Why Won't NSA Defenders Publish Their Phone Records?
from the no-expectation-of-privacy dept
As various defenders of the NSA program keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with the data they're collecting because it's "just metadata," and "the Supreme Court has said there's no expectation of privacy in such metadata," it seems curious that none of those defenders seems willing to release their own such metadata. Former NSA and CIA boss, Michael Hayden (who led the warrantless wiretapping program) has written yet another less than honest op-ed piece for CNN arguing that the data collected is "like what is on an envelope." Of course, that's not even remotely true. Your phone (and email) metadata reveal a lot more info than what's on the outside of a mail envelope, in part because the usage is quite different. People make a lot more phone calls and send a lot more emails than postal mail -- and those calls and emails tend to be a lot more specific about their friends, lovers, family, interests and whatnot than any postal mail. Furthermore, the issue isn't just "one" envelope, but the fact that when you "collect it all," you can paint quite a picture of someone's life, including all sorts of private things.Then you get people like Rep. Mike Rogers misleadingly claiming that the Supreme Court has said there's "no expectation of privacy in phone records." This is the same thing that former Bush speechwriter (and defender of jailing journalists and blatant censorship) Marc Thiessen argued on Twitter.
In response, we've got a simple question: if there's no expectation of privacy in metadata, and it's just like what's on the outside of envelope, when will Michael Hayden, Mike Rogers, Marc Thiessen and other defenders of the NSA program (James Clapper? Keith Alexander?) share their phone records for us to look through?
It's a simple request. Clearly they have no privacy interest (the Supreme Court said so!), so I don't see why they should refuse such a request. After all, it's "just metadata." And, yet, after asking both Thiessen and Rogers, neither seems inclined to share their phone records. It's almost like it's something that they (*gasp*!) might want to keep private.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: metadata, michael hayden, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, phone records, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Metadata
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metadata
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, envelopes it is
Doesn't work for electronic communications unless you're saying we're allowed to encrypt everything...which apparently allows the NSA to store your data indefinitely.
Oh and caller-id spoofing is technically illegal isn't it? According to the blank envelope concept though, it should be completely legal, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, envelopes it is
Email is much easier than phone. There are many anonymous remailers that let you send untraceable email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok, envelopes it is
> that let you send untraceable email.
That's true in theory, but the anonymity is based on there being a minimum level of traffic through these remailers, so that traffic analysis won't give a lot of information by correlating inputs and outputs.
Of course, the NSA exposure has probably increased the use of these remailers by an order of magnitude, so that's another way in which the NSA has lost out. I wonder what's up with Tor usage, also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, envelopes it is.... paranoia version
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, envelopes it is
No, it's not, depending on how you use it.
But the thing about caller ID is that there really two different caller ID systems, the one that consumers use and the real one (ANI) that the phone company uses to identify numbers for billing purposes, for calling 911, etc. The former is not considered mission critical for anybody and can be spoofed. The latter cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like an envelope
Such an option is not available for phone calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is all about accessibility.
Same with the envelope analogy - since when does one need to put the sender address on it? The data accessibility again - of course, one can infer the sender; with e-mail and phone it is already there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple...
"Because shut up."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone asked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if...
And my porn comes in discreet brown wrappings anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if...
On the other hand, it is a good idea to watch me if you actually are a corrupt govt. Because I only respect authority that respects my rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
But as you ALSO have a valid point that entitites have no right to your personal information and it IS an invasion, it applies equally to your precious Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
Also it's a good job you never post anything personally identifiable, I'm sure many people would love to use those details to inflict a small measure of revenge for the headaches through face-desks your posts cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
...or useful, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
I've heard rumors that Mike has around 2,000 browser tabs open at any given time.
Maybe Mike should share his browser history with Blue and while he's going through them all we can have a brief respite from Blue's usual inane ramblings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
Eh, don't think I've ever gotten it above 1,400. Right now have about 1,200.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
I'm not sure I've ever had more than 50 open at the same time. You ever get freaked out by random audio from any of those tabs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
Yes. As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday during a similar conversation, that's when I know it's time for a coffee break (or, well, a break of some sort, since I'm not a big coffee drinker).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
Too late. Everyone identifies you as an idiot and a lunatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
metadata metadata metadata
Any conversation where a government official says metadata is just to have the public thinking along the lines of "that's all they have is metadata".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if we say that we are going to store the phone data on a server somewhere and not actually use it for anything *wink*, thereby not actually "collecting" the data, then we have a shot here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'll fuckin tell ya why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keeping private, private
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't have to give up their phone records, because they are all exempt of the warrant-less, unconstitutional and illegal NSA spy drag-net. There's an exemption written into the Spy Law for Congress and other federal agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress et al
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]