Senators Call For Mandatory Data Retention For Telcos Following The Section 215 Shutdown

from the quick,-before-the-Man-has-it-stuck-to-him-by-reprobate-corporate-giants! dept

Mon, Dec 7th 2015 1:55pm — Tim Cushing

Now that the NSA's bulk phone metadata collection has actually ceased to exist (in this particular form, anyway…), low-level panic has begun to set in. With the NSA no longer able to obtain and store phone records in bulk, some legislators are now concerned telcos will use their control of these records to thwart the intelligence agency.

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Angus King (I-Maine) on Thursday introduced a bill requiring telephone companies to notify the government if they plan on altering their policies for storing consumers’ phone data.

[...]

The new bill from King and Cotton would force companies to give the Justice Department at least 180 days notice if they plan to retain the call records for less than 18 months. The bill is called the Private Sector Call Record Retention Act.

“Our legislation would simply require that U.S. officials are provided with adequate warning if a company decides it no longer will hold these vital records, allowing time to ensure that we don’t lose a potentially valuable tool in the battle against terrorism,” King said in a statement.

This is Cotton's baby. After all, he's been trying to block the implementation of the USA Freedom Act's surveillance reforms since the terrorist attacks in Paris, after months of being a vocal opponent of the legislation.

Critics of the new process -- where the NSA takes its reasonable suspicion-supported court orders to telephone companies to obtain call data -- somehow believe these companies, which historically have been enthusiastic enablers of dragnet surveillance, will suddenly decide to start deleting records just to screw with the government.

Beyond the fact that telcos tend to be proactive in their "assistance" of intelligence and law enforcement agencies is the fact that these companies have never before expressed a desire to hastily delete phone records. They've held onto them for indefinite periods of time -- not out of deference to the NSA, FBI, et al, but because extended retention is obviously of some value to these companies. It makes no sense to assume they'll suddenly alter their retention tactics just because they no longer need to produce all phone records in rolling three-month blocks.

That's not the only ridiculous fear being voiced. The other asinine assertion is that the program is somehow integral to combating terrorism. Over the past couple of years, the debate has raged and supporters of the program have insisted the program has paid its debt to the Fourth Amendment several times over with all the terrorism it's stopped… all without presenting any evidence that backs these statements up.

This sort of legislation does nothing but impose additional government requirements on data retention. This is no different than what was (temporarily) put in place in the UK -- legislative demands for the onsite storage of records companies may not even need, simply because the government has decided it does. This isn't an idea our legislators should be emulating, but unsurprisingly, the stoutest supporters of domestic surveillance are using a terrorist attack in another country to make a play for expanded government power.

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: angus king, data retention, nsa, privacy, section 215, surveillance, telcos, tom cotton

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:16pm

Ah yes, the twin tenants of avoiding the 4th amendment:

Declare such records 3rd party and of no privacy interest

Mandate companies retain such records so that they can always be requested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:27pm

Costructive Solutions
How about we get ourselves a Constitutional amendment that requires congress critters to follow all laws, forbids them to exempt themselves from anything, and requires them to turn themselves over to federal marshals for long term incarceration and loss of office immediately upon proposing or voting for any law that MIGHT be in conflict with the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, or the remaining amendments of the constitution.

I have a fairly long list of reforms needed to correct some of our current issues, but this is a start. The problem is getting the current corrupt system to implement it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:32pm

insisted the program has paid its debt to the Fourth Amendment several times over with all the terrorism it's stopped
Even if they produced such evidence, that would not justify the program. A violation of the Fourth Amendment is not retroactively legalized because it happened to serve a law enforcement purpose (though some courts seem loathe to accept that).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:32pm

With the current business model of charging per minute or x minutes a month, the companies can't delete this information.

If they don't have it, they can't validate their billing is correct and they can't get paid. They don't need to keep it forever, but realistically they need it for a minimum of 6 months and likely a year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:35pm

Look at all the terrorism this data has stopped!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:38pm

Re:
>If they don't have it, they can't validate their billing is correct and they can't get paid.

With prepaid users ostensibly they don't need to keep call details metadata at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Wing, 7 Dec 2015 @ 2:48pm

How do we know that bulk phone collection even ended, and didn't just switch over to a Plan B legal justification, like an 11th hour executive order or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 3:21pm

Is it wrong to feel that the terrorists would actually make better senators?
The only good news to come out of any of this is the knowledge that every one of these slimy congress critters will someday be rotting in the ground and nothing but a footnote in history.

There were a lot of nasty people in the past who thought what they wanted was best and very few of them are even remembered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 3:21pm

wow
data retention laws like in Germany?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 3:22pm

Re:
section 215b?
that is classified
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re:
They need to be able to prove they billed correctly. What if I dispute the billing and claim there is a mistake?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personanongrata, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:20pm

The King and I a Defective Dystopia by Cotton Picking Crazy
Senators Call For Mandatory Data Retention For Telcos Following The Section 215 Shutdown

The height of defective thinking from Tom Cotton and Angus King:

If we don't turn the nation into a totalitarian surveillance state the terrorists will win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:22pm

How are they supposed to get their blackmail material if they cannot illegaly spy on the citizenry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personanongrata, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:28pm

Re: Is it wrong to feel that the terrorists would actually make better senators?
Truth be known the senators operate at the epicenter of the greatest terror organization the world has ever known:

the US government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 4:35pm

Re: Is it wrong to feel that the terrorists would actually make better senators?
You have to remember the current regime views the founding fathers as terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 5:30pm

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 7th, 2015 @ 2:16pm
One the record are mandated don't they become government records so then EVERYONE would have standing on the 'collection' of them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
renegadegrammarian, 7 Dec 2015 @ 5:34pm

AC says the wackiest things
Twin tenants? How did apartment leases enter into the discussion? (The word is tenets.)

Loathe is a verb. Please drop the e for "courts seem loath to accept."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 12:23am

Re: Re:
section 216?
that one is classified, too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 12:28am

I don't have a problem if the bill mandates they be told ahead of time if there is a change of storage policy.

If it allows them a degree of comfort lets compromise a little.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 1:10am

Re:
"lets compromise a little"

hehehe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monday (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:27am

WHooowah!
ＷＨＯＯＯＷＡＨ! ＦＵＣＫＩＮＧＣＯＴＴＯＮ!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 9 Dec 2015 @ 1:43pm

Charge the fuckers $1 billion per letter, line or number.
[ link to this | view in thread ]