[governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata

[McTim]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why distinguishing between the private sector pursuing its
> private/commercial interests can/should be clearly distinguished from Civil
> Society pursuing the public interest...


If I was running a telco, I would fight to keep my customers data from
government agents.

I would use it as a selling point for the companies services in
expectations I would get
customers from the other telcos who did not fight!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of
> Dewayne Hendricks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:34 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for
> Your Metadata
>
> U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata By DAVID
> KRAVETS
> 09.17.13
> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/telcos-metada-orders/>
>
> Since at least 2006 a secret spy court has continuously compelled the
> nation's carriers to hand over records of every telephone call made to,
> from, or within the United States.
>
> But none of the phone companies have ever challenged the orders in court,
> according to an August 29 opinion (.pdf) by the Foreign Intelligence
> Surveillance Court, which was declassified today.
>
> "To this date, no holder of records who has received an Order to produce
> bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an Order," reads
> the ruling. "Indeed, no recipient of any Section 215 Order has challenged
> the legality of such an Order, despite the explicit statutory mechanism for
> doing so."
>
> The FISC orders cited Section 215 of the Patriot Act to require phone
> companies like Verizon and AT&T to hand over the phone numbers of both
> parties involved in all calls, the international mobile subscriber identity
> (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and
> the time and duration of the calls.
>
> To be sure, any challenge to the surveillance program would have been done
> before the court in secret, and it's unlikely one would have been
> successful.
>
> That carriers willfully provided the metadata without blinking a legal eye,
> however, is cause for alarm, as the telcos appear to be the only ones so far
> with legal standing to make a challenge to the bulk collection orders. The
> Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties and others have
> brought challenges, but the legal fight on whether they have the right to
> sue remains undecided.
>
> The bulk collection program came to public light in June, when the Guardian
> published a FISC order on the topic leaked to the media outlet by NSA
> whistleblower Edward Snowden.
>
> The court declassified (.pdf) an opinion today in the wake of Snowden's
> leaks.
>
> "This Court is mindful that this matter comes before it at a time when
> unprecedented disclosures have been made about this and other
> highly-sensitive programs designed to obtain foreign intelligence
> information and carry out counterterrorism investigations. According to NSA
> Director Gen. Keith Alexander, the disclosures have caused 'significant and
> irreversible damage to our nation,'" according to the opinion.
>
> The metadata surveillance became lawful with a 2006 update to the Patriot
> Act. But it's been reported that most major carriers were providing the NSA
> with bulk metadata voluntarily before then in the wake of the 2001 terror
> attacks.
>
> So the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the nation's carriers. After a
> San Francisco federal judge refused to toss the lawsuit, Congress in 2008
> passed legislation immunizing the telcos  from ever being sued for
> forwarding customer data to the NSA.
>
> "It's disappointing that the telecoms did not stand up for their users,"
> Kurt Ospahl, an EFF staff attorney, said in a telephone interview.
>
> The opinion declassified today spells out the court's interpretation of why
> it is legal under the Patriot Act that all calling records can be forwarded
> to the NSA. It also notes that there is no adversarial process, meaning
> without a third-party challenger, the court relies solely on the
> government's assertions. Every 90 days the court orders carriers to forward
> all calling metadata on a rolling basis.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t