Gonzales's Rationale on Phone Data Disputed--WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402329.html?referrer=email


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A08

.....
While not confirming a USA Today report May 11 saying the National Security Agency has been collecting phone-call records of millions of Americans, Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland , "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added. Gonzales, in addition to mentioning the Supreme Court case on Tuesday, said there "is a statutory right of privacy" but "with respect to business records there are a multiple number of ways that the government can have access to that information," including issuing national security letters, a type of administrative subpoena.

Noting that Congress in 1986 passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in reaction to the Smith v. Maryland ruling to require court orders before turning over call records to the government, G. Jack King Jr. of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said Gonzales is correct in saying "the administration isn't violating the Fourth Amendment" but "he's failing to acknowledge that it is breaking" the 1986 law, which requires a court order "with a few very narrow exceptions." King noted that the USA Patriot Act modified the law to permit counterintelligence access "to telephone toll and transactional records" to allow specific targeting of "a person or entity" by the FBI if the director certifies in writing to the service provider that a customer's information is relevant to an "authorized" terrorism or counterintelligence investigation.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "The government is bound by the laws Congress passes, and when the attorney general doesn't even mention them, it is symptomatic of the government's profound disrespect for the rule of law."

Former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III, a partner in White & Case LLP, said yesterday that he does not believe the 1986 law applies if phone numbers called are being collected "wholesale" without subscriber names or other identifiers.

[jrw14125]

1. nice, Walter was in my law school class, he's a pretty solid reporter

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. The latest excuse I'm hearing is they bought the records

with our tax dollars. IOW, it's fine and dandy for business to collect and sell the information: Free Market! Capitalism! And since the government didn't 'collect' it, there's no harm no foul no infringement of rights or violation of the Constitution; the government simply purchased information that is readily available on the market. :eyes:

This is just wrong on so many levels. First and foremost, how accurate is the data? Sounds like another excuse for the government to say, "It's not OUR fault we didn't know."

[RedStateShame]

3. I'm surprised that

more people haven't started referring to our Attorney General as Sneaky Gonzales.

[rodeodance]

4. I am beginning to wonder if this WH junket can be stopped. Delayed,

paused-maybe. But, with each new post out the WH, it seems to dig in deeper.

[MasonJar]

5. I'm getting rid of Bellsouth. We all should. I am going to tell them

to subtract what I owe them from my $1000 award (which they will owe me when they are found guilty.) I do not have AT&T or Verizon or I'd get rid of them too.