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 8 Version 9
U.S. Maintains Vast Database of Phone Calls, Lawmakers Say U.S. Maintains Vast Database of Phone Calls, Lawmakers Say
(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, the top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday. WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency has for years been compiling a library of Americans’ phone records and using computers to search the database for potential associates of terrorists or spies. But officials must receive permission from a secret court before taking additional investigative steps to scrutinize particular callers flagged as suspicious, like listening to the content of their communications, officials said Thursday.
But before any particular caller can be scrutinized, the lawmakers said, counterterrorism officials must seek additional permission from a secret national security court. The disclosure on Wednesday of a classified court order to a Verizon subsidiary opened the door into a secret program that originated with the Bush administration’s post-9/11 surveillance and whose survival, in some form, into the Obama administration has long been the subject of hints and speculation.
Responding to the disclosure on Wednesday night of a highly classified court order seeking all of the customer communications logs of a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said the order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about. The disclosure that the government is indeed vacuuming up and retaining “metadata” – like records of all calls made and received, but not their content – from telecommunications carriers provoked public discussion, as the Obama administration and some members of Congress from both parties defended the program, even as privacy advocates expressed furor.
Responding to the disclosure, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said on Thursday that 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 an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years,” said Ms. Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. It was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “under the business records section of the Patriot Act,” she said. “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,” said Ms. Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. It was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “under the business records section of the Patriot Act,” she said. “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 — that the government analyzes to try to identify terrorists. Mr. Chambliss, the intelligence panel’s top Republican, 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.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 — that the government analyzes to try to identify terrorists. Mr. Chambliss, the intelligence panel’s top Republican, 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.”“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.
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.”
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Josh Ernest, told reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight to North Carolina on Thursday that the surveillance is subjected to a strict legal review that “reflects the president’s desire to strike the right balance between protecting our national security and protecting constitutional rights and civil liberties.” Still, Mr. Ernest said, " The president welcomes a discussion of the tradeoffs between security and civil liberties.”A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Josh Ernest, told reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight to North Carolina on Thursday that the surveillance is subjected to a strict legal review that “reflects the president’s desire to strike the right balance between protecting our national security and protecting constitutional rights and civil liberties.” Still, Mr. Ernest said, " The president welcomes a discussion of the tradeoffs between security and civil liberties.”
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.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,” Mr. Wyden 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,” Mr. Wyden said. “Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy.”
The Justice Department on Thursday was spearheading a multiagency effort to declassify parts of the program in order to release information about it to the public, according to a senior government official. The official said that administration officials were fearful that if parts of the program were not declassified, they would not be able to share information about it, stoking skepticism about the program.The Justice Department on Thursday was spearheading a multiagency effort to declassify parts of the program in order to release information about it to the public, according to a senior government official. The official said that administration officials were fearful that if parts of the program were not declassified, they would not be able to share information about it, stoking skepticism about the program.
But a former senior intelligence official who was involved in early efforts by the government to track communications with terror groups said that the order appeared to be part of a long-running effort by the United States to create a database of communications, which investigators could dip into if they had identified one terrorist and were trying to find his or her hidden compatriots.But a former senior intelligence official who was involved in early efforts by the government to track communications with terror groups said that the order appeared to be part of a long-running effort by the United States to create a database of communications, which investigators could dip into if they had identified one terrorist and were trying to find his or her hidden compatriots.
There are several clues inside the FISA court authorization that suggest a running database was, in fact, the objective. The order contains no “mitigation clause,'’ requiring the F.B.I. or the N.S.A. to destroy data they were not using or that was not relevant. That clause would be common, two officials said, if the FISA court had permitted the monitoring of a specific individual or group. “The normal course of events is to say you have to destroy data unless it’s helpful to a specific investigation,'’ one official said.There are several clues inside the FISA court authorization that suggest a running database was, in fact, the objective. The order contains no “mitigation clause,'’ requiring the F.B.I. or the N.S.A. to destroy data they were not using or that was not relevant. That clause would be common, two officials said, if the FISA court had permitted the monitoring of a specific individual or group. “The normal course of events is to say you have to destroy data unless it’s helpful to a specific investigation,'’ one official said.
Such a database would ensure that records would be retained as a library, even if the telecommunications companies deleted them after a period because there was no more business reason to retain them. But the fact that the Justice Department has continued to issue subpoenas for specific call logs — like the controversial one for Associated Press reporters’ records that came to light last month — suggests that the National Security Agency may have strictly limited access to the database only for the purpose of foreign-intelligence investigation.Such a database would ensure that records would be retained as a library, even if the telecommunications companies deleted them after a period because there was no more business reason to retain them. But the fact that the Justice Department has continued to issue subpoenas for specific call logs — like the controversial one for Associated Press reporters’ records that came to light last month — suggests that the National Security Agency may have strictly limited access to the database only for the purpose of foreign-intelligence investigation.
The reference by Senator Feinstein to a program that has been operating for seven years suggested that the activity traces back to 2006, when the Bush administration was struggling over the disclosure by The New York Times that it had erected a constellation of domestic surveillance programs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that did not comply with federal statutes.The reference by Senator Feinstein to a program that has been operating for seven years suggested that the activity traces back to 2006, when the Bush administration was struggling over the disclosure by The New York Times that it had erected a constellation of domestic surveillance programs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that did not comply with federal statutes.
Aspects of the program had been controversial even inside the Bush administration. In a well-known March 2004 confrontation, Justice Department officials decided one aspect was illegal and the deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, refused to reauthorize it. In response, President Bush sent his chief of staff and his White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to the hospital room of the then-ailing attorney general, John Ashcroft, in an effort to get him to overrule Mr. Comey’s decision.Aspects of the program had been controversial even inside the Bush administration. In a well-known March 2004 confrontation, Justice Department officials decided one aspect was illegal and the deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, refused to reauthorize it. In response, President Bush sent his chief of staff and his White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to the hospital room of the then-ailing attorney general, John Ashcroft, in an effort to get him to overrule Mr. Comey’s decision.
In 2008, Newsweek reported that the hospital room encounter had been about a program in which the National Security Agency was vacuuming up communications metadata.In 2008, Newsweek reported that the hospital room encounter had been about a program in which the National Security Agency was vacuuming up communications metadata.
By then, however, the program — or at least its legal justification — had changed. In early 2007, Mr. Gonzales, who was now the attorney general, announced that after months of extensive negotiation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved “innovative” and “complex” orders bringing the surveillance programs under its authority.By then, however, the program — or at least its legal justification — had changed. In early 2007, Mr. Gonzales, who was now the attorney general, announced that after months of extensive negotiation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved “innovative” and “complex” orders bringing the surveillance programs under its authority.
One part of that deal, Ms. Feinstein’s comments suggest, was to begin collecting communications metadata under orders issued by the court under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The provision, which was enacted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, allowed the F.B.I. to seek business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation; as part of a 2006 reauthorization, lawmakers had removed any need for the bureau to establish to the court why the requested items were relevant.One part of that deal, Ms. Feinstein’s comments suggest, was to begin collecting communications metadata under orders issued by the court under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The provision, which was enacted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, allowed the F.B.I. to seek business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation; as part of a 2006 reauthorization, lawmakers had removed any need for the bureau to establish to the court why the requested items were relevant.
Later, some aspects of the deal with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court came under question from one of the judges, prompting Congress to enact the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. One provision protected recipients of Section 215 orders from being subject to civil lawsuits for complying with such orders going forward.Later, some aspects of the deal with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court came under question from one of the judges, prompting Congress to enact the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. One provision protected recipients of Section 215 orders from being subject to civil lawsuits for complying with such orders going forward.
Later that year, The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking access to a report that Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall had disclosed that described the government’s interpretation of the statute. The Obama administration successfully fought the lawsuit.Later that year, The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking access to a report that Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall had disclosed that described the government’s interpretation of the statute. The Obama administration successfully fought the lawsuit.
While the lawsuit was pending in early 2012, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. criticizing the Justice Department’s stance in the litigation and further raising their alarms over the program.While the lawsuit was pending in early 2012, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. criticizing the Justice Department’s stance in the litigation and further raising their alarms over the program.
“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act,” they wrote.“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act,” they wrote.