ATTN Steve72

Ive got a guy telling me this case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=735

ruled in 1979 that the NSA phone monitoring program was ruled legal

It doesnt appear to say that to my non legal eyes.......especially here:

 Just as one who enters a public telephone booth is "entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world," Katz v. United States, supra, at 352, so too,
he should be entitled to assume that the numbers he dials in the privacy of his home will be recorded, if at all, solely for the phone company's business purposes. Accordingly, I would require law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before they enlist telephone companies to secure information otherwise beyond the government's reach.

Well, you are quoting from the dissent, which, by its very nature, is wrong.

That said, just skimming the case, it could support the NSA program if all that program does is record numbers dialed (i.e., it doesn't record conversations).

thats what Im talking about, I didnt realize that was from the dissent.

Can you tell me how it is that this single ruling, in a case against an accused and convicted burglar, justifies a program used against millions of innocent americans?

Can you tell me how it is that this single ruling, in a case against an accused and convicted burglar, justifies a program used against millions of innocent americans?

The issue was whether or not there was a legitimate reasonable Constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in dialing. The Court held that there was not.

It is irrelevant that he was an accused and convicted burglar.

Timbo is correct.

The case decided, specifically, that an individual does not have 4th Amendment protections over the numbers he or she dials. If those protections do not exist, it is immaterial who is attempting to assert them.

So youre saying the program involving monitoring the numbers dialed by americans is legal?

If so then why didnt they get the court order to access Qwest's records?

So youre saying the program involving monitoring the numbers dialed by americans is legal?

No, I'm saying that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent it (if all it does is collect numbers dialed).

If that's all it does, and there are no specific laws (e.g. FISA) which would prohibit it, then it's legal.

If so then why didnt they get the court order to access Qwest's records?

There's a difference between the government being able to do something, and being able to force a private company to assist it. I don't know enough details, but even if individuaols have no right of privacy in their numbers, a corporation has a right to protect its business records.

Certainly that right can be overcome if there is justification, but the government may not have felt it had enough justification to seek a subpoena.

is there any distinction between law enforcement using this and a national intelligence agency using it?

also, in this case, from a strictly practical view, if the NSA can use it, the law is completely broken.

the amount of information you can pull just from "traffic analysis" - watching who is talking to who - is FUCKING SCARY.

the NSA is supposed to do this shit to foriegn governments, and this technique + break of several Japanese codes allowed the total strategic pwnage of the Japanese.

I am not exactly thrilled they get to use it on us.

true story - the Nazis checked call logs of captured Resistance fighters.

everyone they called in the past few days was immediately taken in for torture, and given the ol' rubber gardenhose and nipple clamp treatment until they were determined to be innocent, or complict.

is there any distinction between law enforcement using this and a national intelligence agency using it?

There could be legal distinctions, but this ruling specifically stated that there was no Fourth Amendment implication. As far as that issue goes, there is no differnece.

(i.e., you can't claim Fourth Amendment protections for pen registers regardless of who uses them. The Fourth is inapplicable.)

also, in this case, from a strictly practical view, if the NSA can use it, the law is completely broken.

What law? This case is the law. like Judge Dred.

the amount of information you can pull just from "traffic analysis" - watching who is talking to who - is FUCKING SCARY.

the NSA is supposed to do this shit to foriegn governments, and this technique + break of several Japanese codes allowed the total strategic pwnage of the Japanese.

I am not exactly thrilled they get to use it on us.

true story - the Nazis checked call logs of captured Resistance fighters.

everyone they called in the past few days was immediately taken in for torture, and given the ol' rubber gardenhose and nipple clamp treatment until they were determined to be innocent, or complict.

Torture would, I believe, be prohibited under a couple legal theories.

The Japanese used bamboo shoots to torture prisoners. Should we illegalize bamboo because it could be used in the same way?

Gotta run. Be back later.