Gonzales Defends Phone-Data Collection - By Walter Pincus

[kpete]

Gonzales Defends Phone-Data Collection

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Page A06

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday that the government can obtain domestic telephone records without court approval under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that authorized the collection of business records.

Gonzales would not confirm the details of a May 11 story in USA Today, which said the National Security Agency had collected phone records of millions of Americans and analyzed them to search for terrorism plots. But Gonzales told reporters that, under the Smith v. Maryland ruling, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records."

The case involved the police, without a court warrant, asking a telephone company to install at its central office a surveillance device called a "pen register" that recorded all the numbers of a robbery suspect's outgoing calls.

Because the device was installed in a phone company's central office, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no invasion of the person's home. And because the telephone account owner knew, through a monthly bill, that the numbers dialed created a phone company record, there was no expectation of privacy and no violation of the Fourth Amendment that otherwise would have required a court warrant, the court said.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301594.html

[caligirl]

1. He was a robbery suspect, so he thinks ma and pa and every

tom dick or harry is a terrorist suspect, x millions? It doesn't make any sense.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. right, there was probable cause there

there is no reason to tap millions of phones w/o even reasonable suspicion, just fishing.

[Jim__]

5. I disagree.

Police suspicion does not constitute probable casue; and even if it did, probabe cause does not justify invading someone's privacy - probable cause justifies the issuance of a warrant which justifies a limited invasion of privacy. The distinction is important, the police believe they have probably cause and then that belief is validated by an "independent" agent.

The real quesion I have, is once they know who we all call, how do they proceed from there? If they believe certain peole are suspicious, are they then getting warrants? Or, are they then listening in under a "national security" excuse?

[rodeodance]

2. if I follow this logic to its end. We are all 'suspects":

...But Gonzales told reporters that, under the Smith v. Maryland ruling, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records."

The case involved the police, without a court warrant, asking a telephone company to install at its central office a surveillance device called a "pen register" that recorded all the numbers of a robbery suspect's outgoing calls.

[987654321]

4. Go back to Mexico!

I remember as a youth being out with my family and hearing racists yelling for us to go back to Mexico. I always hated that, especially because our family ancestry here pre-dates the US take over of Arizona.

I though such a hateful thing should never be said to anyone, even people who did immigrate here. Well, I thought that until Alberto Gonzales came along. He is not sure his family came here legally and has shown little understanding of the "piece of paper" we call the constitution. Yeah, he does speak English well, but still, uh, Mr Gonzales, go back to Mexico!