FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time

from the oh-the-horrors dept

While much of the news coverage of FBI Director Robert Mueller's Congressional hearing this week focused on his admission that the FBI has used drones domestically, there were some other points raised, including his "defense" of the broad surveillance techniques that appears to amount to the idea that it just takes too long to obey the Constitution and go through the proper procedures before getting information:
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mueller addressed a proposal to require telephone companies to retain calling logs for five years — the period the N.S.A. is keeping them — for investigators to consult, rather than allowing the government to collect and store them all. He cautioned that it would take time to subpoena the companies for numbers of interest and get the answers back.

“The point being that it will take an awful long time,” Mr. Mueller said.
Well, shucks. Having some amount of oversight, someone in a position to make sure that the data requested is legit would just take too long? It seems like Mueller maybe has been watching too many episodes of 24. First off, it does not take an "awful" long time. Law enforcement has regularly been able to go through legal processes to get a wiretap or subpoena other information very, very rapidly, especially when they make it clear it's an emergency situation. But the fact is, it's unlikely that most of these searches are such a timely emergency that they need the data now, and can't wait an hour or so until an employee at the telco can retrieve it for them.

Mueller later made some outrageous claims about how long it would take the telcos to respond to a request for information following the standard procedures in an emergency.
“In this particular area, where you’re trying to prevent terrorist attacks, what you want is that information as to whether or not that number in Yemen is in contact with somebody in the United States almost instantaneously so you can prevent that attack,” he said. “You cannot wait three months, six months, a year to get that information, be able to collate it and put it together. Those are the concerns I have about an alternative way of handling this.”

Mr. Mueller did not explain why it would take so long for telephone companies to respond to a subpoena for calling data linked to a particular number, especially in a national security investigation.
He didn't explain it because it wouldn't take that long -- especially with the telcos who generally have a cozy relationship with law enforcement and a "how high?" response to the "jump!" command from the government.

Yes, I'm sure it's more convenient for the government to not have to wait an hour or so to get this info. And it's more convenient not to have to wait for a telco employee to make sure the request is legit and to retrieve the info, but we don't get rid of our Constitutional protections because of convenience for the surveillance state. The whole point of the rights of the public against such intrusions is that we, as a country, have made a conscious choice that surveillance over the population is not supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to involve careful checks and balances to avoid abuse. It's a shame that so many in our own government don't seem to recognize this basic point.

Mueller also admitted that the goal is to collect as much data as possible to "connect the dots."
“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,” he said. “Now, you know, it may make that decision that it’s not worth it. But let there be no mistake about it. There will be fewer dots out there to connect” in trying to prevent the next terrorist attack.
Again, this is an anti-Constitutional argument. It's an argument that says any violation of privacy and civil liberties is okay if something collected might possibly be useful later. But that's not how we're supposed to do things in the US. We're only supposed to allow law enforcement to collect the dots if there's evidence that the dots show some law being broken. Furthermore, we've already seen that having lots of dots actually makes it harder to connect the dots. Since Mueller is one of the folks who has claimed that today's system might have prevented 9/11, he ought to know that the 9/11 Commission never said that an absence of dots was the problem leading to the attack, but rather the failure of existing agencies to actually do anything with the dots/evidence they had. Collecting more dots doesn't make you any more likely to connect them. In fact, it's much more likely to send you on a wild goose chase -- including some that will potentially infringe upon the rights of innocent people.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    KBright (profile), 21 Jun 2013 @ 6:42am

    Re: yet they are correct

    If you want fast (yet not always correct) "justice" there are many countries in this world that has that, with Dictatorial Tyrant countries usually being the quickest to "implement" corrections on any who displeases them.

    The USA was created so that the people are protected, because in all countries throughout history who quickly distribute their brand of justice many innocents paid with their lives. Study history - real history.

    This country was founded on the radical concept that individuals have natural rights that cannot lawfully taken away or modified. That PROVING that the person being charged is extremely important, requiring: a reason for thinging they might be guilty of a crime, lawfully signed warrants describing the crime/item/area to be searched & specifically what looking for, lawful warrant for spying/tracking/serching/ etc, not incriminating oneself, representation, innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law to be judged by ones peers - remember the charges itself - against the person - is/are also being tried by that group of jurors; that it is not only guilt or innocence of the person but is the "law" one we even want in our nation (called jury nullification), etc.

    No, the police do not need to be on an "equal footing to the criminals" in the manner you are meaning. They are on an equal footing: training, weapons, technology, etc - but the USA is NOT a "police state" like Nazi Germany, China, Russia, etc where they (police, military, representatives, bureaucrats, guy next door make the decision of life and death, guilt or innocence - not LAWFULLY anyway. Nor do most Americans want that type of life here.

    This is the ONLY nation where individual rights are PROTECTED by the supreme law of this land; the US Constitution and all the is in PURSUANCE THEREOF it. Where it is the peers who decide guild or innocence, not a cop, military, representative, etc.

    Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, notice that it adds ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS with FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES on the federal government to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights):

    Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.