Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
I think we know very well by now that they ARE capturing and listening to conversations and text based electronic communications in blanket or "dragnet" fashion. They are doing it with computers, so President Obama the parsing lawyer can think he's not technically lying when he says "no one" is "listening" to your calls. He can chuckle to himself about the metadata surveillance program being "modest" in scope as well - it is very modest compared to the centerpiece NSA domestic surveillance programs. The NSA don't actually need Verizon or AT&T to formally hand over their call logs in order to know who is calling whom and for how long, from where, and whether interesting things are being said. But they do need records to be surrendered under warrant in order to make a Constitutionally kosher, prosecutable criminal case. The court order to hand over call records (metadata) is strictly pro forma. They would use it to establish a "clean" chain of evidence against someone - or to fabricate one after the fact. That is to say the kind of data mining the NSA conducts with its equipment lodged inside telecom switching facilities can tell them practically everything about anyone or everyone - but the evidence produced by such a dragnet can't be admitted into a courtroom. It would be tainted, because the practice is PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not to mention, also that the political consequence for the party in power could be as devastating as the consequences for the case against Smith. So better to keep up the pretense that the program does not exist. A chain of evidence against a defendant that BEGAN with the NSA's beam-splitting, dragnet style, warrantless surveillance would risk being thrown out altogether for lack of an individualized probable cause. Why did Mr. Smith come to the attention of the authorities in the first place? would be the question asked. If the answer is because our system flagged him while we were conducting computerized, warrantless, pattern matching analysis over the content of everyone's phone calls, the state's case against Smith has a real problem.
An alternate "clean" and legal chain of evidence has to be constructed to take Smith to court. It would be legal because it was based on surveillance done under a FISA court warrant made possible by the Patriot Act. (I say "legal" here, not Constitutional) No mention of the real origin of suspicions against Smith will be made at any point. Federal authorities will contend that routine analysis of legally seized Verizon call bulk metadata, plus a tip off call from an anonymous neighbor of Smith perhaps, led them to suspect Smith's involvement in a plot. They then obtained a warrant to monitor Smith's communications and purchases in detail and then discovered the rest of the incriminating evidence, proving Smith's clear intent to commit a terrorist act. Knowing the more or less complete picture about Smith from their earlier warrantless surveillance, they will work backwards on the evidence represented by the call metadata obtained under FISA warrant to construct a plausible narrative about how this pile of seemingly innocuous phone numbers and timestamps added up to probable cause to put this one person under the microscope.
= new reply since forum marked as read
