From the evidence so far, theres no good reason to let the National Security Agency continue its massively intrusive practice of logging our private phone calls. Congress should pull the plug.
Im not ignoring all the officials, including President Obama, who swear that the NSAs electronic snooping has foiled dozens of terrorist plots and saved untold lives. Im just listening carefully, and what were getting is a lot of doublespeak and precious little clarity.
Its important to keep in mind that Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who absconded to Hong Kong and started blabbing the spy agencys secrets, has thus far disclosed the existence of two separate clandestine programs. One, known internally as PRISM, involves the international harvesting of emails and other electronic communications. The other involves the domestic collection of phone call metadata a vast, pointillist record of our contacts and movements.
The NSAs defenders have consistently and, I believe, deliberately blurred the distinction between the two. When they talk about the would-be terrorists who have been nabbed and the potential devastation that has been prevented, they lump the programs together.
Obama did so in his interview with Charlie Rose. We are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe through these programs, he said.
But it is becoming clear that we should consider these programs separately. Privacy concerns aside, PRISM at least seems to produce results. Unless were flat-out being lied to, PRISM which does not target Americans has produced substantial quantities of useful information about bad people overseas who seek to do us harm.
The phone-call tracking, on the other hand, is a huge infringement on Americans privacy that has not been shown to have much investigative value, if any.
At a hearing Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to give an example of a terrorist plot that was discovered solely because of the stockpiled phone data.
Mueller offered just one: The NSA knew of a phone number in East Africa that was associated with terrorists, so analysts ran the number against the phone log database and saw calls to or from a number in California. This connection led authorities to several men in San Diego who allegedly had sent about $8,500 to al-Shabab, a terrorist group in Somalia.
Mueller said that, overall, there had been 10 to 12 cases in which the phone data was important, but he could name no others in which it was instrumental.
As Obama has said, we need to find the right balance between privacy and security; more of one implies less of the other. Is keeping petty cash from reaching al-Shabab important enough to justify letting the government snatch and hoard so much of our private information?
I would say no. And I would also question whether, in this case, the NSA database was even necessary.
The NSA already had the suspicious East African phone number. Authorities could have gone to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtained a warrant requiring phone companies to turn over all records of U.S. calls to or from that number and, when the California connection emerged, calls to and from the San Diego number.
This would have meant jumping through an extra hoop or two. Good. Its not supposed to be easy or convenient for the government to poke around in peoples private affairs.
Mueller said the phone data is needed because terrorism investigations involve connecting those elusive dots that everyone keeps talking about. What concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key, he said. What you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field.
I understand his concern. But the exemplary cases presented so far all involve some initial piece of information from an outside source information that sent investigators on a search for dots of a certain kind. In the San Diego case, the dots of anyone who doesnt chat with Somali terrorists were irrelevant.
The phone companies could be asked or instructed to preserve call data for a period of time, say five years. They probably keep it that long anyway. Judges on the surveillance court who are not acquainted with the word no could issue warrants when the NSA felt like sifting for patterns.
The NSA might be inconvenienced. But I dont believe we would be any less safe.
Washington Post Writers Group