Why Can't You Be a Good Telephone Company Like Your Competitors?


Today's New York Times presents dueling experts opining on the legality of the NSA's phone call database:

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "If they don't get a court order, it's a crime." She said that while the F.B.I. might be able to get access to phone collection databases by using an administrative subpoena, her reading of federal law was that the N.S.A. would be banned from doing so without court approval.

But another expert on the law of electronic surveillance, Kenneth C. Bass III, said that if access to the call database was granted in response to a national security letter issued by the government, "it would probably not be illegal, but it would be very troubling."

As the Bush administration's defenders would be quick to note, the balance here is a little lopsided: Surely the Times could have found an expert who would have pronounced the data collection both legal and untroubling. But what struck me was the lingering doubt about whether the government presented an administrative subpoena, as opposed to a court order, when it asked for the phone records. Judging from USA Today's account, the NSA simply asked for the phone companies' cooperation. When Qwest declined, the government did not demand that the company comply under penalty of law; instead it "put pressure on Qwest":

NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled. …In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government.

If the government had presented Qwest with a national security letter, it seems unlikely the company would have said no to begin with. Aside from the possibility of legal penalties for failing to comply (which would have required court action, something the administration wanted to avoid), an administrative subpoena would have given Qwest the legal cover it wanted under the Communications Act, which says phone companies may release customers' records without their permission if legally required to do so. It seems clear the NSA was working outside the usual legal procedures, even those designed for secret national security investigations.

NEXT: Moonshine Mirage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does anybody know (and I haven’t read all TFAs) if the cellphone companies are involved in that? If not, then all they’ve got on me are a bunch of telemarketers calls in, and a bunch of calls to tivo out.

  2. …one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

    and with quotes like these backing up all the facts in this story, it’s no wonder everyone is divided on whether this is, or isn’t, a good or bad thing…see, the press never makes anything up…Maybe I’ll just have to be patient before making up my own mind?

  3. From the USA Today article:

    “Qwest’s refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. … But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services – primarily long-distance and wireless – to people who live in Qwest’s region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.”

    This implies that the wireless divisions of Verizon and AT&T are handing over records, although I haven’t seen that explicitly written anywhere.

  4. AT&T’s wireless division went to Cingular, so the question is whether Cingular is complying. Also, it depends on whether the wireless carriers have their own long-distance networks (Sprint might still, I haven’t paid attention to how they’re doing long-distance provision these days) or if they’re leasing that from the other carriers (T-Mobile probably is, Cingular too).

  5. gaijin,

    You mean like they made up torture at Abu Ghraib, innocent people at Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls, and, um, George Bush giving a speech that confirmed the existence of the program.

    My God, the EmmEssEmm has gotten to King Dubya, too!

  6. Of course they have, joe. Why else would he say all those things to embarrass the Bush White House and support the “Bush is like a trained ape without the training” meme?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.