Like many of you, I have slowly grown more disturbed as I learn more about our government’s survelliance programs. Warrantless wiretapping didn’t sound right to me (anything with -less is probably not a good thing). Then came last week’s revelation that the NSA is tracking pretty much every American’s telephone calling activity. For now, I believe that they aren’t looking at the content of our calls, but the simple fact that my government now knows who I’ve been talking to on the phone is, quite frankly, an invasion of my privacy. America is turning into a police state, and I’m not exaggerating.
Putting aside questions about whether this applies to TTYs or VP calls, I think it’s important to review what exactly “privacy” means. After all, it isn’t an explicit constitutional right. Nothing in our founding papers says that we have a right to privacy. However, courts have somehow figured out that the Constitution holds an implicit right to privacy, and this principle has been applied in many landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade.
Of course, an easy answer to this whole survelliance program is, “If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” That’s a reasonable argument, and it’s difficult to debate against that without delving into apocalyptic visions of Big Brother and Soviet Amerika.
That’s why I was delighted to read Bruce Schneier’s article, “The Eternal Value of Privacy,” in Wired. He sums it up best by saying that “Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.” Read the article, and I think you’ll understand how important privacy is and that our government has gone too far in eroding our cherished liberty in order to ensure our safety.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
31 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Let me, on a very rare occurrence, quote Justice Ginsburg (Bush v. Gore): I DISSENT.
The courts have, from occasion to occasion, ruled on issues of privacy, but can you really compare this type of privacy being covered to the one raised in Roe v. Wade? That one focused on a woman’s right to abort her fetus. This one has to do with consumer protection versus government surveillence. Also, I think that we overestimate our “reasonable privacy expectations” when taking advantage of the telephone and internet. We are *privileged*, not *entitled* to such services. We cannot reasonably expect that our privacy is 100% guaranteed.
There is just a whole multitude of factors to be taken into consideration. Privacy advocates oversimplify their opponents’ “security versus privacy” argument and instead focus on what they *feel* is betrayed. I do agree that there *is* a line there somewhere that might possibly be crossed- but overinterpreting the telephone companies’ compliance with law is not the way to defend your liberty. This could just be me, but I really feel that people respond emotionally when hearing about how “their privacy is violated”.
Oh yeah, and let’s remember who’s really the bad guys here.
Go figure! We totally disagree on this topic, apparently.
I found very interesting your statement, “Also, I think that we overestimate our “reasonable privacy expectations” when taking advantage of the telephone…We cannot reasonably expect that our privacy is 100% guaranteed.”
I have no expectations that our privacy is 100% guaranteed. I fully expect that, in response to a court order to assess my involvement with an alleged crime, my phone records will be released and milled with a fine-toothed comb until something pops out.
I also fully expect that if I am not under suspicion for any reason, my phone-calling activities will not be analyzed.
These are my expectations. The NSA program is far-reaching–it is tracking the phone calls of millions of Americans, whether they are suspected of a crime or not. And they kept it secret for five years. If they were doing nothing wrong, why keep it secret?
In the name of fighting terrorism? How dare they. I wonder who is a bigger threat to our “American way of life,” terrorism or the government itself?
I remember a quote, “We are our own worst enemy.” We are the government.
Our “American way of life” didn’t change until after 9/11. And that was terrorism alone. You tell me which is worse.
I have heard so many conspiracy theories stated that the U.S. government allowed 9/11 to happen so we can have an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein. The American people are starting to ask questions about the role that our government planning for war. The government cannot do anything legally to remove Saddam Hussein until the 9/11 happened. I personally do not believe the CIA’s information was flawed. It is just that the executive branch wants to be in Iraq ASAP to grab the opportunity to do something before the Russians lay out the pipes to pump oil from the ground and route it to their country. Who knows, it may be just a conspiracy theory to begin with.
I fully empathize with you- I would certainly hate to feel threatened by our government!! Luckily, I don’t. Well, I do run screaming in horror when I go through their red tape.. but that’s for another day.
I would expect people to change their behavior if they knew they were being kept under watch- and methinks that’s a large factor in why this hasn’t been covered in the media earlier.
Funny you should mention that. When it comes right down to it, you aren’t “privileged” anywhere. You don’t have the right to drive/be in a car, but you still get basic fourth amendment protections against illegal search and seizure unless some exception is met or a warrant is issued. The “right to privacy” inferred from the 4th amendment (cited in Roe), says that things which you can reasonably expect to be private — your godawful taste in décor, your extensive Asian porn collection, and who and when you choose to call — stays as private as you want to make it until there is some just and specific (i.e., supported by other evidence) cause for the gommint to stick its nose into your business. And then, it had better go to a judge and get a warrant.
Of course, they may be mining all of your IMs and text messages anyway. One of my co-workers got me good and paranoid when she said: “Wouldn’t it make sense if all these ‘free email’ services were actually created by the NSA?”
Gulp.
Indeed. Let’s remember who the bad guys really are and not give them the tools and the means to insert a nuclear bomb in our backyard. And god forbid, if one does go off, then certainly this “wiretapping” would be nothng compared to a life that’s totally in chaos with lives lost, ruined economy and jobs lost…yours.
Consider the pros and cons here. If we can’t fight them here then might as well open the gate and invite them to place whatever destruction they desire on US soil.
How about this…
In the D/deaf community privacy issues are worst! You tell one person and in a few minutes via sidekick messages being send to their friends and in turn they do the same. Another example, when Jane Fernades was selected and in a few minutes the Deaf community in California already heard the news. Amazing, huh?
I think it was more like a few seconds. :)
I think you are right, Adam.
Scary thought.
If I were you, Adam. I wouldn’t worry about the overzealous and hyprocritical Bush adminstration and other future neoconservative government. The NSA and other federal anti-terrorism agencies would not have the ability to monitor our VP/relay conversation due to the lack of existing technology.
So we better protest against the government if they hire deaf oralists or non-fluent signers to monitor our VP conversations in name of war against terrorism.
That would be real amusing if some terrorists use the VP and communicate in “rabble” signs. *chuckles*
Let’s suppose for some deaf people use “masburation” sign, then the government officials would misread our signs as “missles”. *chuckles*
That would take the federal government several years or five years to catch up with the use of VP.
In reality, the Bush adminstration use the War on Terror to fatten up their cronies and friends’ pockets.
RLM
Our faults for making the voueyerism more acceptable due to the existing reality tv shows. More Americans get politically passive on daily basis.
RLM
Adam, I’m sorry, but I think the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
U.S. Supreme Court SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 442 U.S. 735 SMITH v. MARYLAND. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979. Decided June 20, 1979.
The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner’s home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress “all fruits derived from” the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The installation and use of the pen register was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.
(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not “legitimate.” First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
283 Md. 156, 389 A. 2d 858, affirmed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 746, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 748, filed dissenting opinions, in which BRENNAN, J., joined. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
You realize that this ruling concerns a person being surprised that its telephone company keeps records of his calls? He was miffed because the police produced a warrant to get those records that he thought shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
We all know that our telco tracks our calls. In the NSA case, it’s the GOVERNMENT getting records of the origin and destination of our phone calls. Without a warrant. Two very different things.
Re-read it. No warrant was ever needed nor produced.
Oops, you’re right. My bad. Nevertheless, the petitioner was suspected of a crime (the aforementioned robbery trial). The NSA case is still different.
My point all along was that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy attached to calling records, irrespective of the circumstances involved.
There are geniune privacy concerns and I acknowledge them, but this isn’t one of them.
Also,
United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 121, Section 2709 [Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records] states:
(a) Duty to Provide.— A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Required Certification.— The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may—
(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure.— No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
(d) Dissemination by Bureau.— The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.
(e) Requirement That Certain Congressional Bodies Be Informed.— On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.
“certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,”
So it’s one enormously massive authorized investigation into our phone call activity to protect ourselves against international terrorism? An investigation into 300 million Americans’ (minus those who use Qwest) chit-chatting activities? I think that exceeds the scope of this particular regulation.
The NSA had developed this potentially life-saving program before 9/11, but privacy concerns prevented its implementation. The 9/11 attacks changed all that. Now that the program’s successor has been leaked to the media, the privacy absolutists want to undermine it again.
-Spruiell (National Review Onlin).
ECHELON is a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community. ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Additional reading about the Echelon: http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
http://www.echelonwatch.org/ also http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
I seem to recall that the Clinton administration stopped a few terror plots (like the Millennium plot) without massive security precautions like wiretapping everyone.
Are you willing to stake your life on that premise?
What about Echelon? People nowadays seem to conveniently forget what Clinton did.
And I thought I was the only one who knew that. Was it Bill Clinton who invented that spying program?
The government’s Echelon spy program was reported during the Clinton administration, in a 2000 report on CBS’s “60 Minutes”.
And yet, good ol’ Bill Clinton authorized the NSA and FBI to conduct a much wider surveillance on American citizens under secret programs like Echelon and Carnivore. How else can millions of calls and emails be screened daily? But the catch is that screened calls are *randomly* captured daily.
Look at this:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
The reason why I posted a link above is that I copied and pasted several articles related to the previous posting won’t let me post at all. I tried 3 times and won’t allow it. Is the government doing something?
Sorry, DeafLinux. When a comment with more than two or three links is posted, they are placed in the moderation queue to make sure that it isn’t spam. Then one of us approves it. I will add this information to the comment compose box.
Makes sense for all of us to read the fine line whether telephone services have the right to provide your telephone numbers to the government with your consent. Not just telephones, think about your “free” e-mail accounts and/or wireless e-mail services such as SideKick and Blackberry.
I wouldn’t be surprised if companies that provides services would add the line that they cannot be held accountable in lawsuits if the government issued such requests.
[…] DeafDC.com welcomed a new blogger, Swetha Amruthur, and pushed the hot-button issues of cochlear implants, privacy, and English as our national language. Remember, you read it here first! […]