Smith v Maryland - US Supreme Court Case 1979 - Phone Records belong to phone company, no privacy

Find Law ^ | June 20, 1979 | SCOTUS

[ndt]

"I always thought that the law kept them from not spying on US citizens who are living currently in the USA."

That would seem to no longer be the case. I guess you have been off the radar today. The NSA has collected 10s of millions of Americans phone records and are sifting through them looking for suspicious activity.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

You learn something new everyday.

I read in a news paper article a few years ago about the NSA, that they monitor over seas calls, and foreigners who are here in the USA, and not US citizens, but, I guess after 9/11 that all changed.
I still believe that no matter what this administration and President Bush does to protect this country, or does not do, he will get the blame.
I believe that President Bush has not done anything wrong except listen to the Democrats/Liberals/MSM BS.
If President Bush does nothing, the Democrats will condemn him for not doing anything to protect the citizens, and if he does do anything in his power, they still condemn him.
It's damed if you do, damed if you don't.
It's nothing more than typical Democrat/Liberal partisan BS politics.

You take care now.

[ndt]

So in other words you have no opinions of your own and just mindlessly worship your idol. OK thats nice to know. You have a nice day too.

[RHINO369]

"There is no right to privacy in the United States unless if it violates the 4th Amendment - and this isn't it. I'll add...this is especially true for an employer employee relationship while the employee is on the job."

There is a right to privacy however when your using someones data network you can't possibly expect privacy. It would be like expecting privacy while using a translator, the translator has to hear what you say.

The problem becomes when the government gets involved. If the phone company owns the records, then its up to the phone companies. This makes sense because if you don't agree with this, pick a company who won't share records.

I don't think the government has any legal grounds for taking the data without permission or warrant.

[Peach]

Democrats were okay with Eschelon and Carnivore which captured every phone call, every e-mail, every baby monitor (!), every ATM transaction and more, and that program is okay, pre war on terror, but this program isn't okay.

Eschelon and Carnivore information:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543118/posts?page=1#1

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542838/posts

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543318/posts

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21387

Oops - Clinton's NSA spying program accidentally (ahem) captured a Republican's phone calls.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1553101/posts?page=1

And just for kicks, the Commies insisted on FISA:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21453

Flashback: Gore planned to bug America:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559386/posts

NYT called domestic surveillance a necessity when Clinton was president:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556815/posts

This is the December 2005 NYT article which says what today's USA Today article says regarding NSA collecting phone numbers.

Clearly, Democrats (and some RINOs) have manufactured their outrage over this already reported on program. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?ei=5090&en=016edb46b79bde83&ex=1293080400&pagewanted=print

[NinoFan]

This entirely misses the point that there are numerous federal STATUTES that can be read to prohibit what the NSA is doing. Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be illegal.

[oceanview]

so, you are giving up your cell phone too?

[KoRn]

"so, you are giving up your cell phone too?"

Cell phones are very difficult to track if not impossible. Especially with the pre-paid 'throw away' phones that you can buy at most any gas station.

This morning I started looking for insanely strong encryption for my non-important web traffic for them to waste time on trying to decrypt, the sad thing is I'll know nothing about it lol.

[Sandy]

Bush followed the left wing court from 1979 precedent.

You're confused. Federal statute is what protects our privacy interest in our phone records. Fourth Amendment case law is irrelevant.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

The Federal Law passed in this area is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 which makes it the telephone companies duty to turn over records to the Government.

All 3 branches have weighed in on this.

[Sandy]

The Federal Law passed in this area is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994

No it's not. The law passed in this area is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 1986.

Title II of ECPA, the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701 et seq.), is the law relevant to the current NSA story (particularly 2702(a)(3) and 2702(c), which were added to §2702 in Patriot Act I).

Title III of ECPA, the Pen Register statute (18 USC 3121-3127), was Congress's response to Smith v. Maryland (the case which you posted) and really has nothing to do with the current NSA story.

CALEA was later enacted to force the telcos to be technologically capable of complying with court orders and warrants and whatnot.

[Straight Vermonter]

I'm sorry that this thread hasn't gotten more attention. Thanks for finding this.

[MizSterious]

So evidently everyone who signed off on this (including then-President Clinton) must have agreed with the original law, else they would never have passed this capability law--right?

[bcsco]

Bump for later!

[mo]

i am no attorney, but this sounds to me like why the Fifth Ammendment was put there.....