Last week the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to stop the government 's collection of telephone records of Verizon customers . It was not a decision we took lightly . But as an organization dedicated to protecting privacy , we had no choice . Of all the recent revelations about the government 's surveillance activities , the most significant is a secret court order that required Verizon to provide to the National Security Agency -- on an ongoing basis -- the call detail records on all of its customers . Not since the congressional hearings of the Church Committee -- the Senate committee that investigated widespread intelligence abuses in the 1970s -- has there been evidence of such extensive spying by the U.S. government on the American public . But unlike then , the digital data of the modern telephone network allows for an extraordinary sorting and sifting of digital information today . A phone number is easily linked to a person , perhaps a doctor , a minister , a family member , or a close friend . Call detail records can also reveal where people are and who they are with . Such information can be very useful when tracking a particular target in a criminal or intelligence investigation , but collecting such data on all Americans who have a telephone is without precedent . In our filing with the Supreme Court , the Electronic Privacy Information Center asked a simple question that we hope the Court will answer : Is it legal for the government to collect so much information about so many people suspected of no threat to national security ? According to the law -- section 215 of the Patriot Act -- the government is only allowed to obtain such information if it is `` relevant '' to an `` authorized investigation '' and if its use is for very narrow purposes . How could it possibly be that all of the customers of Verizon could be subject to an authorized investigation of the U.S. government ? To us that seems impossible . And that is also the view of some of those who wrote the law and who served on the court that applies the law . Rep. James Sensenbrenner , R-Wisconsin , the original author of the Patriot Act , recently said he was `` extremely disturbed '' about the news of the Verizon order and said it was `` not consistent with the Patriot Act . '' Retired Judge James Robertson , who served on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , said he was `` stunned '' to learn about the court 's broad authorities . The views of Sensenbrenner and Robertson are shared by many legal scholars . It is simply inconceivable that Congress could grant legal authority for the routine surveillance of all of our telephone records . And the secrecy surrounding these activities -- not only was the court order kept secret , but so too was the legal justification -- should set off alarm bells . If the government has a good justification for the program , it should not be difficult to provide a public explanation , even if some of the details must be withheld . Some are surprised that our organization went directly to the Supreme Court . They point out that the Supreme Court prefers hearing disputes after the issues have been considered by lower courts . But under the special rules of the secret court that issued the Verizon order , we had no choice . Only the government or Verizon could have objected to the order of the secret court . They did n't , so we turned to the one Court that has the ultimate authority to say what the law allows . And if there is one case that justifies review under the Supreme Court 's `` mandamus '' standard , our organization 's challenge to the NSA 's domestic surveillance program is that case . Over the next month , we look forward to working with legal scholars , technical experts and others who have expressed support for our petition . They will be filing friend of the court briefs to explain to the Supreme Court in more detail the important issues in our case . We anticipate that the Court will consider our arguments when it returns in early October . Still , there is more to do . We believe that the NSA 's decision to undertake domestic surveillance has also triggered a provision of law that requires the agency to take public comments . We believe that the public should have the opportunity to express its views on the program . Whether you oppose or support the NSA 's domestic surveillance program , your views should be heard .
Marc Rotenberg : Verizon group wants Supreme Court to step in on privacy . He says secret court order makes National Security Agency give call record info to Supreme Court . He says : Patriot Act powers can only be used in certain circumstances . Marc Rotenberg : National Security Agency has ultimate authority to say what law allows -- and it is not this .