U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
32,758
Location
babysitting the argument in my head
U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades
Brad Heath
April 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government started keeping secret records of Americans' international telephone calls nearly a decade before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, harvesting billions of calls in a program that provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed.

For more than two decades, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, current and former officials involved with the operation said. The targeted countries changed over time but included Canada, Mexico and most of Central and South America.

Federal investigators used the call records to track drug cartels' distribution networks in the USA, allowing agents to detect previously unknown trafficking rings and money handlers. They also used the records to help rule out foreign ties to the bombing in 1995 of a federal building in Oklahoma City and to identify U.S. suspects in a wide range of other investigations.

The Justice Department revealed in January that the DEA had collected data about calls to "designated foreign countries." But the history and vast scale of that operation have not been disclosed until now.

The now-discontinued operation, carried out by the DEA's intelligence arm, was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime. It was a model for the massive phone surveillance system the NSA launched to identify terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. That dragnet drew sharp criticism that the government had intruded too deeply into Americans' privacy after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked it to the news media two years ago.

More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials described the details of the Justice Department operation to USA TODAY. Most did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the intelligence program, part of which remains classified.

The DEA program did not intercept the content of Americans' calls, but the records — which numbers were dialed and when — allowed agents to map suspects' communications and link them to troves of other police and intelligence data. At first, the drug agency did so with help from military computers and intelligence analysts.

That data collection was "one of the most important and effective Federal drug law enforcement initiatives," the Justice Department said in a 1998 letter to Sprint asking the telecom giant to turn over its call records. The previously undisclosed letter was signed by the head of the department's Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section, Mary Lee Warren, who wrote that the operation had "been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority," including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.

The data collection began in 1992 during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, nine years before his son, President George W. Bush, authorized the NSA to gather its own logs of Americans' phone calls in 2001. It was approved by top Justice Department officials in four presidential administrations and detailed in occasional briefings to members of Congress but otherwise had little independent oversight, according to officials involved with running it.

The DEA used its data collection extensively and in ways that the NSA is now prohibited from doing. Agents gathered the records without court approval, searched them more often in a day than the spy agency does in a year and automatically linked the numbers the agency gathered to large electronic collections of investigative reports, domestic call records accumulated by its agents and intelligence data from overseas.

The result was "a treasure trove of very important information on trafficking," former DEA administrator Thomas Constantine said in an interview.

The extent of that surveillance alarmed privacy advocates, who questioned its legality. "This was aimed squarely at Americans," said Mark Rumold, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That's very significant from a constitutional perspective."

Holder halted the data collection in September 2013 amid the fallout from Snowden's revelations about other surveillance programs. In its place, current and former officials said the drug agency sends telecom companies daily subpoenas for international calling records involving only phone numbers that agents suspect are linked to the drug trade or other crimes — sometimes a thousand or more numbers a day.

Tuesday, Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said the DEA "is no longer collecting bulk telephony metadata from U.S. service providers." A DEA spokesman declined to comment.

HARVESTING DATA TO BATTLE CARTELS

The DEA began assembling a data-gathering program in the 1980s as the government searched for new ways to battle Colombian drug cartels. Neither informants nor undercover agents had been enough to crack the cartels' infrastructure. So the agency's intelligence arm turned its attention to the groups' communication networks.

Calling records – often called "toll records" – offered one way to do that. Toll records are comparable to what appears on a phone bill – the numbers a person dialed, the date and time of the call, its duration and how it was paid for. By then, DEA agents had decades of experience gathering toll records of people they suspected were linked to drug trafficking, albeit one person at a time. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, officials said the agency had little way to make sense of the data their agents accumulated and almost no ability to use them to ferret out new cartel connections. Some agents used legal pads.

"We were drowning in toll records," a former intelligence official said.

The DEA asked the Pentagon for help. The military responded with a pair of supercomputers and intelligence analysts who had experience tracking the communication patterns of Soviet military units. "What they discovered was that the incident of a communication was perhaps as important as the content of a communication," a former Justice Department official said.

The military installed the supercomputers on the fifth floor of the DEA's headquarters, across from a shopping mall in Arlington, Va.

The system they built ultimately allowed the drug agency to stitch together huge collections of data to map trafficking and money laundering networks both overseas and within the USA. It allowed agents to link the call records its agents gathered domestically with calling data the DEA and intelligence agencies had acquired outside the USA. (In some cases, officials said the DEA paid employees of foreign telecom firms for copies of call logs and subscriber lists.) And it eventually allowed agents to cross-reference all of that against investigative reports from the DEA, FBI and Customs Service.

Continued with video http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/
 
Why the War on Drugs is So Bad For Privacy
04/08/2015
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project

In 2011, for the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon's declaration of America's "War on Drugs," I wrote a roundup of some of the ways in which the War on Drugs has eroded privacy. Yesterday's news about the DEA's enormous program to collect Americans' call records is a hell of an addition to the list. But with the DEA story fresh in the headlines, it's important to remember a key point about why the drug war has been so corrosive of privacy: drug use is a victimless crime.

Why does that make it so bad for privacy? Think about it: with an ordinary crime, you have a victim who goes running to the police to tell them about the wrongdoing that has taken place. They have been assaulted, or stolen from, or otherwise wronged, and are hopping mad, and look to the police for justice. If the crime is murder, then the victim's loved ones will do the same. While police might engage in a certain amount of patrolling, for the most part reports of crime come to them.

But when there's no victim, how are the police supposed to find out when the law has been broken? The only way for police to fight victimless crime is to proactively search out wrongdoing: insert themselves into people's lives, monitor their behavior, search their cars, etc. The enforcement of drug laws thus relies disproportionately on surveillance, eavesdropping, and searches of private places and effects. This (and misguided judges) is the reason that the failed War on Drugs has generated so much bad law around privacy and the Fourth Amendment in particular.

It's a simple point, and I'm hardly the first to make it, but it's well worth keeping in mind, and it's one reason that the ACLU generally opposes victimless crimes.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-technology-and-liberty/why-war-drugs-so-bad-privacy
 
Why the War on Drugs is So Bad For Privacy
04/08/2015
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project

In 2011, for the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon's declaration of America's "War on Drugs," I wrote a roundup of some of the ways in which the War on Drugs has eroded privacy.

Wouldn't 2011 be the 40th anniversary since (AFAIK) Nixon formally declared war on (certain) drugs in May 1971? Bah, it's not really big deal - I was just wondering enough to make a note of it here.

Yesterday's news about the DEA's enormous program to collect Americans' call records is a hell of an addition to the list. But with the DEA story fresh in the headlines, it's important to remember a key point about why the drug war has been so corrosive of privacy: drug use is a victimless crime.

Precisely, yes it absolutely is.

And if people are gonna act like Nancy Reagen did and (I'm paraphrasing here) claim that 'street drug' users are supporting the death and destruction caused by the drug cartels towards innocent civilians, well, then two can play that game, because the same thing can be said about conflict diamonds, gold, and other precious gems and metals. And all the crap made in China which we don't need to survive as a species also somewhat applies because it is commonly manufactured in a communist country notorious for its abuse of its citizens, and the repeated violation of their basic rights.

Speaking of communism, isn't it amazing how the anti-communists in our governments who were crying foul about the Soviets, East Germany, North Vietnam, Chinese, and so forth quickly began to shut the fuck up once the U.S.S.R. imploded - even though Vietnam and China have remained communist and abusive towards their citizens to this day? It has all but ended since the latter joined the WTO in December 2001, but that's getting way off topic.

Why does that make it so bad for privacy? Think about it: with an ordinary crime, you have a victim who goes running to the police to tell them about the wrongdoing that has taken place. They have been assaulted, or stolen from, or otherwise wronged, and are hopping mad, and look to the police for justice. If the crime is murder, then the victim's loved ones will do the same. While police might engage in a certain amount of patrolling, for the most part reports of crime come to them.

But when there's no victim, how are the police supposed to find out when the law has been broken? The only way for police to fight victimless crime is to proactively search out wrongdoing: insert themselves into people's lives, monitor their behavior, search their cars, etc. The enforcement of drug laws thus relies disproportionately on surveillance, eavesdropping, and searches of private places and effects. This (and misguided judges) is the reason that the failed War on Drugs has generated so much bad law around privacy and the Fourth Amendment in particular.

It is absolutely a gross violation of the 4th Amendment, but to be honest, behind closed doors, behind the public smokescreen, Uncle Sam probably wipes his ass with layers of torn pages from extra pocketbook-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution.

These are the same people who lied through their teeth about the fact that they secretly spy on their own citizens - one of many violations which should have resulted in felony convictions for those responsible.

Alas, the U.S. government is like the mother of hookers. Every day she whores herself to the highest corporate bidders, and gladly takes a fist up her ass and spits out whatever ideas she was paid to represent after betraying the trust of those who voted for her to be there in the first place.

I'm no longer surprised by the revelations of her betrayal, hypocrisy, hidden agenda, and more of the same - all of which have been increasingly made public thanks to this information age we're living in at the moment by people who have risked their freedom to do so; people who are true patriots for alerting the American public - made up of countless hoodwinked constituents (victims) - of the aforementioned corporate hooker their collective representatives have become.

It's a simple point, and I'm hardly the first to make it, but it's well worth keeping in mind, and it's one reason that the ACLU generally opposes victimless crimes.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-technology-and-liberty/why-war-drugs-so-bad-privacy

This is a revelation as well - it should help further undermine this unjust war.
 
Last edited:
Top