Cingular call details and the NSA?

John Navas wrote:

>
>>>In any event, call information can of course be mined by backhaul providers.
>>
>>A backhaul transport provider wouldn't have access to any SS7 data nor
>>other call control functions beyond their own network - an incomplete
>>picture. In order to have a complete picture, virtually every backhaul
>>route would have to be sniffed, and all the collected bits wouldhave to
>>be sifted and reassembled after the call event. Let's be realistic,
>>nobody really cares how the call was transported - only that the call
>>event occurred - and only the call origination point has this info,
>>whether the call was completed or not. The NSA, and others, already has
>>access to that.
>
>
> Backhaul carriers have access to all the necessary information.

But only for their own network, none others. Some calls require routing
across more than one backhaul network, so a combined effort would be
necessary for data collected from an intermediate sniff point. My point
is... it isn't necessary because that information is already available
at the call control point, and they already have access to that. Call
detail records don't include billing data (names), which is correlated
after the call event.

>
>
>>The part that bothers me about all this is... access to detailed call
>>records (historical) ordinarily requires a Title 1 warrant. A warrant
>>such as this is available from a variety of sources, including FISA.
>>From what I've heard, the NSA didn't even attempt to get a warrant.
>>Why is that? If they did attempt but failed to receive one, why isn't
>>someone talking about that? If they had a warrant, they'd be completely
>>legal with their plan and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>
>
> The story is that NSA didn't ask for fear it would be turned down.
>


....and as such, remain culpable for the resultant backlash. However,
not asking does not excuse one's responsibility under the law of the
land, which they were all sworn to uphold. If our trust for their
actions cannot survive the test of scrutiny, why do they continue to
occupy a position of authority? From where I sit, our trust bestowed
upon them is being chipped away, and by their own hands. I understand
there are issues that would preclude public disclosure, but that's
precisely why the FISA court was invented. The NSA doesn't trust FISA,
and we are beginning to not trust the NSA. Divorce seems likely.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

---

› See More: Cingular call details and the NSA?

Jer wrote:
> The part that bothers me about all this is... access to detailed call
> records (historical) ordinarily requires a Title 1 warrant.

I don't know where you got that, but I read elsewhere that these records
qualify as "pen register" records and are supposedly fair game.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006 02:29:30 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jer wrote:
>> The part that bothers me about all this is... access to detailed call
>> records (historical) ordinarily requires a Title 1 warrant.
>
>I don't know where you got that, but I read elsewhere that these records
>qualify as "pen register" records and are supposedly fair game.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register>

The Pen Register Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1984
(Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848). There were three main
provisions or Titles to the ECPA. Title III created the Pen Register
Act, which included restrictions on private and law enforcement uses
of pen registers. ...

In order for law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved
for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. However,
they need only certify to the judge that the information likely to be
obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, at which
point the judge 'shall' issue the order.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006 02:29:30 -0500,
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jer wrote:
> >> The part that bothers me about all this is... access to detailed call
> >> records (historical) ordinarily requires a Title 1 warrant.
> >
> >I don't know where you got that, but I read elsewhere that these records
> >qualify as "pen register" records and are supposedly fair game.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register>
>
> The Pen Register Act
>
> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1984
> (Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848). There were three main
> provisions or Titles to the ECPA. Title III created the Pen Register
> Act, which included restrictions on private and law enforcement uses
> of pen registers. ...
>
> In order for law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved
> for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. However,
> they need only certify to the judge that the information likely to be
> obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, at which
> point the judge 'shall' issue the order.

But it seems clear that the NSA did not get such a court order, or an
opinion from the Justice Department--which is why Qwest declined to
provide the information. Hence on the face of it Cingular violated the
law.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006 02:29:30 -0500,
>>clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>>The part that bothers me about all this is... access to detailed call
>>>>records (historical) ordinarily requires a Title 1 warrant.
>>>
>>>I don't know where you got that, but I read elsewhere that these records
>>>qualify as "pen register" records and are supposedly fair game.
>>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register>
>>
>> The Pen Register Act
>>
>> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1984
>> (Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848). There were three main
>> provisions or Titles to the ECPA. Title III created the Pen Register
>> Act, which included restrictions on private and law enforcement uses
>> of pen registers. ...
>>
>> In order for law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved
>> for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. However,
>> they need only certify to the judge that the information likely to be
>> obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, at which
>> point the judge 'shall' issue the order.
>
>
> But it seems clear that the NSA did not get such a court order, or an
> opinion from the Justice Department--which is why Qwest declined to
> provide the information. Hence on the face of it Cingular violated the
> law.
>


Within the present context, seems to me the lack of a warrant would
place the receiver of the data under criminal scrutiny, not the sender.
The sender would certainly place themself at risk of civil sanctions.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

In article <[email protected]>,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:

....

> > But it seems clear that the NSA did not get such a court order, or an
> > opinion from the Justice Department--which is why Qwest declined to
> > provide the information. Hence on the face of it Cingular violated the
> > law.

> Within the present context, seems to me the lack of a warrant would
> place the receiver of the data under criminal scrutiny, not the sender.
> The sender would certainly place themself at risk of civil sanctions.

Criminal prosecution is controlled by the government, so the government
can choose to ignore criminal acts it approves of. Civil prosecution is
controlled by the victim, which often makes it a better tool for dealing
with illegal acts by government.

Under a plain reading of FISA, the President and lots and lots of people
in NSA are guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years and ten
thousand dollars--but the odds that any of them will be indicted are
low. On the other hand, under a plain reading of the relevant parts of
the communication act, three phone companies are each subject to civil
penalties in the many billions of dollars. The government can try to
persuade the courts not to accept the suits--has already done so in the
case of a previous suit along similar lines. But it can't simply sit on
its hands and refuse to prosecute, because it isn't the one that
controls the prosecution of a civil case.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

"BellSouth denies handing over phone records"
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/16/business/bellso.php>

BellSouth has said that it did not share customer calling records
with the U.S. National Security Agency, denying a report last week
that it was among three major telephone companies to have done so.

BellSouth, the third-largest local phone company in the United
States, said Monday that after an internal review it had found no
evidence that it had even been contacted by the agency.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Joshua Putnam wrote:
> Has anyone seen a listing of which cell phone companies, if any, are
> ethical enough to resist the NSA's effort to track every phone call
> in the country?

USTelecom Daily Lead

http://www.smartbrief.com/alchemy/se...6&lmid=2374062

BellSouth denied having turned over bulk calling records to the National
Security Agency for its domestic phone surveillance program. The telecom
said it conducted a thorough review of all of its records and confirmed
that "no such contract exists."

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>> Has anyone seen a listing of which cell phone companies, if any, are
>> ethical enough to resist the NSA's effort to track every phone call
>> in the country?
>
> USTelecom Daily Lead
>
> http://www.smartbrief.com/alchemy/se...6&lmid=2374062
>
> BellSouth denied having turned over bulk calling records to the
> National Security Agency for its domestic phone surveillance program.
> The telecom said it conducted a thorough review of all of its records
> and confirmed that "no such contract exists."

Watching the news and Verizon denied it also... Leaving only AT&T... Guess
they must be guilty OR the whole story was a lie... Hmmm isn't AT&T tied in
with Cingular? Could it have been a story made up by a sprint/verizon/etc
person?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 16 May 2006 14:01:05 -0700, "Peter
Pan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>>> Has anyone seen a listing of which cell phone companies, if any, are
>>> ethical enough to resist the NSA's effort to track every phone call
>>> in the country?
>>
>> USTelecom Daily Lead
>>
>> http://www.smartbrief.com/alchemy/se...6&lmid=2374062
>>
>> BellSouth denied having turned over bulk calling records to the
>> National Security Agency for its domestic phone surveillance program.
>> The telecom said it conducted a thorough review of all of its records
>> and confirmed that "no such contract exists."
>
>Watching the news and Verizon denied it also... Leaving only AT&T... Guess
>they must be guilty OR the whole story was a lie...

Or simply misinformed.
Admiral Bobby Inman, former head of the NSA, claims the report is simply
wrong. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398888>

>Hmmm isn't AT&T tied in
>with Cingular? Could it have been a story made up by a sprint/verizon/etc
>person?

More likely Qwest.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> "BellSouth denies handing over phone records"
> <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/16/business/bellso.php>
>
> BellSouth has said that it did not share customer calling records
> with the U.S. National Security Agency, denying a report last week
> that it was among three major telephone companies to have done so.
>
> BellSouth, the third-largest local phone company in the United
> States, said Monday that after an internal review it had found no
> evidence that it had even been contacted by the agency.
>

And yet Bellsouth was just added to the class action with Verizon, who also
denies involvement. So- the NSA got records from telcos, but nobody else
was involved. It should be a fun day tomorrow tracking the stock prices.

Scott wrote:
> And yet Bellsouth was just added to the class action with Verizon, who also
> denies involvement. So- the NSA got records from telcos, but nobody else
> was involved. It should be a fun day tomorrow tracking the stock prices.

"The telecom (Bellsouth)said it conducted a thorough review of all of
its records and confirmed that "no such contract exists."

Response from NSA...
"Contract? CONTRACTS??? We don't need no stinkin' contracts!"

The subtle nuance between "no such contract exists" and "no such
practice exists" that could be taken advantage of.

AT&T loses bid for a closed court
At issue are papers the company calls trade secrets
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/17/MNGFHIT30I1.DTL>

AT&T was turned down by a federal judge Tuesday in its 11th-hour attempt to
bar the public from a San Francisco court hearing today about documents
that allegedly show the company's involvement in a secret government
electronic surveillance program.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> AT&T loses bid for a closed court
> At issue are papers the company calls trade secrets
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/17/MNGFHIT30I1.DTL>
>
> AT&T was turned down by a federal judge Tuesday in its 11th-hour attempt
> to
> bar the public from a San Francisco court hearing today about documents
> that allegedly show the company's involvement in a secret government
> electronic surveillance program.

Evidence above that John Navas is not necessarily a cingular shill, hmmm?