"Computing and communication technology enables the collection and exchange of personal

information on a scale unprecedented in the history of civilization. Thus there is increased potential
for violating the privacy of individuals and groups. . . . It is the responsibility of professionals to
maintain the privacy and integrity of data describing individuals."

So far, so good. Few will argue that the ubiquity of computers has made it possible to collect,
analyze, or steal unimaginable amounts of highly personal information. But the code doesn't simply
stop with a call to maintain privacy. It goes into further detail:

". . . This imperative implies that only the necessary amount of personal information be collected in a
system, that retention and disposal periods for that information be clearly defined and enforced,
and that personal information gathered for a specific purpose not be used for other purposes
without consent of the individual(s). These principles apply to electronic communications, including
electronic mail, and prohibit procedures that capture or monitor electronic user data, including
messages,without the permission of users . . . ."

Here's how:

"User data observed during the normal duties of system operation and maintenance must be
treated with strictest confidentiality, except in cases where it is evidence for the violation of law,
organizational regulations, or this Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that information
must be disclosed only to proper authorities."

So, at least according to the ACM Code of Ethics, information such as call records should be disclosed
to the "proper authorities" (e. g. the NSA) only when the user data is evidence for the violation of (1)
law, (2) "organizational regulations," or (3) the Code itself. The ACM Code of Ethics or the internal
regulations of the phone companies are not the inspiration for NSA activities, we hope. So it seems
that an ACM member in good standing could participate in such an activity only if the records
obtained were evidence for the violation of law.

That's a pretty narrow scope. Somehow I doubt that the phone records of all Americans, or even a
substantial fraction of all Americans, constitute evidence for the violation of law. Maybe some of
them do, but that is why most phone tap, trace, and call record requests are made by law
enforcement officials only for specific individuals who are already under suspicion. If anything like
the reported wholesale phone-record transfer took place, those members of the ACM who
participated in it are under a cloud ethically, to say the least.