Talk:MAINWAY

Fourth Amendment

Shouldn't there be something in here about the Fourth Amendment, and how this is an obvious affront to it?

Sparsefarce 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my Criminal Procedure textbook with me, but I think the Supreme Court ruled once that collecting a person's list of numbers called is OK. The logic was that if you willingly give such information to the phone company, you have no expectation of privacy regarding the government having the same data. I'll look it up in a bit, or maybe someone knows what I'm talking about. --Maxamegalon2000 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case you're think about is Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). The Court said "we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed." However, Congress enacted a statute requiring a warrant in order to employ a pen register. 18 U.S.C. § 3121. - Whitenoise101

That's the one. It does seem a bit counter-intuitive. --Maxamegalon2000 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an obvious affront to it. That would be a legal conclusion that will take time. However, given the fact that the phone companies themselves already compile this data, and sell it for makreting purposes as far as I know, I think it is likely not a 4th amendment issue, even if you find it creepy. The list doesn't belong to you-it belongs to the phone companies-they compiled it. and they voluntarily handed it over. They were not forced to. Therefore, no warrant needed.

This data is not sold for marketing purposes! Phone number databases are, but not calling records. I think that bit of confusion has probably fueled responses like the Washington Post poll where people seemed to think this was somehow reasonable. To be clear, we're talking about a database that says that on Sat. May 13, 2005 at 07:41 EST, (123)555-1212 called (345)555-1234 and remained connected for 20 minutes. While names are not part of the data, those very same marketting databases you discuss (and which the NSA presumably buys) can easily map (123)555-1212 to "Joe Smith, 89 Main St, Somewhere, Virginia, USA". -Harmil 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think the sentence that's in there now does a good job. Sparsefarce 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the weasel words were given some source. Which activists? How widespread is this notion? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this database related to ECHELON? And if so, Does ECHELON violate the 4th?--Doom Child 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The inclusion of every single NSA tool into the big 'Echelon' basket is mainly a media contrivance. DavidGC 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be truthful to say that the call database has prompted outrage because of its invasiveness (not necessarily unlawfulness) and big-brotherlike supervision. Perhaps we should omit the fourth amendment if the consensus is that the collection of call data is not unlawful.Adambiswanger1 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should also note that the actual call conversations would have to be seized via a warrant (I assume), and this is merely an investigation of communications, not the substance of those communications.Adambiswanger1 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i should never assume that the laws are on our side. we can take out the fourth amendment stuff, but there really should be something about how big and creepy this all is. a big brother reference would make me happy. Sparsefarce 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forsee a new permutation of "In Soviet Russia" jokes. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know the dates that this project became active? That should be included in this piece if we have that data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.77.69 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure this information has been released, but a careful reading of Presidential speaches after 9/11 might give a good indication. I wouldn't be surprised if the program was hinted at in round-about ways that made those who were aware of the program sit up and take notice. DavidGC 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of call-data records

I added the sentence: "The database may contain over 2 trillion call-detail records of phone calls made after September 11, 2001."

This is based on information in the Washington Post article: According to data provided by the research group TeleGeography, the three companies connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001. [1] -- Petri Krohn 06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECHELON

It's not so bad that it's in the See also section, but I have a feeling it's being put in there for the wrong reasons, especially when it's with the tagline "same technology; different target". Anyone have an argument for/against this? --Grocer 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know anything about it, but it didn't sound very neutral. You can get rid of it if you want. --Maxamegalon2000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag there because it was removed the first time, presumably because someone thought it was completely unrelated. It is not completely unrelated, but getting into the detail about how two related SECRET programs are related is ridiculous. For one thing, the relationship changes drasticly over time and for another whatever is published could be deliberate misinformation by somebody anyway. ECHELON needs to be either in the article or on a template or in the see also section. Exactly where doesn't matter much. As for the tag, it can stay or go or be replaced, I don't care. WAS 4.250 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not completely related, either. This is about a clandestine phone database. ECHELON is an open agreement for direct spying on signals. The two programs may overlap, and ECHELON's provisions banning domestic spying may no longer be in place, but they are not similar programs at all. The only similarity is their broad scale and the NSA. I'm not going to take it out again, but I think it merits discussion. --Grocer 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]