The Wall Street Journal reports that a panel convened by the president to review the National Security Agency's programs will recommend that "the records of nearly every U.S. phone call now collected in a controversial NSA program be held instead by the phone company or a third-party organization." That recommendation is a non-starter.
Mandatory data retention has been floated for years using the most politically appealing rationale, child predation. In 2007, we characterized the idea as costly, outsourced surveillance, and Congress has consistently denied that power to the government. In fact, child protection bills containing data retention mandates were introduced in several Congresses but only passed once provisions deputizing communications providers into government surveillance were stripped out. Randy Barnett and I made this point in our brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the NSA's mass surveillance of Americans' telephone calling.
"Congress has declined to institute mandatory data retention laws because the costs, risks, and privacy consequences for innocent citizens outweigh their law enforcement and security benefits," we wrote. "The Verizon order reverses this Congressional policy by requiring a telecommunications provider to turn all data over to the government for retention by the National Security Agency."
How ironic it would be if the NSA's illegal excesses delivered it a victory on a policy initiative that it lost years ago. Is secretly violating Americans' communications privacy really rewarded by a policy requiring the violation of Americans' communications privacy?
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who claims authorship of the USA-PATRIOT Act, came to Cato two months ago to lament the NSA's use of that law for domestic spying he did not intend the NSA to have. In the past, he has said that data retention "runs roughshod over the privacy rights of people who use the Internet for thousands of lawful purposes." Assumedly, he believes the same as to people's use of the phone, and he will continue working with other privacy-minded legislators to relegate data retention mandates to the dustbin of history.
British Conservative Party member and former shadow home secretary David Davis says that data retention requirements being debated in the U.K. are "incredibly intrusive" and would only "catch the innocent and incompetent." He's right.
The United States was formed after a Revolutionary War against Britain so that we could live under a government more protective of liberty. The Fourth Amendment's requirement of particularity with respect to warrants prevents our government from issuing blanket requirements that information about all of our communications be retained in case it's needed for law enforcement.
At least we must hope so. Because some in our Congress seem to have little qualm about reversing the Revolutionary War's results.
Want to understand a big chunk of what Washington, D.C. does? Learn about "moral panic."
Moral panic is a dynamic in the political and media spheres in which some threat to social order---often something taboo---causes a response that goes far beyond meeting the actual threat. It's a socio-political stampede, if you will. You might be surprised to learn how easily stampeded your society is.
Take a look at H.R. 1981, the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. It's got everything: porn, children, the Internet. And it's got everything: financial services providers dragooned into law enforcement, data retention requirements heaped on Internet service providers, expanded "administrative subpoena" authority. (Administrative subpoenas are an improvisation to accommodate the massive power of the bureaucracy, and they've become another end-run around the Fourth Amendment. If it's "administrative" it must be reasonable, goes the non-thinking...)
This isn't a bill about child predation. It's a bald-faced attack on privacy and limited government. Congress can move legislation like this, even in the era of the Tea Party movement, because child predation is a taboo subject. The inference is too strong in too many minds that opposing government in-roads on privacy is somehow supporting child exploitation. Congress and its allies use taboos to cow the populace into accepting yet more government growth and yet more surveillance.
I'm not turned to mush by taboos, so the question I'm most interested in having asked at tomorrow's hearing on the bill in the House Judiciary Committee is: "Under what theory of the Commerce Clause is this bill within the power of the federal government?"
This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law had a hearing entitled: "Protecting Mobile Privacy: Your Smartphones, Tablets, Cell Phones and Your Privacy."
Among the witnesses was Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein from the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. Weinstein made a gallingly Orwellian pitch: If you want privacy protection, increase government surveillance.
From his written statement:
ISPs may choose not to store IP records, may adopt a network architecture that frustrates their ability to track IP assignments and network transactions back to a specific account or device, or may store records for only a very short period of time. In many cases, these records are the only evidence that allows us to investigate and assign culpability for crimes committed on the Internet. In 2006, forty-nine Attorneys General wrote to Congress to express "grave concern" about "the problem of insufficient data retention policies by Internet Service Providers."
Without more customer data retention by ISPs, and without greater government access to this data, the government won't be able to prosecute crimes, some of which threaten privacy, Weinstein said in his spoken comments.
So there you have it. Turn more data over to the government so we can protect your privacy. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.