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
JimWhiteGNV RT @seanpaulkelley: Wait, WTF? God Bless America? This is baseball! Take Me Out to the Ballgame is THE only 7th Inning stretch song accepta…
8mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @seanpaulkelley: Seriously, I can't be the only one sick of all this militaristic bullshit at a baseball game! Christ, save if for footb…
9mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @kirkmurphy: How did America become so fearful we feel better w/ televised military at our ball games? Not teachers, nurses, farmers.. @…
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @AlbertBreer: As @ProFootballTalk said earlier, Ray Rice has filed a grievance against the Ravens. Source says it's been filed for some …
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @rj_gallagher: Source says "jaws would drop" if people knew what @CIA did "to hack into Senate computers" over torture report: http://t.…
41mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @lrozen: "if you do, I’m going to personally come over there and shove it up your ass." The subpoena was quashed the next day http://t.c…
59mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @jacklgoldsmith @lrozen But point taken.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @jacklgoldsmith @lrozen The one requiring designation as a national security concern? Seems....flimsy. I guess depends on how far Obama goes
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @StephanieKelton Heh, might just do that.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @StephanieKelton It's not any better on the teevee.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @jadler1969 @chrisgeidner Is here. In fact, they'd be derelict to perpetuate this discrimination. And you'll not be changing my mind on that
1hreplyretweetfavorite
May 2014
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031