The Administration Stops Pretending Phone Dragnet Is Only about Phone Calls

The other day, I noted that the language describing contact-chaining had been changed to permit chaining between identifiers that had a “connection” even without any actual phone contact. At a minimum, this permits the government to contact chain on various phones associated with the same person. But in the telecoms hands (which have access to geolocation information the government may not collect under the phone dragnet) it may also mean close proximity.

The Administration made this all more obvious with changes it added to the HR 3361, AKA the USA Freedom (Freedumb) Act. It changed the language on contact chaining from this:

(I) using the specific selection term that satisfies the standard required under subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii) as the basis for production;

(II) using the results of the production under subclause (I) as the basis for production; and

(III) using the results of the production under subclause (II) as the basis for production;

To this:

(iii) provide that the Government  may require the prompt production of call  detail records—

(I) using the specific selection term that satisfies the standard required under subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii)  as the basis for production; and

(II) using call detail records with a direct connection to such specific selection term as the basis for production of a second set of call detail records;

(iv) provide that, when produced, such records be in a form that will be useful to the Government;

Now there is actually an important improvement in this language. The new language requires each step return to a call detail record: a phone number or SIM card number, for example. The telecoms can’t use things like geolocation or email addresses in that interim hop, as they might have been able to do under the previous language.

Though the end results may only need to be “a form that will be useful to the Government.” Before, the end results had to be a CDR; this would seem to permit some other kind of result.

And along the way, the Administration has abandoned all pretense that contact-chaining is only about tracking who calls whom. This language makes clear that the chaining is about connections.

As I said, the most obvious kind of “connection” is a burner phone: identifying the new phone of the same target based off the old phones existing call patterns. And, given the big push to outsource the call records to the telecoms, NSA surely intends to use cell location (the telecoms can legally use location, whereas the NSA is not permitted to under current FISA rules).

But those are only the most obvious applications. It would take a great deal of imagination, I think, to anticipate all the kinds of connections the NSA might ask the telecoms to make for them.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

4 Responses to The Administration Stops Pretending Phone Dragnet Is Only about Phone Calls

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @CitizenCohn Evidence v Brady, even Pats, inconclusive. But ruling already a win for workers: says employers can't be totally arbitrary.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Seanismoney Uber case looks cool too. But this is sheer hubris on part of owners so it'd be awesome if it backfired on oligarchs generally
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Hoping that by appealing (and hopefully losing again) NFL creates a big fat precedent for workers in 2nd C.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Roger Goodell, having been told his claim to independence is for shit, doubles down on "integrity of the game." http://t.co/ay4roRZiht
53mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ryangrim You gonna write up the heroin plan? Someone in A2 got saved w/naloxone yesterday.
55mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Zackamondaloo I did say "unjustified." Faith is faith.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ddayen Well I am NOW bc of Jay Feely.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ddayen Tho it might be time for me to unmute my block on Harbaugh.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ddayen Yeah, that's nuts. My expectations are VERY low.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @WALLACHLEGAL: Why Berman's decision is "reversal-proof": the improper exclusion of Pash as a witness is based on CA2 law and goes to fu…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 To say nothing of climate change driven migration.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @carolrosenberg Probably for you, sure, but they'd have a hard time doing that to the lawyers @JonathanHafetz
1hreplyretweetfavorite
May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031