Data surveillance in the U.S.: necessary or 'obscenely outrageous'? The Guardian and Washington Post say spy agencies collected vast amounts of data in the U.S. Their reports have inflamed the debate over how much surveillance is good Al Gore: "Blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous" Republican Lindsey Graham says the NSA can have his phone number (CNN) -- Is the U.S. government indiscriminately monitoring your phone calls or e-mails? It says no. Even so, reports in two newspapers this week claim that intelligence agencies have collected vast amounts of user data from U.S. phone provider Verizon and Internet technology companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and Facebook. The stories have reopened the impassioned debate over how much intelligence is necessary to fight terrorism and when it amounts to dangerous government overreach. A British newspaper, the Guardian, published on Wednesday a top secret order from an intelligence court that required telephone giant Verizon to give the FBI "metadata" -- lists of telephone numbers and the calls made from and received by them. Under the order, the agency is collecting records of every call made by Verizon Business Network Services customers in the United States between April 25 and July 19, the Guardian reported. But it did not listen in on the calls, the paper said. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the order is a standard three-month renewal of a program that has been under way for years, and observers said similar orders undoubtedly are in effect for other companies. A day later, the same paper and the Washington Post published reports detailing allegations based on an apparent leak from the National Security Agency. They said that the NSA has access to the central servers of nine tech giants. The Post reported that the alleged data mining program -- called PRISM -- underwent "exponential growth" after its founding in 2007. It has become the leading source of raw material for the NSA, the secretive U.S. intelligence operation that monitors electronic communications, the newspaper said. Intel on Defense National Intelligence Director James Clapper blasted the Guardian report on the collection of telephone information, saying it "omits key information" regarding "safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties." The collection of the information was cleared by a judge for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special judicial branch set up as part of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Clapper said in a written statement. The court operates in secrecy, something civil rights groups have complained about. Congress was briefed on the operation, which is legal under the Patriot Act. Investigators don't look at the vast majority of data because it is not terror related, Clapper said. The court is required to review the program every 90 days. To help re-establish public trust, the intelligence chief has ordered "certain information related to the 'business records'" to be declassified and published. Though he did not directly acknowledge PRISM's existence, Clapper cited Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which states that the data collection applies only to "non-U.S. persons located outside the United States." He said that FISA intelligence is invaluable in the fight against terror and complained that the news articles jeopardized national security. Never heard of PRISM Several tech giants whose servers were reportedly ensnared in the PRISM program denied any knowledge of it Thursday. Microsoft said in a statement it does not participate in any national security data gathering program. Facebook and Google said they do not give government agencies direct access to their servers. Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said that his company has never heard of PRISM. Verizon declined comment to the media Thursday, but company Vice President Randy Milch, in a note to employees, did say the Guardian's story may spur the company to respond in defiance of a promise of secrecy. Stark overreach The reports stoked sentiments for and against the intelligence gathering methods, with politicians on both sides of the aisle either attacking or defending them. "Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?" former Democratic Vice President Al Gore wrote on Twitter. Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, who co-authored the Patriot Act, was "extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overbroad interpretation of the act." "These reports are deeply concerning and raise questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure," he wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, who is to hold a classified briefing on the articles with the Senate Appropriations Committee. Necessary measures Conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, concurred with Feinstein, a California liberal, that the methods are necessary to prevent terrorism. "Terrorists will come after us if they can," Feinstein said, "and the only thing that we have to deter this is good intelligence to understand that a plot has been hatched and to get there before they get to us." Graham said that as a Verizon customer, "it doesn't bother me one bit for the National Security Agency to have my phone number." When Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Sen. Barbara Mikulski read the news Thursday morning, the Maryland Democrat said, "It was like, 'Oh, God, not one more thing ... where we're trying to protect America and then it looks like we're spying.'" Civil rights groups were appalled. The EFF said that the practice has been going on for seven years. In 2006, during the administration of President George W. Bush Jr., it was revealed that the NSA was secretly collecting telephone records as part of an effort to root out potential terror plots. The American Civil Liberties Union called the new allegations "beyond Orwellian." Obama takes heat The reports have increased scrutiny of President Barack Obama's record on balancing citizens' right to privacy and the government's efforts to combat terrorism. But on Thursday, the left-leaning Huffington Post on its home page conflated an image of Obama with one of his predecessor, Bush, in a move to criticize the secret surveillance both administrations have been accused of. A New York Times editorial said "the administration has now lost all credibility" when it comes to overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism. White House spokesman Josh Earnest stressed the importance of ensuring "we have the tools we need to confront the threat posed by terrorists (and to) protect the homeland." He called it Obama's top domestic security priority. "But ... we need to balance that priority with the need to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights of American people," he said.