This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Verizon Case Offers Glimpse of Vast N.S.A. Surveillance Verizon Case Offers Glimpse of Vast N.S.A. Surveillance
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — The United States government has been compiling a huge database of calling logs of Americans’ domestic communications under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act for at least seven years, but counterterrorism officials seek additional permission from a secret national security court before scrutinizing any particular caller, the top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday. WASHINGTON — The United States government has been compiling a huge database of calling logs of Americans’ domestic communications under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act for at least seven years, but before any particular caller can be scrutinized, counterterrorism officials must seek additional permission from a secret national security court, the top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday.
Responding to the disclosure on Wednesday night of a highly classified court order to a subsidiary of Verizon Communications seeking all of its customers’ communications logs, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said the order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about.Responding to the disclosure on Wednesday night of a highly classified court order to a subsidiary of Verizon Communications seeking all of its customers’ communications logs, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said the order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about.
“As far as I know, this is exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years,” Ms. Feinstein said, adding that it was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore, it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.” “As far as I know, this is an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years,” Ms. Feinstein said, adding that it was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore, it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.”
The program appears to warehouse and analyze calling “metadata” — time and number logs showing when communications have been made, but not their content or the name of any subscriber — which the government analyzes to try to identify terrorists. Mr. Chambliss said that under the rules of the program, when a computer program flags a number as suspicious, the authorities return to the national security court for permission to scrutinize that person more closely.
“It’s metadata only and it’s what we call minimized,” Mr. Chambliss said. “All of these numbers are basically ferreted out by a computer, but if there’s a number that matches a terrorist number that has been dialed by a U.S. number or dialed from a terrorist to a U.S. number, then that may be flagged. And they may or may not seek a court order to go further on that particular instance. But that’s the only time that this information is ever used in any kind of substantive way.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told reporters on Thursday that he did not have a problem with the surveillance program because it was imperative in the war on terror.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told reporters on Thursday that he did not have a problem with the surveillance program because it was imperative in the war on terror.
“If we don’t do it,” Mr. Graham said, “we’re crazy.”“If we don’t do it,” Mr. Graham said, “we’re crazy.”
Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a news conference Thursday that the National Security Agency program helped stop a significant domestic terrorist attack in the United States in the last few years. He did not give more information on the possible nature of the attack.Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a news conference Thursday that the National Security Agency program helped stop a significant domestic terrorist attack in the United States in the last few years. He did not give more information on the possible nature of the attack.
But some Democrats and Republicans greeted the news of the program with alarm.But some Democrats and Republicans greeted the news of the program with alarm.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said he and other senators initially learned of the government’s review of phone records in an earlier classified briefing, and although they were concerned by what they had heard, they were limited in what they could publicly criticize.Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said he and other senators initially learned of the government’s review of phone records in an earlier classified briefing, and although they were concerned by what they had heard, they were limited in what they could publicly criticize.
“There’s been a concern about this issue for some time,” he told reporters in the Capitol. “That’s why I think sunsetting many of these laws is appropriate because circumstances change in terms of America’s security. And our information and knowledge change in terms of threats to America.”“There’s been a concern about this issue for some time,” he told reporters in the Capitol. “That’s why I think sunsetting many of these laws is appropriate because circumstances change in terms of America’s security. And our information and knowledge change in terms of threats to America.”
The comments by the lawmakers provided significant context to the disclosure by the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday of a court order in April to a Verizon subsidiary that provides telecommunications services to corporations. It directed the firm to turn over to the National Security Agency, “on an ongoing daily basis” until July, logs of communications “between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”The comments by the lawmakers provided significant context to the disclosure by the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday of a court order in April to a Verizon subsidiary that provides telecommunications services to corporations. It directed the firm to turn over to the National Security Agency, “on an ongoing daily basis” until July, logs of communications “between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
It was not clear whether similar orders have gone to other subsidiaries of Verizon or to other telecommunications firms; such orders, issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, gag their recipients from talking about them. But the comments by the lawmakers on Thursday suggested that the order was just one of many that have enabled the National Security Agency to create a vast library of communications logs for data-mining purposes.It was not clear whether similar orders have gone to other subsidiaries of Verizon or to other telecommunications firms; such orders, issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, gag their recipients from talking about them. But the comments by the lawmakers on Thursday suggested that the order was just one of many that have enabled the National Security Agency to create a vast library of communications logs for data-mining purposes.
The program appears to warehouse and analyze calling “metadata” — time and number logs showing when communications have been made, but not their content or the name of any subscriber — which the government analyzes to try to identify terrorists. Mr. Chambliss said that under the rules of the program, when a computer program flags a number as suspicious, the authorities return to the national security court for permission to scrutinize that person more closely.
“It’s metadata only and it’s what we call minimized,” Mr. Chambliss said. “All of these numbers are basically ferreted out by a computer, but if there’s a number that matches a terrorist number that has been dialed by a U.S. number or dialed from a terrorist to a U.S. number, then that may be flagged. And they may or may not seek a court order to go further on that particular instance. But that’s the only time that this information is ever used in any kind of substantive way.”
As the scope of the government’s collection of logs of Americans’ domestic communications started to come into greater focus on Thursday, privacy groups erupted. Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union said that group — a client of Verizon’s business unit — was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the “dragnet” surveillance, and said liberals would be furious had such a program been disclosed under a Republican administration.As the scope of the government’s collection of logs of Americans’ domestic communications started to come into greater focus on Thursday, privacy groups erupted. Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union said that group — a client of Verizon’s business unit — was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the “dragnet” surveillance, and said liberals would be furious had such a program been disclosed under a Republican administration.
“A pox on all the three houses of government,” he said. “On Congress, for legislating such powers, on the FISA court for being such a paper tiger and rubber stamp, and on the Obama administration for not being true to its values.”“A pox on all the three houses of government,” he said. “On Congress, for legislating such powers, on the FISA court for being such a paper tiger and rubber stamp, and on the Obama administration for not being true to its values.”
But a senior Obama administration official asserted that its surveillance activities “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”But a senior Obama administration official asserted that its surveillance activities “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”
The official also described the program as “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”The official also described the program as “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”
Following the comments by Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Chambliss, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, issued a statement confirming that the program was the one he and Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, have been cryptically warning about for years each time the Patriot Act has come up for renewal; he said he hoped the disclosure would “force a real debate” about whether such “sweeping, dragnet surveillance” should be permitted or is necessary. Following the comments by Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Chambliss, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, issued a statement confirming that the program was the one that he and Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, have been cryptically warning about for years each time the Patriot Act has come up for renewal. He said he hoped the disclosure would “force a real debate” about whether such “sweeping, dragnet surveillance” should be permitted or is necessary.
“I believe that when law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information,” he said. “Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy.”“I believe that when law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information,” he said. “Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy.”