter saying he’s going to threaten American companies. Think about what it does to any company in the United States who would like to cooperate with the U.S. government to be told, “And by the way, you could be subpoenaed by the U.S. Senate and then, by the way, you can have a lawsuit filed,” as they—apparently two lawyers have announced they’re going to file lawsuits. Do you want this country to—and I’m a constitutional conservative. The Congress has to have oversight. Things have to be done in a legal way...

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re not troubled with the government gathering data on phone calls made in this country by American citizens?

MR. GINGRICH: Look, if you find out one morning that we now have five terrorists in the U.S. who are part of an active network who want to destroy New York City or Buffalo or Atlanta, and the government says, “You know, we could’ve tracked every call they made for the last 10 years, but that would’ve been wrong, Tim. So we don’t know who they’ve been working with. We don’t know what their network is and we can’t stop it,” you’re then going to have a totally new set of congressional hearings by the same people who will then reverse their side, totally. I do think your civil liberties ought to be...(unintelligible). Nobody who’s not involved in terrorism should be at risk. Nobody who’s making normal phone calls should be at risk. But the idea that we’re going to say to the United States government, for libertarian reasons, “We’d rather lose a city than have you gather data,” I think is totally out of touch with the danger of the modern world.

Lawsuits

Had a section called "Justice department response" which described some activity of a similar, but unreleated, suit[15]. Thus zapped. I've also added the talk-header template at this talk-page in what will hopefully focus the discussion on the article as opposed to using the forum to vent one's particular brand of politics. mdf 19:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact the very same database (and suit). It seems to be based on information in the New York Times story last December. The NYT had most of the facts, except for maybe the scope of the program, available already last year. The Bush administration managed to whitewash the issue, by getting the public to believe that the program was only about foreign phone calls. It was only the USA Today that broke the (domestic) story to the general public.

I am restoring the section. -- Petri Krohn 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If in fact this is the "same database", then it is at odds with the sentence in the first paragraph of this article:

The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on 2006-05-10.

The "general public" (which includes the EFF) can't file lawsuits about things it doesn't know about, but the lawsuit mentioned in "Justice department response" was filed 2006-01-31 by the EFF. mdf 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One can also note that it is stretching things to say that a motion filed in a lawsuit that is almost 5 months old can be characterized as a "response" of the "Justice department" to the supposed revelations of USA Today. mdf 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the EFF is not part of the "general" public, but an enlightened part of the public. In any case, the wording in the intro could be improved. -- Petri Krohn 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

ThinThread

I added a short note on ThinThread, since the Sun's contention was that its technology is the basis for current analysis tools. -Harmil 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal Status

This section may be worthwhile, but the subsections; 'The Stored Communications Act' should be given its's own page and then linked to the See Also section. 'Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act', should be removed and linked in the See Also section too.

'Historical background' should be deleted becouse it does not reference the NSA call database. and the references to FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), Church Committee, COINTELPRO, should also be added to the See Also section. I will do this if there is no objection--MadDogCrog 06:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your on the need of and article on the Stored Communications Act. Much of the material here could be moved there. I stongly objets to your other suggestions on removing the discussion on the legality from this article. In fact I believe it should be given more prominence. -- Petri Krohn 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Securities law

I inserted the following paragraph into the article, which I believe to be factual, NPOV, and properly cited and referenced.

Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to lie about their activities when telling the truth would compromise the security of the United States, as so interpreted by the President.[3] President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media.[9]

Someone reverted it. I am not sure if this is because the person is deliberately trying to whitewash the article, or because the person is simply dense. If this section is not NPOV, factual, or properly cited, please discuss the matter here; otherwise, please do not remove it. Kwertii 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kwertii, please try to refain from making disparaging remarks about other editors, such as calling them "dense" or questioning their motives. I recognize that this is a very politically-charged issue that tends to stir up strong emotions on both sides, but we need to try to stay away from name calling and incivility. --DavidGC 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no statutory permission to "lie". The interpretation of that statute as written in this article is not a correct statement of fact. That is why it is removed. If someone wants to write a correct interpretation of the statute, that would be up for legitimate debate whether it is relevant to the article. Specifically:

The statute in question reads:

(3)(A) With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance.

So this paragraph names one particular statutory provision which it affects: "paragraph (2) of this subsection", i.e. the immediately preceding paragraph. It has no legal effect outside its attenuation of that prior paragraph. That paragraph reads:

(2) Every issuer which has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 78l of this title and every issuer which is required to file reports pursuant to section 78o(d) of this title shall -

(A) make and keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer;

(B) devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that -

(i) transactions are executed in accordance with management's general or specific authorization;

(ii) transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets;

(iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management's general or specific authorization; and

(iv) the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences; and

(C) notwithstanding any other provision of law, pay the allocable share of such issuer of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with section 7219 of this title.

So essentially, paragraph (3)(A) provides for certain conditions in which the government can excuse a company from its obligation to keep accurate records, policies, and allocation in the accounting of its assets. To refrain from accurate accounting of assets is very different from, and is sharply contrasted, with an explicit authorization to lie about a company's activities - to actively proliferate false statements, rather than merely refrain from providing accurate accounting; about not only its assets, but its activities in a far more general context.

The interpretation provided earlier in the article is simply not correct. If the administration or the companies are actually characterizing the statute in the way its given in the article, that might be relevant, but would not belong as a mere statement of fact, but rather in comparison with the reality of the law. As it has been included, the previous description of this law is just plain wrong and does not belong in the article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to refer to the actual provisions of the statute. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak, apologetic interpretation. "To refrain from accurate accounting" is just a verbose legalese euphemism for "to lie". Kwertii 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added commentary to this effect in the article. Please discuss changes here. Kwertii 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the last person in the world who would want to give an apologetic interpretation for this. On the contrary, there is a substantial difference between a legal authorization to refrain from accurate accounting and one permitting outright lies, and it's important people can understand that if companies lie to try to cover their tracks in this, they cannot hide behind the law. That said, the added commentary in the article for the statute being legalese for permitting lying is inaccurate and not NPOV. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Reaverdrop! Your research is substantial and accurate. I also found the statements POV. I would request that you rewrite that section to make it more accurate and reflect a less POV, and remove the interpretation “lie”. I hope the POV wikihounds will lets you make this obvious needed change, but some are so territorial!--MadDogCrog 08:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From Webster's 1913 dictionary (accessible online at dict.org, among other places):

Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception;
an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.

An authorization "to refrain from accurate accounting" is, by this clear and neutral definition, an authorization "to lie". If one is "not accounting for something accurately", one is acting a falsehood for the purpose of deception; or, as more usually put, one is "lying". According to this clear and straightforward definition of "lie", if one is authorized to intentionally violate the truthfulness of accounting records, one is ipso facto authorized to "lie".

Your research and commentary are interesting and seem to be accurate, but you're missing the point. It looks really bad from a PR perspective to write something like "you may lie about your accounts when authorized by the President" in a law, so it's dressed up in layers of obfuscation like "you may refrain from proper accounting..", in the spirit of the non-denial denial frequently employed by PR firms and politicians.

It is, fortunately, easy to cut through all the deliberate logical misdirection and misinformation, by looking at the simple definitions of common terms, and seeing how well they fit the logic of the legalese. Here, we have a textbook example of how a concept that adheres exactly to the dictionary definition of "to lie" can be extended into a much wordier, abstruse, and less unpleasantly connotated string of legalese.

Wikipedia is not (or oughtn't be allowed to become) a PR machine for the Bush administration, and we do not have to propagate the obtuse spin contained in the text of the law. We do have to adhere to a NPOV, and thus we must use the generally accepted definitions of words and usages in the English language. A neutral reading of "to refrain from accurate accounting" is entirely consistent with the definition of "to lie" presented in this well-known and generally accepted reference work, and "to lie" is -- by far -- the more common way to characterize that meaning.

The language used in the law is a POV euphemism. It is language that very rarely appears in written or spoken English, and when it does, it is invariably used as a euphemism for "to lie", according to our well-known definition of that term. We have a choice between the commonly used term "lie", and the extremely rarely used phrase "refrain from accurate accounting", which have been shown to be logically equivalent. As the latter is a euphemism designed to cast the situation in a favorable light, it would be POV to say only that they're authorized to "refrain from accurate accounting" in this article when there is a far less unusual and euphemistic way to express the same idea.

Therefore, I do not find the added commentary NPOV or inaccurate: here, we have a dictionary definition of "lie" from a well-regarded source, and here, we have a law that specifically permits companies to deliberately falsify their accounting records when the President decides that it would be bad for national security for such records to be accurate. Simply put, they can fill their accounting records with untruths when the President deicdes that the release of truthful accounting records are not in the interests of national security ("an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive"). They are authorized to "lie" about their accounting records, in the most usual and common sense of that term. Kwertii 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Database Names

I'll leave it to someone else to figure out where to fit it in, but it should be noted somewhere in the article that according to EFF the AT&T call detail database is named Daytona & there's also an AT&T firewall/router log database named Hawkeye that's being sniffed. References to point to should be easy to find.--Scalefree 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloomberg item added: Pre 9/11 initiation of Caller Database

Spotted this item, thought it relevant, surmised it belonged here, in Government and public response section...

• On May 30 2006 Bloomberg reported the NSA "asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks," citing court papers filed June 23, 2006 by lawyers in McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.

Dredeyedick 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed date on June 30, 2006 Bloomberg report - erroniously listed as May 30 (d'oh!)

--Dredeyedick 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

External link added: EFF v. AT&T initial filing (HTML)

Since it's mentioned as a related suit in paragraph 2,

• "EFF for HEPTING, HICKS, KNUTZEN & OTHERS vs. AT&T and DOES 1-20 (initial filing)". thewall.civiblog.org. Retrieved 2006-07-02.

Dredeyedick 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A list of carriers that *don't* leak your data?

I'm about to buy my first cell phone, and I'd find it tremendously helpful if this article included a list of carriers that don't turn over call data to the NSA. LogicalDash 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I have proposed that "NSA telephone records controversy" be moved into this article. Reasons for this move is that it is a four sentence article that deals with the same subject matter as this article. "NSA telephone records controversy" probably could just be speedy deleted.... --Assawyer 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although a redirect to this article might be better. --Dredeyedick 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The object itself is different than the controversy about the object, I'm removing the merger suggestion tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mofomojo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC{{{3}}})

I agree. The other article is very short and it can be easily covered in a section within this article. I have reinstated the merge tag. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. the controversy for the NSA electronic surveillance program is handled in the article about the program as well. --Bobblehead 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any information in the NSA telephone records controversy article that isn't already in this article. I'm going to place the redirect on the other page. (If I've overlooked something, the information will still be in the history of the other article) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

/* External links */ add links to USA Today coverage collection

Added links to Fair Use collection of mirrored USA Today articles.--Dredeyedick 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

AFAIK, no solid irrefutable proof was given for its existence, its contents, its scope, or what companies were involved. The mere request to have the matter shielded in court on Nat'l Security grounds may suggest it exists, or it could be something else they are protecting. This article should reflect the tentative nature of the information. Wistless 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the intro that the Bush administration neither confirms nor denies the existence of the database (this was already mentioned in the body of the article). Note that e.g. USA Today continues to report the existence of the database as fact (despite corrections on some aspects of their reporting), as do I think all or most media sources. Also multiple Congressmen of both parties have discussed the program (see the Responses section) without questioning its existence. Arguably, that falls short of "irrefutable proof" but I don't think "tentative" is an accurate description of our state of knowledge either. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. In any event, it is better to try to edit the article and reach consensus first, not to go straight to an NPOV tag. Crust 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move: "MARINA (surveillance program)"

Since the subject of this article has a known codename (MARINA), per this source referenced in the lead, shouldn't the article be moved to "MARINA (surveillance database)" or somesuch a la PRISM (surveillance program)? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New story

• Wallsten, Peter (July 26, 2013). "NSA surveillance program has had compliance problems, intelligence official says". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614205747/http://newscenter.verizon.com:80/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=93450 to http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=93450&PROACTIVE_ID=cecdc6cdc8cbcacacdc5cecfcfcfc5cecdcecfc6cecfcbc7cec5cf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615011231/http://bellsouth.mediaroom.com:80/index.php?s=press_releases to http://bellsouth.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=2860

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060829040202/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net:80/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060902071552/http://www.forbes.com:80/technology/2006/05/11/wireless-nsa-voip_cx_df_0511security.html to http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/05/11/wireless-nsa-voip_cx_df_0511security.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070614095509/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12779087/site/newsweek/page/2/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12779087/site/newsweek/page/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060619160137/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nsa_phone_records_quotes_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nsa_phone_records_quotes_1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060822050332/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/maine/articles/2006/05/13/complaint_over_phone_records_filed_with_puc to http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/05/13/complaint_over_phone_records_filed_with_puc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5unahPcm.Fw&refer=us
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060613055658/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12771821/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070202120646/http://www.baltimoresun.com:80/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18,0,4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18,0,4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050929035008/http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=10000103 to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5unahPcm.Fw&refer=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516223538/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F05%2F12%2F1353225 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F05%2F12%2F1353225
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C70944-0.html?tw=wn_index_18
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060630/wherenote.art.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060513%2FNEWS%2F60513019
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019170937/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18%2C0%2C4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060514%2FNEWS07%2F605140739%2F1009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/iwon-com/news-story.asp?guid=%7B501DBACD-B34C-4246-9EDB-604BB4FAADD9%7D
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020918014933/http%3A//www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002%2D06/04hutchinson.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2002-06/04hutchinson.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Does it belong in Category:Law enforcement databases in the United States?

It seems like more of a national security database than law enforcement database. MW131tester (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)