Here in Britain they are reporting it like this...
...but, there is something else going on here in the UK, which I believe is connected to the global surveillance program? I'll come back to it later
in this post.
The government has publicly maintained that Americans have no constitutional privacy rights connected to their business records with the phone
This particular argument is based on law and legality, only, not on the morality of the practice. Like the following quote, it is 'interpretive' and
wholly ignores any sense of moral basis.
David S. Jones
"…the alleged metadata program is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Most fundamentally, the program does not involve
“searches” of plaintiffs’ persons or effects, because the collection of telephony metadata from the business records of a third-party telephone
service provider, without collecting the contents of plaintiffs’ communications, implicates no ‘legitimate expectation of
privacy’ that is protected by the Constitution,”
The pertinent points of this argument are: 1) 'collection of telephony metadata from the business records of a third-party telephone provider'; 2)
'without collecting the contents of plaintiffs' communications'; and 3), 'implicates no legitimate expectation of privacy that is protected by the
I would like to see what steps were taken by any or all 'third-party' telephone providers as a counter-argument to the request for the metadata
before they handed it over. In which courts did they argue their case?
If the contents of communications cannot be used it would seem that the collection of metadata is a redundant exercise, but as we know the point of
collecting metadata is all about 'identification' of persons (sender and recipient), place, and time of the communication. If persons of interest
turn up, they then go to a 'secret court' to gain a warrant so they can then inspect the contents of the communication. A self-serving apparatus
such as this is most definitely unconstitutional and against the public's interest of domestic security.
I would suggest, however, that they do check the contents of the communications as a deliberate practice of their industry, and it is by this method
that 'persons of interest' do turn up, then they take a trip to their secret court. It is the proving of this which will be the most problematic,
and would require another 'whistleblower' to spill the beans.
With regard to 'secret courts'. I'd like to know how this passed through both the Senate and Congress, as it would've needed their approval for
All communication holds an expected protection of privacy between sender/s and recipient/s. Business communications will be upholded as legitimately
private by industrial espionage laws which the NSA, CIA, and FBI are committing, and which the telephone providers are conspiring in and guilty of
aiding and abetting. Telephone companies can be punished simply by their customer's removal of their patronage and loss of business.
The real problem is that this surveillance issue is not being given a chance to be debated openly and publicly, and the public are not challenging it.
I cannot believe that there are no independent constitutional and law scholars not willing to inform the public on this issue...where are they?
Now to England. take a look at this...
...I would suggest that this is a 'test run' for a surveillance practice that if successful would be rolled out across the nation, and from there,
across the world.