Posted on Jun\u00a020,\u00a02013<\/h4>\n\n<\/p>\nBy Eugene Robinson<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON\u2013From the evidence so far, there\u2019s no good reason to let the National Security Agency continue its massively intrusive practice of logging our private phone calls. Congress should pull the plug.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not ignoring all the officials, including President Obama, who swear that the NSA\u2019s electronic snooping has foiled dozens of terrorist plots and saved untold lives. I\u2019m just listening carefully, and what we\u2019re getting is a lot of doublespeak and precious little clarity.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important to keep in mind that Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who absconded to Hong Kong and started blabbing the spy agency\u2019s secrets, has thus far disclosed the existence of two separate clandestine programs. One, known internally as PRISM, involves the international harvesting of emails and other electronic communications. The other involves the domestic collection of phone call \u201cmetadata\u201d\u2013a vast, pointillist record of our contacts and movements.<\/p>\n
The NSA\u2019s defenders have consistently\u2013and, I believe, deliberately\u2013blurred the distinction between the two. When they talk about the would-be terrorists who have been nabbed and the potential devastation that has been prevented, they lump the programs together.<\/p>\n
Obama did so in his interview with Charlie Rose. \u201cWe are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe … through these programs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
But it is becoming clear that we should consider \u201cthese programs\u201d separately. Privacy concerns aside, PRISM at least seems to produce results. Unless we\u2019re flat-out being lied to, PRISM\u2013which does not target Americans\u2013has produced substantial quantities of useful information about bad people overseas who seek to do us harm.<\/p>\n
The phone-call tracking, on the other hand, is a huge infringement on Americans\u2019 privacy that has not been shown to have much investigative value, if any.<\/p>\n
At a hearing Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to give an example of a terrorist plot that was discovered solely because of the stockpiled phone data.<\/p>\n
Mueller offered just one: The NSA knew of a phone number in East Africa that was associated with terrorists, so analysts ran the number against the phone log database and saw calls to or from a number in California. This connection led authorities to several men in San Diego who allegedly had sent about $8,500 to al-Shabab, a terrorist group in Somalia.<\/p>\n
Mueller said that, overall, there had been \u201c10 to 12\u201d cases in which the phone data was \u201cimportant,\u201d but he could name no others in which it was \u201cinstrumental.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Obama has said, we need to find the right balance between privacy and security; more of one implies less of the other. Is keeping petty cash from reaching al-Shabab important enough to justify letting the government snatch and hoard so much of our private information?<\/p>\n
I would say no. And I would also question whether, in this case, the NSA database was even necessary.<\/p>\n
The NSA already had the suspicious East African phone number. Authorities could have gone to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtained a warrant requiring phone companies to turn over all records of U.S. calls to or from that number\u2013and, when the California connection emerged, calls to and from the San Diego number.<\/p>\n
This would have meant jumping through an extra hoop or two. Good. It\u2019s not supposed to be easy or convenient for the government to poke around in people\u2019s private affairs.<\/p>\n
Mueller said the phone data is needed because terrorism investigations involve connecting those elusive dots that everyone keeps talking about. \u201cWhat concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understand his concern. But the exemplary cases presented so far all involve some initial piece of information from an outside source\u2013information that sent investigators on a search for dots of a certain kind. In the San Diego case, the dots of anyone who doesn\u2019t chat with Somali terrorists were irrelevant.<\/p>\n
The phone companies could be asked or instructed to preserve call data for a period of time, say five years. They probably keep it that long anyway. Judges on the surveillance court\u2013who are not acquainted with the word no\u2013could issue warrants when the NSA felt like sifting for patterns.<\/p>\n
The NSA might be inconvenienced. But I don\u2019t believe we would be any less safe.<\/p>\n
Eugene Robinson\u2019s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013, Washington Post Writers Group<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/images\/eartothegrounduploads\/760710810_21d9f19c82-300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Flickr \/ HeatedGroundPhotography<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
By Eugene Robinson<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON\u2013From the evidence so far, there\u2019s no good reason to let the National Security Agency continue its massively intrusive practice of logging our private phone calls. Congress should pull the plug.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not ignoring all the officials, including President Obama, who swear that the NSA\u2019s electronic snooping has foiled dozens of terrorist plots and saved untold lives. I\u2019m just listening carefully, and what we\u2019re getting is a lot of doublespeak and precious little clarity.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important to keep in mind that Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who absconded to Hong Kong and started blabbing the spy agency\u2019s secrets, has thus far disclosed the existence of two separate clandestine programs. One, known internally as PRISM, involves the international harvesting of emails and other electronic communications. The other involves the domestic collection of phone call \u201cmetadata\u201d\u2013a vast, pointillist record of our contacts and movements.<\/p>\n
The NSA\u2019s defenders have consistently\u2013and, I believe, deliberately\u2013blurred the distinction between the two. When they talk about the would-be terrorists who have been nabbed and the potential devastation that has been prevented, they lump the programs together.<\/p>\n
Obama did so in his interview with Charlie Rose. \u201cWe are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe … through these programs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
But it is becoming clear that we should consider \u201cthese programs\u201d separately. Privacy concerns aside, PRISM at least seems to produce results. Unless we\u2019re flat-out being lied to, PRISM\u2013which does not target Americans\u2013has produced substantial quantities of useful information about bad people overseas who seek to do us harm.<\/p>\n
The phone-call tracking, on the other hand, is a huge infringement on Americans\u2019 privacy that has not been shown to have much investigative value, if any.<\/p>\n
At a hearing Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to give an example of a terrorist plot that was discovered solely because of the stockpiled phone data.<\/p>\n
Mueller offered just one: The NSA knew of a phone number in East Africa that was associated with terrorists, so analysts ran the number against the phone log database and saw calls to or from a number in California. This connection led authorities to several men in San Diego who allegedly had sent about $8,500 to al-Shabab, a terrorist group in Somalia.<\/p>\n
Mueller said that, overall, there had been \u201c10 to 12\u201d cases in which the phone data was \u201cimportant,\u201d but he could name no others in which it was \u201cinstrumental.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Obama has said, we need to find the right balance between privacy and security; more of one implies less of the other. Is keeping petty cash from reaching al-Shabab important enough to justify letting the government snatch and hoard so much of our private information?<\/p>\n
I would say no. And I would also question whether, in this case, the NSA database was even necessary.<\/p>\n
The NSA already had the suspicious East African phone number. Authorities could have gone to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtained a warrant requiring phone companies to turn over all records of U.S. calls to or from that number\u2013and, when the California connection emerged, calls to and from the San Diego number.<\/p>\n
This would have meant jumping through an extra hoop or two. Good. It\u2019s not supposed to be easy or convenient for the government to poke around in people\u2019s private affairs.<\/p>\n
Mueller said the phone data is needed because terrorism investigations involve connecting those elusive dots that everyone keeps talking about. \u201cWhat concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understand his concern. But the exemplary cases presented so far all involve some initial piece of information from an outside source\u2013information that sent investigators on a search for dots of a certain kind. In the San Diego case, the dots of anyone who doesn\u2019t chat with Somali terrorists were irrelevant.<\/p>\n
The phone companies could be asked or instructed to preserve call data for a period of time, say five years. They probably keep it that long anyway. Judges on the surveillance court\u2013who are not acquainted with the word no\u2013could issue warrants when the NSA felt like sifting for patterns.<\/p>\n
The NSA might be inconvenienced. But I don\u2019t believe we would be any less safe.<\/p>\n
Eugene Robinson\u2019s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013, Washington Post Writers Group<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Flickr \/ HeatedGroundPhotography<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n