Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Metadata schmetadata. The NSA is actually recording every call made every day   (motherjones.com) divider line 382
    More: Followup, NSA, NSA Revelations, international call  
•       •       •

4822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-02 05:19:18 PM  
Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.
 
2013-07-02 05:25:36 PM  
Horseshiat.

Or at a minimum, there's a lot of qualifiers missing there.

Cell phone calls produce an amount of data daily that is surely exponentially greater than the production rate of the various storage media. There are 315,000,000 people in the US alone, probably 95% of whom make at least one and potentially dozens of phone calls per day. 99.99% of those calls are utterly useless to anyone - hairdressers ordering pizza, teenage girls talking about OMG how hunky Brett from the lacrosse team is, etc. The costs of storing all of that data would be astronomical, even IF the physical capacity existed.

And that doesn't even touch on a lot of other problems, like throwaway prepaid phones, people with 35 different email addresses all registered under BS data via proxies, etc. Yes, they can crack it, but that's time consuming, and for what? To figure out that some guy in West Memphis better deliver that pound of pot like he said he would, or he is gonna get his ass kicked?

This smacks of hysteria and/or a poor description.

Either:

1. They are storing everything for a very finite period of time. Like, a day, or a couple of weeks, tops
2. They are profiling and storing everything for a very few and just doing metadata for everyone else
3. They're saving time and effort and just doing the metadata for most things.

I'll believe they have the capacity to listen in on anyone in real time, and that they can record whomever they want, whenever they want. They've probably had that ability for 10 years. But they're not recording everything live all the time and storing it forever. They simply don't have the ability yet.

Unless 4. they have discovered some absurd new technology, like an unreal compression algorithm, or quantum data storage, or some such.

But I'll believe it's coming.
 
2013-07-02 05:28:27 PM  
BS:

www.motherjones.com

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."
 
2013-07-02 05:36:53 PM  
Yes, but it's just for quality assurance.
 
2013-07-02 05:37:44 PM  

whistleridge: Horseshiat.


RexTalionis: BS:



Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.
 
2013-07-02 05:44:30 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


Here's a question - what does that have to do with the fact that a journalist is basing an allegation of the NSA recording all emails and chats with a slide that doesn't actually back up this allegation?
 
2013-07-02 05:50:24 PM  
This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.
 
2013-07-02 05:53:33 PM  
www.morethings.com

PRANK CALLER! PRANK CALLER!
 
2013-07-02 05:54:07 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


You sure?

Consider:

* De-duplication
* Things the average American talks about.
 
2013-07-02 06:02:12 PM  
This is actually not all that surprising, if you consider what happened to me last week.  I was out at the park trying to call my friend Jim on a pay phone to score some weed, and this dude came up and started banging on the phone booth like he wanted to use it.  I was like, dude, I'm trying to score some weed, but he just kept banging and screeching at me.  Just let it go, man, I said, but then people were screaming and running because I think he was actually a howler monkey or something and then animal control showed up and I never got my weed because I got arrested for being naked in public, also they apparently haven't had pay phones there for a couple years now so I don't know what all that was about.

So yeah, I can totally see this happening.
 
2013-07-02 06:08:34 PM  
More taking small bits of information, filling in the blanks ourselves, and hand-wringing. Yay.
 
2013-07-02 06:11:30 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You sure?

Consider:

* De-duplication
* Things the average American talks about.


I consider: unscrambling walsh encoding was enough of a pain before the multi-channel stuff started to come into play, and now decoding a six-tower multi channel multi encoded call using hardware other than the chip it was sent from, even if you're popping it at the BTS, is going to be really processor intensive. They can do it, but with today's tech it's still not easy. Scale that over the number of calls made every day, and you're getting into "highly improbable or impossible" territory. Add on top of that the amount of storage you'd need to hold every voice call made for a single day and multiply it by even just a week you've gone into crazybucket territory.
 
2013-07-02 06:27:37 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.



That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.

Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.
 
2013-07-02 06:29:54 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.

Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.


It's not just storage space, dude. It's ALSO the combined amount of power to intercept, decode, record, and then transmit that all to a datacenter. It's a HUGE undertaking.

On top of that, unlikely also specifically said "I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could ".
 
2013-07-02 06:30:59 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


Like you know what technology exists.
 
2013-07-02 06:36:40 PM  
There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts.
 
2013-07-02 06:38:34 PM  

Triumph: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

Like you know what technology exists.


I actually have a pretty good grasp of it. There's some stuff I only know in the abstract, but overall, yes I do.
 
2013-07-02 06:43:16 PM  

unlikely: Triumph: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

Like you know what technology exists.

I actually have a pretty good grasp of it. There's some stuff I only know in the abstract, but overall, yes I do.


Ok, resident of Hiroshima - carry on.
 
2013-07-02 06:43:18 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts

porn.
 
2013-07-02 07:01:10 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.

Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.


5ZB is 10,013,618,521 years of phone calls (assuming a 16kbps GSM call).
 
2013-07-02 07:14:39 PM  
I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.
 
2013-07-02 07:16:48 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?
 
2013-07-02 07:17:16 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


On one off spying options maybe but i can say from personal experience the TLAs are a year to eighteen months behind security state of play at any given time.

Don't believe the hype. But don't think they can't fake their way to technological ends with brute force money.
 
2013-07-02 07:18:12 PM  
Has this ever ended well for a government when they behave like this? Or its citizens?

This sucks.
 
2013-07-02 07:19:17 PM  

James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.


Store all my teamspeak encrypted packets, go for it. Or have the NSA deliver a national security letter to the German company that makes it, see how ordering them to help you spy on everyone goes over.

If nothing else, this NSA fiasco should encourage ordinary people to do a better job of securing their data both in transit and at either end.
 
2013-07-02 07:19:22 PM  

firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?


Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.
 
2013-07-02 07:20:52 PM  

BafflerMeal: PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.

On one off spying options maybe but i can say from personal experience the TLAs are a year to eighteen months behind security state of play at any given time.

Don't believe the hype. But don't think they can't fake their way to technological ends with brute force money.


It's not that I don't think they have the capacity to collect all the data alleged... it's that I know they aren't competent enough to analyze it.
 
2013-07-02 07:26:55 PM  

RexTalionis: Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."


Well, you could read the rest of the slide you posted and notice items B and E on the list are IMs and email, respectively.
 
2013-07-02 07:28:18 PM  

LasersHurt: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.


The data center is big enough that pretty much, no matter what you say they're recording, it's possible. I don't think voice data would take up that much space, given decent compression. Even if you get into the email/sms side of things, weeding out duplicates and spam is easy enough, and storing whats left wouldn't be that big of a feat.

The problem (in my mind) is not one of storage, but of organizing all of it in such a manner that it is usable/mineable in a semi-efficient manner. I have strong doubts about the ability to filter such unfocused and erratic information flows into something useful, actionable, and productive. Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.
 
2013-07-02 07:28:27 PM  

firefly212: It's not that I don't think they have the capacity to collect all the data alleged... it's that I know they aren't competent enough to analyze it.


Yup. Collecting every phone call ever made would render the data useless. You'd be searching for a needle in a universe.
 
2013-07-02 07:28:42 PM  
Bullsh*t!
There is no way that lazy government workers could come up with technology, before the holy Private Sector!
That's what they'd need to store the exabytes for all the phone calls, texts, e-mails, and associated metadata.
 
2013-07-02 07:31:05 PM  
But paper is obsolete and the post office must be shut down to save money, right?

No government could store that many photocopies of employ that many people to scan letters. When you buy a stamp, you are paying a price for privacy and excellent security for your documents.
 
2013-07-02 07:32:21 PM  
good thing the only word I ever say on the phone is "fart".

/I use inflection and tone to get my meaning across
//it's an art form, really
 
2013-07-02 07:34:03 PM  
Why does everyone think all of a sudden that the US government is so efficient, creative and capable? Every time someone brings up technical limitations, a bunch of people swoop in and start talking about how much more advanced the NSA is than all the tech companies put together!

Surely it's more reasonable to expect that the government that can't get the VA records computerised and talking to each other isn't 10 years ahead of Amazon in data warehousing and processing.

They might have built a giant data centre, it might have a lot of storage, but I'm pretty confident that the software and hardware in it is not more advance than that running Facebook or Google or the phone company itself.

So whilst that might be super secret squirrel and seem super advanced and magical for some of us, when someone who does know the limitations of those systems outlines some of them, it's silly to tell them they're wrong because surely the government tech is 50 years ahead of all the private industry that's doing R&D for profit.

If that is actually true, then isn't that a victory for state run communism over capitalism?
 
2013-07-02 07:34:54 PM  
Free tin hats. Get your free tin hats, right here!
 
2013-07-02 07:35:15 PM  

Mangoose: Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.


Katz v US
 
2013-07-02 07:35:21 PM  
Can any of you come up with a guess as to how much data storage a billion phone calls would require?

All I can think of is my mp3 files - a 3 min song is about 4MB

assume an average call also 3 min?

As pointed out above, I realize their compression tech will be slightly better than mp3

What is the comparison? - the best known compression is ? times better than mp3?
 
2013-07-02 07:36:04 PM  

firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.

The data center is big enough that pretty much, no matter what you say they're recording, it's possible. I don't think voice data would take up that much space, given decent compression. Even if you get into the email/sms side of things, weeding out duplicates and spam is easy enough, and storing whats left wouldn't be that big of a feat.

The problem (in my mind) is not one of storage, but of organizing all of it in such a manner that it is usable/mineable in a semi-efficient manner. I have strong doubts about the ability to filter such unfocused and erratic information flows into something useful, actionable, and productive. Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.


There is NO WAY they are collecting every call. That's asinine. Even the broadest targeting would reduce the workload by huge amounts while giving roughly the same results. There is no data analysis metric I can think of that would ever require or even desire 100% of the calls. You're going out of your way to collect what you KNOW to be noise.

What people THINK they are gonna do is sort of... what the tech might allow in 5 years, kind of? There's a lot of work to do in liguistics and machine learning to begin handling that amount of data, as you said.

I read somewhere (and it may be wrong) that something on the order of 90% of raw data produced on the internet was made in the last 2-3 years. Huge datacenters under construction may seem insane now, but "big data" has honest applications, even for spy agencies. Maybe. That last sentence feels weird.
 
2013-07-02 07:37:39 PM  
If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
 
2013-07-02 07:38:53 PM  
They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.
 
2013-07-02 07:39:41 PM  

Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.


This is ridiculous, and presumes that there isn't enough storage (this is very wrong) but there is more than enough computing power to accurately transcribe every call (this is also wrong).
 
2013-07-02 07:40:49 PM  
Well, let's even give them 100% benefit of the doubt--they really ARE recording and storing every single cell phone conversation in "real time". A moment's thought would prove they can't possibly do anything with it in "real time"--there aren't enough people in the world.

To listen to a recorded conversation in real time takes as long as it did in actual time; so there's no advantage to recording and storing except for evidentiary purposes. To record and listen to a billion conversations after the fact would require half a billion people, or at least half a billion transactions; meanwhile, another billion calls have gone into storage that need reviewing.

Maybe they CAN do all this horrific real-time monitoring; but its neither practical nor necessary to actually do it.
 
2013-07-02 07:41:06 PM  
intercept call.
translate to text file.
keep forever.
 
2013-07-02 07:41:49 PM  

Mangoose: Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.


I bet you like Hugo Boss's earlier work, too. Stop defending a police state, this is pretty serious shiat. Just about every phone conversation you've had in the past decade, and you're okay with that being collected with no warrant or due process whatsoever?

I don't give a shiat if the 80's bricks would be read from any radio scanner, that's not the case anymore. People expect their phone calls to be private, and for very good reason. You need to get a warrant to tap a landline, a warrant should damn well be required for a cell phone.
 
2013-07-02 07:42:55 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

 
2013-07-02 07:43:31 PM  

unlikely: I consider: unscrambling walsh encoding was enough of a pain before the multi-channel stuff started to come into play, and now decoding a six-tower multi channel multi encoded call using hardware other than the chip it was sent from, even if you're popping it at the BTS, is going to be really processor intensive.


The phone service providers are already scrambling/descrambling all of this trafficin order to provide the service; I thought that the government had access to that.
 
2013-07-02 07:43:38 PM  

LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

This is ridiculous, and presumes that there isn't enough storage (this is very wrong) but there is more than enough computing power to accurately transcribe every call (this is also wrong).


Try recording raw audio data and see what type of file size you get.  To compress it down would require much more processing power.  Not to mention organizing the data and drawing out relevant keywords.
 
2013-07-02 07:43:44 PM  

LasersHurt: firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.

The data center is big enough that pretty much, no matter what you say they're recording, it's possible. I don't think voice data would take up that much space, given decent compression. Even if you get into the email/sms side of things, weeding out duplicates and spam is easy enough, and storing whats left wouldn't be that big of a feat.

The problem (in my mind) is not one of storage, but of organizing all of it in such a manner that it is usable/mineable in a semi-efficient manner. I have strong doubts about the ability to filter such unfocused and erratic information flows into something useful, actionable, and productive. Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.

There is NO WAY they are collecting every call. That's asinine. Even the broadest targeting would reduce the workload by huge amounts while giving roughly the same results. There is no data analysis metric I can think of that would ever require or even desire 100% of the calls. You're going out of your way to collect what you KNOW to be noise.

What people THINK they are gonn ...


No way... yes way, there's definitely a *way* to do it. Do I think they are dumb enough to do it that way? I've yet to form an opinion on that. As iterated before, I understand the signal:noise ratio problem, and that doing it that way would be absolutely stupid. That said, I have very little faith that people in the intelligence community see the world through the probabilistic and mathematic lens I do... I think many in the intelligence services are probably "collect everything, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" mentalities. To be honest, the scope of what we *know* they are collecting strikes me as extraordinarily inefficient, so when they're accused of doing something else extraordinarily stupid, it seems more believable.
 
2013-07-02 07:44:26 PM  

unlikely: I_Am_Weasel: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You sure?

Consider:

* De-duplication
* Things the average American talks about.

I consider: unscrambling walsh encoding was enough of a pain before the multi-channel stuff started to come into play, and now decoding a six-tower multi channel multi encoded call using hardware other than the chip it was sent from, even if you're popping it at the BTS, is going to be really processor intensive. They can do it, but with today's tech it's still not easy. Scale that over the number of calls made every day, and you're getting into "highly improbable or impossible" territory. Add on top of that the amount of storage you'd need to hold every voice call made for a single day and multiply it by even just a week you've gone into crazybucket territory.


ok so you know just enough to make you ignorant.  They don't have to intercept it at the tower.  They already have the access to the main switches thanks to previous laws passed CALEA 1996 or something or other...basically like the internet they can drill down to find where the greatest concentration of calls are passing...for both domestic-> foreign and domestic -> domestic.  There are far fewer hubs that handle domestic -> foreign traffic than there are domestic -> domestic.  Nonetheless they can and have mapped the communications network so that they are able to intercept what they want when they want...and with the ever increasing data storage capacities they can in real time likely store all voice calls in the USA quite easily and leave the decoding for when they actually want to listen.

It would be stored in its compressed native format until they wanted to look at it. Look at it this way soon magnetic hard drives storage capacity will at least triple thanks to flipping the magnetic material into vertical alignment instead of horizontal.  Its like having a book case for your data instead of throwing your crap on the floor and needing lots of floors to hold them.  voice data isn't all that big.  Video? yeah...audio? not so much especially at the limited bit-rate that voice calls use.
 
2013-07-02 07:44:29 PM  

Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.


And I bet they're including the text file they generate when they talk about "metadata".

I'm generally a fan of Obama. But if this is even close to true, he should be impeached. This is such a radical overreach that an example needs to be set.
 
2013-07-02 07:46:19 PM  

LewDux: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


oi44.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-02 07:46:30 PM  

MrEricSir: RexTalionis: Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."

Well, you could read the rest of the slide you posted and notice items B and E on the list are IMs and email, respectively.


And you can tell me for sure that a slide about "case notation" definitively shows that they are storing everything and not metadata? Because there's still nothing on that slide that indicates it.
 
2013-07-02 07:47:08 PM  

Shotgun Justice: LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

This is ridiculous, and presumes that there isn't enough storage (this is very wrong) but there is more than enough computing power to accurately transcribe every call (this is also wrong).

Try recording raw audio data and see what type of file size you get.  To compress it down would require much more processing power.  Not to mention organizing the data and drawing out relevant keywords.


You're out of your element here. For one, you can record the calls in their ALREADY COMPRESSED FORMAT if you're intercepting calls.

I work for one of the largest VoIP companies out there, I'm slightly familiar here.
 
2013-07-02 07:47:21 PM  

mjjt: What is the comparison? - the best known compression is ? times better than mp3?


I think phone conversations use a lot less bandwidth than recorded music, for starters.  Anyone recall how many kHz of bandwidth they used per phone line in the days when landlines were still analog?
 
2013-07-02 07:47:41 PM  
I lost the # of that hot chick I met in Boulder 6 years ago, who do I call to get that information ?
 
2013-07-02 07:49:43 PM  
Anyone got any evidence that any of it is being accessed without a warrant?

Still no? Ok. Forgive me if I hold my outrage.
 
2013-07-02 07:51:33 PM  

Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.


You're thinking like a person, and it's wasting processing power... instead of translating waveforms to text, then comparing text to the list of acceptable texts, it would be easier to just look for similar waveforms. That said, we're still talking about an inordinate amount of processing power, and substantively good programming and creative thinking that I doubt the NSA possesses.
 
2013-07-02 07:53:19 PM  

firefly212: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

You're thinking like a person, and it's wasting processing power... instead of translating waveforms to text, then comparing text to the list of acceptable texts, it would be easier to just look for similar waveforms. That said, we're still talking about an inordinate amount of processing power, and substantively good programming and creative thinking that I doubt the NSA possesses.


The NSA is contracting the dirty linguistic work to American Universities of various kinds. At least, the research and development thereof.
 
2013-07-02 07:54:38 PM  

mjjt: Can any of you come up with a guess as to how much data storage a billion phone calls would require?

All I can think of is my mp3 files - a 3 min song is about 4MB

assume an average call also 3 min?

As pointed out above, I realize their compression tech will be slightly better than mp3

What is the comparison? - the best known compression is ? times better than mp3?


GSM calls are 16kbps, I believe CDMA is similar.  Much, much more compressed than music since there is a limited frequency range you care about.
 
2013-07-02 07:56:52 PM  

Evil High Priest: intercept call.
translate to text file.
keep forever.


"I'm going to put the bum on the plan that will land in the basin street airport at behind gerty."
 
2013-07-02 07:57:14 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Anyone got any evidence that any of it is being accessed without a warrant?

Still no? Ok. Forgive me if I hold my outrage.


Usually the burden of proof lies with the party attempting to justify their questionable activities, not the victims of that activity.


But for the sake or argument, lets say that a FISA court has secretly issued a warrant for every bit of information the NSA is gathering.


What would be the probable cause to support that warrant?
 
2013-07-02 07:59:27 PM  

1derful: Nobodyn0se: Anyone got any evidence that any of it is being accessed without a warrant?

Still no? Ok. Forgive me if I hold my outrage.

Usually the burden of proof lies with the party attempting to justify their questionable activities, not the victims of that activity.


But for the sake or argument, lets say that a FISA court has secretly issued a warrant for every bit of information the NSA is gathering.


What would be the probable cause to support that warrant?


It would depend on which warrant you were talking about. Every time they want to actually use that data, they have to get a warrant for the particular information they want to access. That has happened multiple times for multiple different reasons.
 
2013-07-02 08:03:50 PM  

firefly212: Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.


Also, if such an event did happen, wouldn't all the communications between people using the keywords cause so much clutter for days/weeks months as to render the keywords unusable?

I'm sure that after Boston for example, use of the words 'bomb', chechnya, terrorism etc in disucssions between people would've skyrocketed...filtering out meaningful comms would be almost impossible.
 
2013-07-02 08:05:28 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts.



They have that much storage space for their awesome Netflix subscription, obviously.

Look, they collect all the metadata because it's the indexing system for the phone calls.  It's the card catalog, which allows them to find and pull the content of the recorded phone calls.

Everything is being captured.  All of it, all the time.
 
2013-07-02 08:05:51 PM  

LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

This is ridiculous, and presumes that there isn't enough storage (this is very wrong) but there is more than enough computing power to accurately transcribe every call (this is also wrong).

Try recording raw audio data and see what type of file size you get.  To compress it down would require much more processing power.  Not to mention organizing the data and drawing out relevant keywords.

You're out of your element here. For one, you can record the calls in their ALREADY COMPRESSED FORMAT if you're intercepting calls.

I work for one of the largest VoIP companies out there, I'm slightly familiar here.


I'm sorry I didn't know I was speaking to the mighty mind of the help desk worker at Vonage.  My apologies.  However, VoIP transmits differently than traditional land lines.  VoIP is compressed and is processed by both the transmitter and receiving end to prevent jitter, disguise packet loss, etc....You don't have that type of need with a land line.  Your phone doesn't process it, and the receivers phone doesn't have to compensate.
 
2013-07-02 08:05:59 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Anyone got any evidence that any of it is being accessed without a warrant?

Still no? Ok. Forgive me if I hold my outrage.


Apparently you missed the part about how there's a fake court system setup with the express purpose of issuing fake warrants for the NSA.

Using the language of due process doesn't mean due process is in action any more than adding "Democratic" to their country's name made North Korea into a democracy.
 
2013-07-02 08:06:55 PM  

Elmo Jones: Bullsh*t!
There is no way that lazy government workers could come up with technology, before the holy Private Sector!
That's what they'd need to store the exabytes for all the phone calls, texts, e-mails, and associated metadata.


Gov workers don't design, they buy. From secret contracts with places like skunkworks....

As stated in several places here, its not the storage, its getting it there. You can have the biggest pool in the world but imagine the time it takes to fill it unless you have unlimited garden hoses, no one else uses water, all the fire trucks in town come, it rains, everyone spits.... But I digress
 
2013-07-02 08:09:31 PM  

MrEricSir: Apparently you missed the part about how there's a fake court system setup with the express purpose of issuing fake warrants for the NSA.


Apparently you missed the part where that wasn't true. If there was a rubber stamp process for those warrants, there would be tens of thousands of warrants issued every year. As there's a TINY fraction of that number being issued, we can assume that the FISA court is doing its job and holding law enforcement accountable.
 
2013-07-02 08:10:30 PM  
Why do people assume they are collecting calls so that they can datamine them?

By having a complete record if a "person of interest" crops up then his calls from the past are in the DB and you only need a targeted search to try to find them and listen to them.
 
2013-07-02 08:11:05 PM  
PF: Fark
 
2013-07-02 08:12:06 PM  

Shotgun Justice: I'm sorry I didn't know I was speaking to the mighty mind of the help desk worker at Vonage.


Don't get all butthurt because you don't know what you're talking about and got called out on it. Also I didn't say VoIP PROVIDER. I don't work for Vonage.
 
2013-07-02 08:14:57 PM  

LasersHurt: It's not just storage space, dude. It's ALSO the combined amount of power to intercept, decode, record, and then transmit that all to a datacenter. It's a HUGE undertaking.


Then it sure is a good thing the telecom providers would never give them direct access to make it all easy.
 
2013-07-02 08:16:57 PM  
You'd think we would have heard about all the cases that got thrown out because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people going to jail because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people being convicted because of legal wiretaps. Something. I'm hearing crickets.
 
2013-07-02 08:17:37 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Yup. Collecting every phone call ever made would render the data useless. You'd be searching for a needle in a universe.


But you have the search backwards.

We just found out person X is suspicious, thanks to a report from someone at their church or mosque or a relative or whatever. Or because they were arrested as part of a plot, whatever.

Now we can go back and listen to all of their calls.  All of the calls their first and second level contacts made.

That's the purpose: it's a wiretapping time machine.  There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.
 
2013-07-02 08:17:50 PM  

HairBolus: Why do people assume they are collecting calls so that they can datamine them?

By having a complete record if a "person of interest" crops up then his calls from the past are in the DB and you only need a targeted search to try to find them and listen to them.


This is how they caught the Boston Bombers.

They get a warrant to pull information on a specific individual.

If they collect this information about everybody then your Fourth Amendment Rights aren't being violated.
 
2013-07-02 08:18:27 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Apparently you missed the part about how there's a fake court system setup with the express purpose of issuing fake warrants for the NSA.

Apparently you missed the part where that wasn't true. If there was a rubber stamp process for those warrants, there would be tens of thousands of warrants issued every year. As there's a TINY fraction of that number being issued, we can assume that the FISA court is doing its job and holding law enforcement accountable.


Right, because why wouldn't you trust the government that's been hiding a massive spying program to be completely honest with you about the fake court system they operate in secret? Oh wait...
 
2013-07-02 08:19:19 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


What parts don't exist?  And be specific.
 
2013-07-02 08:21:08 PM  

MrEricSir: Right, because why wouldn't you trust the government that's been hiding a massive spying program to be completely honest with you about the fake court system they operate in secret? Oh wait...


1. They haven't really done a bangup job of hiding this program, considering it's been all over the news for years now.

2. That "fake court system" was set up before most Farkers were even born. It's not anything new.

3. I will trust the evidence I have until I find evidence that contradicts it. So if you have some evidence that ANYONE is viewing this data without a warrant, or that the warrant process is less than ethical, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll trust the evidence I have that warrants are required and not easy to get.
 
2013-07-02 08:22:03 PM  

Shotgun Justice: LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: LasersHurt: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

This is ridiculous, and presumes that there isn't enough storage (this is very wrong) but there is more than enough computing power to accurately transcribe every call (this is also wrong).

Try recording raw audio data and see what type of file size you get.  To compress it down would require much more processing power.  Not to mention organizing the data and drawing out relevant keywords.

You're out of your element here. For one, you can record the calls in their ALREADY COMPRESSED FORMAT if you're intercepting calls.

I work for one of the largest VoIP companies out there, I'm slightly familiar here.

I'm sorry I didn't know I was speaking to the mighty mind of the help desk worker at Vonage.  My apologies.  However, VoIP transmits differently than traditional land lines.  VoIP is compressed and is processed by both the transmitter and receiving end to prevent jitter, disguise packet loss, etc....You don't have that type of need with a land line.  Your phone doesn't process it, and the receivers phone doesn't have to compensate.


I'm willing to bet just about every land line is hitting an IP network at some stage of the game now, unless it never leaves the LEC.  And picking out compressed streams and applying the right codec doesn't seem difficult.

I doubt the NSA is recording all phone calls, it seems logistically hard to hide but...
 
2013-07-02 08:22:32 PM  
Oh, is this the new game?  Publish things that have been common knowledge for 7 years and pretend they just started, recently, under Obama?
 
2013-07-02 08:22:51 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

What parts don't exist?  And be specific.


Because if individual parts exist, they can be scaled infinitely without issue?
 
2013-07-02 08:22:57 PM  
Oh no! I just called my mother and told her I couldn't meet her because I had the runs. And you're telling me they heard all that?
 
2013-07-02 08:26:06 PM  

DustBunny: They might have built a giant data centre, it might have a lot of storage, but I'm pretty confident that the software and hardware in it is not more advance than that running Facebook or Google or the phone company itself


It's all geared toward identification and interception of the identified subject.  I doubt Aunt Ida's recipe for potato salad spends more than a millisecond on their server.  An exchange student from Saudi however might be an entirely different kettle of fish.  They might get the whole boat - cell phone, facebook, google, the works.

Then it comes down to how many subject you can track at once.  I'd guess it's well over a million by now.
 
2013-07-02 08:28:07 PM  

1derful: Usually the burden of proof lies with the party attempting to justify their questionable activities, not the victims of that activity.


But for the sake or argument, lets say that a FISA court has secretly issued a warrant for every bit of information the NSA is gathering.


What would be the probable cause to support that warrant?



Actually, the burden of proof tends to fall to the person making wild, unfounded accusations without presenting any evidence.
 
2013-07-02 08:28:34 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


I recall from my short stint in the intel business that what the general public thinks is the world's most powerful supercomputer (Crays back then) is actually one generation behind the hardware running at NSA headquarters.
 
2013-07-02 08:29:28 PM  

Mistymtnhop: Oh no! I just called my mother and told her I couldn't meet her because I had the runs. And you're telling me they heard all that?


Your government-issued pepto should appear at your front door within the hour, citizen.
 
2013-07-02 08:32:04 PM  

Elmo Jones: Evil High Priest: intercept call.
translate to text file.
keep forever.

"I'm going to put the bum on the plan that will land in the basin street airport at behind gerty."


"Why yes, I would like the empty on my plantains"
 
2013-07-02 08:32:45 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts.


Understood, but there are qualifiers missing.  Before you start claiming they can capture everything twice, you need to think about how long to store shiat so it can be at least lightly scanned.  Turns out, the data just keeps coming in.  So, maybe not everything.  Also, it's rather remarkable how much metadata gets generated on really big transactional databases.  Ask our friends at Google, it's  rather remarkable the hoops you need to jump through when you're dealing with data on these scales.

It's not going to be easy to have a rational discussion about whether or not the NSA is too intrusive if we don't really know how intrusive they are.  This article is not a good starting point.

Cheers.

//Never built anything transactional larger than 1 TB
//Bloody datawarehouses at 100TB are a major pain
 
2013-07-02 08:36:35 PM  
Yeah, joining in on the "They would if they could, but they probably can't".

Does NSA have a culture that prizes knowing everything about everyone everywhere coupled with insane paranoia that would make them think this is a good idea?  Yeah.
Is is technically possible that they could record and store every phone call ever made, especially if they got them pre-compressed from the phone companies?  Yeah, it's mostly a matter of storage space and they've got a 5ZB datacenter.
Is it technically possible that they are storing "Person #175638 called Person #1875667 and they talked for 23 minutes and here's the recording if we need it."?  Yeah.
Is it technically possible that they can use other techniques (ala: http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fin d -paul-revere/) to find "calls of interest" and then run analysis on that exceedingly limited dataset?  Sure.

Is is technically possible that they could with 100% (or even 90%) accuracy transcribe all that data and do all the connecting, sorting, keyword searching, etc?  Not really.

It's not even a matter of processing power.  It's a matter of not knowing how to do it at all (barring NSA's X year advantage in all things tech having discovered some tremendous breakthrough).  It takes a TON of processing power to parse voice.  And even then, it's pretty bad.  So if you've got a .0001% false positive rate (and we'd kill for a 10% error rate last I heard) on 5ZB of data, then you've got to manually parse 5 exabytes of garbage.  And that's impossible.  We can't parse everything.
 
2013-07-02 08:37:04 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Anyone got any evidence that any of it is being accessed without a warrant?

Still no? Ok. Forgive me if I hold my outrage.


How about collected and stored? Interesting you specifically chose the word accessed, instead of ya know search.
 
2013-07-02 08:37:08 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-07-02 08:37:38 PM  
And we're supposed to believe that NOBODY is using this data to get inordinate rich?
 
2013-07-02 08:37:50 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Right, because why wouldn't you trust the government that's been hiding a massive spying program to be completely honest with you about the fake court system they operate in secret? Oh wait...

1. They haven't really done a bangup job of hiding this program, considering it's been all over the news for years now.

2. That "fake court system" was set up before most Farkers were even born. It's not anything new.

3. I will trust the evidence I have until I find evidence that contradicts it. So if you have some evidence that ANYONE is viewing this data without a warrant, or that the warrant process is less than ethical, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll trust the evidence I have that warrants are required and not easy to get.


Um, WTF? You will never have evidence. Period. The government is hiding the evidence behind a fake court system for a reason.

You seem to be bending over backwards to come across as sounding reasonable, but what you're essentially saying is that you have 100% trust in a group of people who openly admit to deceiving you. That is not a reasonable position.
 
2013-07-02 08:38:04 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's all geared toward identification and interception of the identified subject.  I doubt Aunt Ida's recipe for potato salad spends more than a millisecond on their server.  An exchange student from Saudi however might be an entirely different kettle of fish.  They might get the whole boat - cell phone, facebook, google, the works.

Then it comes down to how many subject you can track at once.  I'd guess it's well over a million by now.


That's fine, I have no problem with believing that...It's the whole 'every single phone call and piece of data including Aunt Ida's recipe for potato salad is hooverd up and stored forever so it can be indexed and searched' just in case Aunt Ida ever becomes a suspect that I have issues with...

Also the calculations being done to show that the data centre they're building has enough storage to capture and store all the current phone calls etc, are being done with no thought for future needs.... If the NSA was building such a massive data centre with the ability to store one or two years worth of data at the current production rate, then that's a MASSIVE fail on their part and shows such disregard for future storage needs that it practically invalidates all claims as to their competence.

IF the site has, say, 5zb of storage and the phone calls and date people say it will store add up to 2-3zb per year, and everyone says that's evidence they're doing it then doesn't that mean they'll have to have a new DC online in, say, 2015/16?

Considering how long it takes to build one, can anyone point to where they've broken ground on this new bespoke datacentre?
 
2013-07-02 08:38:16 PM  
No chance. This would require yattabyte storage farms, which would take up more space than a small city and cost more money than the entire value of all the assets in the United States. The entire internet doesn't even have as much data on it as the phone calls of every American citizen made every year.
 
2013-07-02 08:40:56 PM  
Hurry... Blame everyone except for Obama.  Everyone knows he's pretty much the best president ever yet somehow knows absolutely nothing about anything actually happening inside of the government.
 
2013-07-02 08:42:08 PM  

whistleridge: 99.99% of those calls are utterly useless to anyone - hairdressers ordering pizza,


They won't listen to 99.99999% percent of the calls. But yes they want to record pizza orders.

1) If you are tracking someone then a pizza delivery order can tell you where he was.

2) If you know the guy had pizza delivered then the phone call can tell you what phone he used to order it.
 
2013-07-02 08:42:44 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


You know who invents that kind of stuff? Scientists. It takes huge teams of incredibly well educated people, the kind of people who would eventually contain at least one member that would go public. Classified state technology can only stay a few years ahead of civilian tech, especially in the modern information age.
 
2013-07-02 08:42:58 PM  
I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?
 
2013-07-02 08:44:52 PM  

Ontos: Hurry... Blame everyone except for Obama.  Everyone knows he's pretty much the best president ever yet somehow knows absolutely nothing about anything actually happening inside of the government.


Yes, Obama is clearly responsible for this program that was first made public 2 years before he took office.....
 
2013-07-02 08:46:31 PM  

udhq: Yes, Obama is clearly responsible for this program that was first made public 2 years before he took office.....


Like it or not, he is now. He has the power to stop it and chooses not to. This makes him just as guilty. He doesn't get one iota of clearance for walking into it.
 
2013-07-02 08:48:26 PM  

swahnhennessy: I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?


Hey, if you don't want this going on, do what Obama asked you to in his speech last month: contact your congress-person and ask them to change the law!
 
2013-07-02 08:48:58 PM  

Trail of Dead: You'd think we would have heard about all the cases that got thrown out because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people going to jail because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people being convicted because of legal wiretaps. Something. I'm hearing crickets.


COINTELPRO operated for 15 years.  It was another four years after that when the Church Committee hearings revealed what they'd been doing.

The CIA's abuses from the 1950s to the early 1970s was collected in a series of files known as the "family jewels".  The information was released to the public in 1977

If you're not using this stuff in prosecutions, its easy to keep it secret. Notice how many sting operations the FBI conducts against wanna-be terrorists?  Suddenly an informant appears, talks the idiots in to something stupid, provides them with a fake bomb.

Maybe that's all due to informants.  Or maybe an informant tips them off, and thanks to the wiretaps their informant has a great set of information going in: insight in to everyone's relationships and personalities.
 
2013-07-02 08:49:34 PM  
they. must. be. soooooooooooooooo friggin bored.

/your calls don't even interest the person you're talking to.
//don't assume the nsa gives a shiat either
 
2013-07-02 08:51:30 PM  
As usual, the slides don't support any assertion that they record or store the calls or emails of Americans.

Don't let that stop you, though.
 
2013-07-02 08:53:33 PM  

firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?


5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.
 
2013-07-02 08:57:36 PM  

MisterRonbo: Trail of Dead: You'd think we would have heard about all the cases that got thrown out because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people going to jail because of illegal wiretaps. Or of people being convicted because of legal wiretaps. Something. I'm hearing crickets.

COINTELPRO operated for 15 years.  It was another four years after that when the Church Committee hearings revealed what they'd been doing.

The CIA's abuses from the 1950s to the early 1970s was collected in a series of files known as the "family jewels".  The information was released to the public in 1977

If you're not using this stuff in prosecutions, its easy to keep it secret. Notice how many sting operations the FBI conducts against wanna-be terrorists?  Suddenly an informant appears, talks the idiots in to something stupid, provides them with a fake bomb.

Maybe that's all due to informants.  Or maybe an informant tips them off, and thanks to the wiretaps their informant has a great set of information going in: insight in to everyone's relationships and personalities.


Interesting, thanks. That's kind of what I was getting at - if they aren't using this system to prosecute people for non-terrorism related stuff, then I'm just not seeing the issue here beyond "slippery slope". Does the NSA give one rat's ass if I'm calling my dealer?
 
2013-07-02 08:58:29 PM  

Tommy Moo: No chance. This would require yattabyte storage farms, which would take up more space than a small city and cost more money than the entire value of all the assets in the United States.


The guy who designs data storage for the internet archive estimates it as less than 0.2 exabytes, and a cost of $27 million a year plus $2 million for electricity.

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/16/what-would-it-cost-to-store-al.html

A UC San Diego study from a few years back puts all US phone traffic at around 0.7 exabytes

http://hmi.ucsd.edu/howmuchinfo_research_report_consum.php

Please do tell us where your numbers come from.
 
2013-07-02 08:58:53 PM  
i am not afraid of terrorists.
this needs to stop.
 
2013-07-02 08:59:24 PM  
It's not storage or technology, it's analysis.

Call me when there is a spike in work-at-home transcription jobs (gov't sends you a tape, you write it down. Or pick out key words. gov't sends you a check. Easily done for pennies per assignment, and there are people rabid at the chance to make money from home) or minimum-wage clerical positions in the quantity you'd see after a call center opens. That suggests they're actually going through it.

Until then, they are only working off algorithms that can't tell the difference in threat level between the phrase "bomb ass racist 0bama Taliban wanker" and an actual plot to kill the President.

/Hi NSA. You can add that to the file you've got on me.
 
2013-07-02 09:00:31 PM  

udhq: swahnhennessy: I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?

Hey, if you don't want this going on, do what Obama asked you to in his speech last month: contact your congress-person and ask them to change the law!


That's like saying that street cops have the power not to use the guns they encounter a threat.

The bottom line is that the president's #1 job is to do all he can to maintain national security.   While I'm not entirely unsympathetic to people who criticize these programs, and I recognize (as does the president) that there exists a HUGE conflict of interest, the job of deciding which tools and applications of those tools go too far belongs to the oversight courts, not with the president.

He is ethically bound to use EVERY tool at his disposal.  To not do so would be a dereliction of his responsibilities.
 
2013-07-02 09:02:08 PM  

vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.


I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.
 
2013-07-02 09:03:56 PM  

Shotgun Justice: However, VoIP transmits differently than traditional land lines.


Which... makes it infinitely easier to intercept and catalog? I must have you on the wrong side of the debate here; what do you believe again?
 
2013-07-02 09:05:13 PM  

udhq: udhq: swahnhennessy: I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?

Hey, if you don't want this going on, do what Obama asked you to in his speech last month: contact your congress-person and ask them to change the law!

That's like saying that street cops have the power not to use the guns they encounter a threat.

The bottom line is that the president's #1 job is to do all he can to maintain national security.   While I'm not entirely unsympathetic to people who criticize these programs, and I recognize (as does the president) that there exists a HUGE conflict of interest, the job of deciding which tools and applications of those tools go too far belongs to the oversight courts, not with the president.

He is ethically bound to use EVERY tool at his disposal.  To not do so would be a dereliction of his responsibilities.


No, his number 1 job is to uphold and defend the constitution. Saving the country at the cost of the constitution is all walls, no keep...
 
2013-07-02 09:07:21 PM  
I'd gladly record my own phone calls and emails and give that to them if it would help prevent terrorism. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist, fascist, muslim, terrorist sympathizing flag burner.
 
2013-07-02 09:08:05 PM  

udhq: That's like saying that street cops have the power not to use the guns they encounter a threat.

The bottom line is that the president's #1 job is to do all he can to maintain national security. While I'm not entirely unsympathetic to people who criticize these programs, and I recognize (as does the president) that there exists a HUGE conflict of interest, the job of deciding which tools and applications of those tools go too far belongs to the oversight courts, not with the president.

He is ethically bound to use EVERY tool at his disposal. To not do so would be a dereliction of his responsibilities.


Oops, this comment was a response to this:

Tommy Moo: udhq: Yes, Obama is clearly responsible for this program that was first made public 2 years before he took office.....

Like it or not, he is now. He has the power to stop it and chooses not to. This makes him just as guilty. He doesn't get one iota of clearance for walking into it.

 
2013-07-02 09:08:25 PM  
So if I get to the store and forget what my wife told me to pick up, I should just call the government and ask them to play me back our conversation so I can get the grocery list?

/imagine how dull 99% of those phone calls are
//and how stupid the texts must be
 
2013-07-02 09:09:44 PM  

Trail of Dead: That's kind of what I was getting at - if they aren't using this system to prosecute people for non-terrorism related stuff, then I'm just not seeing the issue here beyond "slippery slope". Does the NSA give one rat's ass if I'm calling my dealer?


If you're a journalist about to publish something embarrassing then yes, they might find that information useful.

As someone who has had a government security clearance in the past, and might need one for a job in the future, I'd rather have some privacy on my phone calls.

Both of these are examples where the information can be used to someone's detriment - or even for political purposes - with no pesky due process. So if you think courts and warrants are all the protection you need, I think you're being naive.

Our elected officials were willing to burn a CIA operative, and everyone she ever worked with, over a political grudge. I'm pretty certain some would be willing to use information from this repository for political ends.
 
2013-07-02 09:10:10 PM  

cptjeff: Mangoose: Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.

I bet you like Hugo Boss's earlier work, too. Stop defending a police state, this is pretty serious shiat. Just about every phone conversation you've had in the past decade, and you're okay with that being collected with no warrant or due process whatsoever?

I don't give a shiat if the 80's bricks would be read from any radio scanner, that's not the case anymore. People expect their phone calls to be private, and for very good reason. You need to get a warrant to tap a landline, a warrant should damn well be required for a cell phone.


Mangoose *may* have simply been saying, "yes, this is the current legal reality."

I found this much before I got bored, but it doesn't really talk about tapping conversations.

My own opinion as to what SHOULD be is that cell phones should be considered confidential communication, same as a letter or personal conversation behind closed doors.
 
2013-07-02 09:11:19 PM  

Peki: Call me when there is a spike in work-at-home transcription jobs


Um. Siri?
 
2013-07-02 09:12:51 PM  

numbquil: I'd gladly record my own phone calls and emails and give that to them if it would help prevent terrorism. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist, fascist, muslim, terrorist sympathizing flag burner.


1/10. Obvious, but brief.
 
2013-07-02 09:14:54 PM  

firefly212: No, his number 1 job is to uphold and defend the constitution. Saving the country at the cost of the constitution is all walls, no keep...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all elected and appointed employees of the federal government given an oath to uphold and defend the constitution?  There are many competing interests contained within that phrase.  The constitution can't survive if the military, as led by the CiC, can't provide some minimum level of national security.

The primary competing interest to that directive lies with the oversight courts.
 
2013-07-02 09:17:57 PM  

numbquil: vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.

I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.


Recording every conseration remains technologically, if not IMPOSSIBLE then at least improbable.  Further the FUNDING required (even assuming magic hypertech we can only currently imagine) is juxtaposed with the military-industrial complex' desire to sell inferior products and pocket the difference.  From Michael Chertoff's nudie-scanners to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle the best bet is it was ADVERTISED as doing that but actually doesn't.

Problem: that it's even being discussed as a possibility.  That agencies are not flatly denying it as a thing, that it is even believed (and probably correctly believed) that claiming such a program would comfort and appease the public, making the public feel safe.
 
2013-07-02 09:25:11 PM  

HairBolus: whistleridge: 99.99% of those calls are utterly useless to anyone - hairdressers ordering pizza,

They won't listen to 99.99999% percent of the calls. But yes they want to record pizza orders.

1) If you are tracking someone then a pizza delivery order can tell you where he was.

2) If you know the guy had pizza delivered then the phone call can tell you what phone he used to order it.


3) Habits
4) mental state
5) psychological profile
6) economic choices
7) likelihood and capability of squirreling away resources when integrated with other cashflows

I mean, everyone knows there is a simulation of the world running in at least two locations, one of which being NSA headquarters, right? In this simulation a digital you exists, pretty much participating in life with the same predictability as the real you. And it doesn't have to be you, it could be the 'theory of you', even if you feel you are in some level of cover. Pizza orders? They have stopped more terrorist attacks than you can imagine. Those delivery guys who keep getting killed in St. Louis should be in Arlington.
 
2013-07-02 09:26:07 PM  

Peki: It's not storage or technology, it's analysis.

Call me when there is a spike in work-at-home transcription jobs (gov't sends you a tape, you write it down. Or pick out key words. gov't sends you a check. Easily done for pennies per assignment, and there are people rabid at the chance to make money from home) or minimum-wage clerical positions in the quantity you'd see after a call center opens. That suggests they're actually going through it.

Until then, they are only working off algorithms that can't tell the difference in threat level between the phrase "bomb ass racist 0bama Taliban wanker" and an actual plot to kill the President.

/Hi NSA. You can add that to the file you've got on me.


And this again.

Look, I said this once already today. WHO CARES if they're recording everything. Yes, maybe they can. But if they are--even if they could compress it and save it--it's got to be listened to at some point. Listening to phone messages in real time takes exactly as long as the original message did in real time. It takes one whole person to do it, in real time. So a thousand phone calls of, say, 30-seconds average length, would take one person 1000 x 30 seconds / 60 = 50 minutes just to listen to. But then they have to stop, write down each message, note: 14:00:00-14:00:30 called out for pizza. So figure each thousand calls would take one person an hour and a half to analyze, assuming they were all about nothing. Meanwhile, you have ONE BILLION calls coming in each day. Even if you have thousands and thousands of transcribers--which we know they haven't got--the system is going to fall hopelessly behind.

Now, someone suggested they could be storing this stuff to pull out connections "if something happens." Maybe. But consider a) how rarely something happens and b) how quick stuff falls out of date. The Boston Bombing connections they "might' have gotten via this method would have been good for, at most, a couple of weeks. Any calls the brothers made even a month or two ago would be useless. A year or two ago? Forget it. Cops would have better luck tracking and sourcing people who actually spoke to the brothers in person. If data sits in a database for more than six months, it's essentially worthless--think of the last time you went through your phone list and wondered who the hell "Jeremy" was and why you had his phone number.

So why did the NSA do this? Because they can, probably, and because nobody stopped to think: What are we going to do with all this crap now that we've got it? Like HST said about collecting drugs, the temptation is to push it as far as you possibly can. But the idea that they can use it in any meaningful way means you have way more faith in technology than is warranted. As, likely, do they.
 
2013-07-02 09:27:15 PM  
Like I said, I understand it if people are uncomfortable with these programs.  I am too, as is the president.  But this issue is being disingenuously presented primarily by Darrell Issa and his gang, the same people who have also been the first to complain when they believe the president hasn't gone far enough in national security issues.

They've presented these pre-existing programs as something new under Obama simply for the purpose of having another thing connected to him about which to complain, to contribute to this vague idea that the "scandal of the weak" appearance they are trying to create is based in the president's job performance, rather than a deliberate media strategy on the part of the opposition.

And all this is despite the fact that Obama has significantly walked back the scope of these surveillance programs from where they were under Bush by putting them back under the oversight of the FISA courts.
 
m00
2013-07-02 09:28:42 PM  

cptjeff: 'm generally a fan of Obama. But if this is even close to true, he should be impeached. This is such a radical overreach that an example needs to be set.


now you're sounding like a racist. what's next, asking about his birth certificate?
 
2013-07-02 09:29:20 PM  
Shortly after the Boston marathon bombing, there was a link here on Fark in reference to the FBI retroactively going back to retrieve the content of a cell phone call made by one of the bombers. I think, if my memory serves me, it was an ex-FBI guy (maybe a current one) that suggested the possibility existed for that to happen.

Not proof that they are recording EVERY call made, but definitely makes a case for at least selective data collection.
 
2013-07-02 09:29:54 PM  
How the fark is this news to people? This has going on for a long time.
 
2013-07-02 09:30:47 PM  

powhound: Not proof that they are recording EVERY call made,


They do. Get over it.
 
2013-07-02 09:37:21 PM  

MrEricSir: RexTalionis: Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."

Well, you could read the rest of the slide you posted and notice items B and E on the list are IMs and email, respectively.


Or, you know, the rest of the article:
This is from a speech that Glenn Greenwald gave last Friday:

....It talks about how a brand new technology enables the National Security Agency to redirect into its repositories one billion cell phone calls every single day.

....It doesn't mean they're listening to every call. It means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon million upon millions of our phone and email records.
 
2013-07-02 09:43:21 PM  
Unless this becomes a huge news story, few people will believe it is true.   If it does become a big story, then it will create a lot of fear and that is not healthy.
 
2013-07-02 09:44:32 PM  

m00: cptjeff: 'm generally a fan of Obama. But if this is even close to true, he should be impeached. This is such a radical overreach that an example needs to be set.

now you're sounding like a racist. what's next, asking about his birth certificate?


Post right above yours:

udhq: Like I said, I understand it if people are uncomfortable with these programs.  I am too, as is the president.  But this issue is being disingenuously presented primarily by Darrell Issa and his gang, the same people who have also been the first to complain when they believe the president hasn't gone far enough in national security issues.

They've presented these pre-existing programs as something new under Obama simply for the purpose of having another thing connected to him about which to complain, to contribute to this vague idea that the "scandal of the weak" appearance they are trying to create is based in the president's job performance, rather than a deliberate media strategy on the part of the opposition.

And all this is despite the fact that Obama has significantly walked back the scope of these surveillance programs from where they were under Bush by putting them back under the oversight of the FISA courts.


Now y'all republican asshats wanna DO something about it or you wanna keep scoring points on the Obamanation?

If you got a problem with this, blaming the democrats won't change it, because the rank-and-file you manage to convert with that argument are the same motherfarkers who were JUST FINE with worse under Dubya and who watched "The X-Files" as if it were a documentary in the late 90s.

You need more than "It's OK If You Are Republican."
 
2013-07-02 09:44:33 PM  

MrEricSir: Um, WTF? You will never have evidence. Period. The government is hiding the evidence behind a fake court system for a reason.


How's that tinfoil hat fit?
 
2013-07-02 09:45:39 PM  

tical: How about collected and stored? Interesting you specifically chose the word accessed, instead of ya know search.


Who gives a crap whether it's collected and stored as long as they need a warrant to actually view/access/search it?

Would you prefer that only private companies collect and store it?
 
2013-07-02 09:52:43 PM  

RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."


Did you notice that the slide also says things like IM, email, chat...
 
2013-07-02 09:53:32 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


I read an interview with a VP of Microsoft who said the new XBone is going to be way mega-rad awesome.

It turns out that people lie.
 
2013-07-02 09:57:48 PM  
 
2013-07-02 10:00:30 PM  

Elmo Jones: Evil High Priest: intercept call.
translate to text file.
keep forever.

"I'm going to put the bum on the plan that will land in the basin street airport at behind gerty."


Czech.
 
2013-07-02 10:01:48 PM  
It doesn't mean they're listening to every call. It means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon million upon millions of our phone and email records.

Why would our government do this?  And why does a bear shiat in the woods?

We need to gut our security state.

Fark the NSA, CIA, TSA, fark the whole War on Terror.

And actually, while we're at it, fark the War on Drugs, fark asshole cops, fark our obscenely large military.  Fark it all.

I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.
 
2013-07-02 10:03:42 PM  
TheBigJerk: ...(snip)...
Recording every conseration remains technologically, if not IMPOSSIBLE then at least improbable.  Further the FUNDING required (even assuming magic hypertech we can only currently imagine) is juxtaposed with the military-industrial complex' desire to sell inferior products and pocket the difference.

Not sure why people keep saying this is impossible, many people in this thread have provided evidence that it is indeed possible:

- Voice is apparently easy to compress - a previous poster linked a study that estimated domestic voice traffic at less than 1 exabyte per year. By contrast, Google handles on the order of 24 petabytes of data per day, working out to about 10 exabytes per year.

- The NSA has multiple data centers with storage in the zettabyte range. A zettabyte is 1000 exabytes, so a single 5 ZB storage facility would hold about 500 years of phone calls and Google searches. They have space for all your emails, your phone calls, your texts, and all your metadata, with plenty of room to spare.

- We already know the NSA has access to what amounts to the trunk lines of global communication. They're splitting data off at the backbone, they can tap anything and everything at will.

- They're keeping metadata on every communication we make, so they can identify persons of interest and their social networks for closer scrutiny. It also means they have a handy way of cataloging any amount of phone calls, emails, and other data they could care to record, which they could then access after the fact if needed.

So what's the technological hurdle here? I would really love for someone to point it out, because at this point I believe the worst is probably true. It makes every bit of sense for the NSA to record every shred of communication they can get their hands on and look at it later, once they get a rubber-stamped "warrant" to access it.
 
2013-07-02 10:07:10 PM  

sendtodave: RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."

Did you notice that the slide also says things like IM, email, chat...


Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?
 
2013-07-02 10:07:36 PM  

MisterRonbo: thurstonxhowell: Yup. Collecting every phone call ever made would render the data useless. You'd be searching for a needle in a universe.

But you have the search backwards.

We just found out person X is suspicious, thanks to a report from someone at their church or mosque or a relative or whatever. Or because they were arrested as part of a plot, whatever.

Now we can go back and listen to all of their calls.  All of the calls their first and second level contacts made.

That's the purpose: it's a wiretapping time machine.  There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.


That's exactly right. So, they've already stolen your "papers" and have them on file. Just in case.

Why even bother having that goddam piece of paper anymore?
 
2013-07-02 10:07:42 PM  

unlikely: Add on top of that the amount of storage you'd need to hold every voice call made for a single day and multiply it by even just a week you've gone into crazybucket territory.


This technology already exists: you're using it right now. The data we're transmitting is stored in the memory of lots of computing machines already. The US government needs to build a system that has as much persistent storage as our telecom system has transient storage. Given that the value of the US telecom system's transient storage is finite, and persistent storage is cheaper by orders of magnitude, the government has to build a system that's much cheaper than our current telecom network.

Additional cost savings include:

doesn't have to be as accurate as the telecom system we have now (no one will complain if you "drop" a surveillance)
latency doesn't matter
voice quality doesn't matter
as analysis speed improves, data is stored for less time and the system gets cheaper to operate
snooping can be done by patching into the telco or tower with a wired tap, making bandwidth much cheaper

I'd bid 100 billion, eyeballing it (and probably come in under budget). I'll even go one farther, not only does it exist, but the Feds have probably built this system three times over and all the different agencies are operating their own clones in secret from each other.
 
2013-07-02 10:11:44 PM  

LedZeppelinRule: They're keeping metadata on every communication we make, so they can identify persons of interest and their social networks for closer scrutiny. It also means they have a handy way of cataloging any amount of phone calls, emails, and other data they could care to record, which they could then access after the fact if needed.


More and more I'm thinking that Facebookwas a "free market" test on how to link hundreds or thousands of people together.

Do you know Joe Bloggs, Jane Smith, or  Abdul Imaterrorist?
 
2013-07-02 10:14:04 PM  

PonceAlyosha: And we're supposed to believe that NOBODY is using this data to get inordinate rich?


Well, that would be wrong! We are a nation of laws after all. We have a Constitution and everything.
 
2013-07-02 10:14:47 PM  
So many rubes in this thread.
 
2013-07-02 10:14:58 PM  
Hm. I can imagine some interesting legal angles on this.

FISA warrants can be (slightly) retroactive, in emergencies. So, if they record everything, but only start analyzing what they get a warrant for once they have reason...?

Ginsburg and Sotomeyor might choke, but I don't think the others necessarily would, if the issue ever got that far.
 
2013-07-02 10:15:22 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Um, WTF? You will never have evidence. Period. The government is hiding the evidence behind a fake court system for a reason.

How's that tinfoil hat fit?


How does trusting a government that is hiding its dirty secrets from you fit?
 
2013-07-02 10:15:58 PM  

RexTalionis: Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?


They have access to basically all types of content, and are notified in real time when triggers for new content occur, but they're not actually recording anything.

I want to believe.
 
2013-07-02 10:16:40 PM  
The alleged constitutionality of the whole scheme rests on a questionable premise that the government can automatically collect and store everything because no "search" or "seizure" has occurred unless a human being accesses data and maybe not even then because of various also-questionable rationales.

This is exactly the kind of fundamental question about interpreting the Constitution in the context of formerly unimaginable technology that the Supreme Court should address. Watch the government continue to do everything it can to keep that question out of the courts by getting cases dismissed for lack of standing (you can't prove you were affected!) and national security (even talking about this puts lives at risk, your honor!).
 
2013-07-02 10:18:51 PM  

MrEricSir: How does trusting a government that is hiding its dirty secrets from you fit?


The same as it's fit every single other person for all of human history. All governments keep secrets. It's part of their job.
 
2013-07-02 10:20:53 PM  

PreMortem: whistleridge: Horseshiat.

RexTalionis: BS:


Shortly after the F-117 (stealth fighter) was unveiled, I read an interview (Aviation Leek i believe) with a VP of Northrup Grumman who said what is classified is 50 years ahead of what is public. If you think the NSA/CIA is using off the shelf gear or anything you can imagine, well you just shouldn't.


I have no idea, one way or another, but two completely irrelevant event comes to mind: there was still people who believe moon landing was staged. And there are people who thinks UFO's are real.

This is one of those things where if you believe in it, you might be believing in UFO's, and if you don't you might be in denial about moon landing.
 
2013-07-02 10:23:39 PM  

Nem Wan: The alleged constitutionality of the whole scheme rests on a questionable premise that the government can automatically collect and store everything because no "search" or "seizure" has occurred unless a human being accesses data and maybe not even then because of various also-questionable rationales.

This is exactly the kind of fundamental question about interpreting the Constitution in the context of formerly unimaginable technology that the Supreme Court should address. Watch the government continue to do everything it can to keep that question out of the courts by getting cases dismissed for lack of standing (you can't prove you were affected!) and national security (even talking about this puts lives at risk, your honor!).


Another possibility is that our representatives will push on this, seeing as they are also being kept in the dark.

Joe Everybody might not be able to bring suit, but Senators do tend to jealously guard of their own power and authority.

The NSA needs to be reigned in.
 
2013-07-02 10:24:19 PM  

James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.


Start talking in SQL?
 
2013-07-02 10:25:05 PM  

sendtodave: RexTalionis: Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?

They have access to basically all types of content, and are notified in real time when triggers for new content occur, but they're not actually recording anything.

I want to believe.


Or they can just record when a message is sent or received. Which is, once again, metadata.
 
2013-07-02 10:25:08 PM  

Shotgun Justice: Try recording raw audio data and see what type of file size you get. To compress it down would require much more processing power. Not to mention organizing the data and drawing out relevant keywords.


cell phone audio is already compressed,

AMR compression on GSM networks ranges from 4.75-12.20 kb/s (so 855kb -2196kb for a 3 minute phone call)
 
2013-07-02 10:26:02 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: How does trusting a government that is hiding its dirty secrets from you fit?

The same as it's fit every single other person for all of human history. All governments keep secrets. It's part of their job.


If the government is hiding something important, then they're keeping information out of the hands of the people. Therefore, it's not a democracy.
 
2013-07-02 10:27:03 PM  

MrEricSir: If the government is hiding something important, then they're keeping information out of the hands of the people. Therefore, it's not a democracy.


The definition of Democracy does not include "The people know every state secret of the government."

The fact that you believe it does is very, very scary to me.
 
2013-07-02 10:27:37 PM  
Is anyone here compiling a list of Fark handles that are being used by obvious NSA agents or flacks for the military-industrial complex?
 
2013-07-02 10:27:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: So why did the NSA do this? Because they can, probably, and because nobody stopped to think: What are we going to do with all this crap now that we've got it? Like HST said about collecting drugs, the temptation is to push it as far as you possibly can. But the idea that they can use it in any meaningful way means you have way more faith in technology than is warranted. As, likely, do they.


If it's this un-useful, maybe they should stop violating everyone's rights by collecting it.
 
2013-07-02 10:30:40 PM  

powhound: Shortly after the Boston marathon bombing, there was a link here on Fark in reference to the FBI retroactively going back to retrieve the content of a cell phone call made by one of the bombers. I think, if my memory serves me, it was an ex-FBI guy (maybe a current one) that suggested the possibility existed for that to happen.

Not proof that they are recording EVERY call made, but definitely makes a case for at least selective data collection.


Yeah, it was an interview with some counter-terrorism person. He said, Yeah, we can get that. "that" being the content of the call. Not metadata. Not an envelope. The content.
 
2013-07-02 10:31:07 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Is anyone here compiling a list of Fark handles that are being used by obvious NSA agents or flacks for the military-industrial complex?


Why would they bother?  Frank farkmothering Miller, the "manly man" of comics thinks Al Qaeda is an "existential threat to America" and happily ignores all kinds of abuses of power so that we can fight terror.

There are plenty of people comforted by this shiat, because it's sold as, "tools to track down dangerous new threats in our increasingly dangerous digital frontier."
 
2013-07-02 10:33:07 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Is anyone hdrop table (ere compiling a list of Fa)rk handles that are being used by obvious NSA age(ndrop table (

 drop table ( ts or f(lacks for the military-inddrop table ( )ustrial complex?
 
2013-07-02 10:36:06 PM  

MisterRonbo: There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.


Citation Needed.

Please.  I'm kinda curious.  What Government officials say that the US went back to pre-existing archives of tapped calls to investigate the Tsarnaev Brothers?  I'd not heard anything about this, and I'm kinda wondering what official would say this if it was a classified program.
 
2013-07-02 10:36:32 PM  
www.washingtonpost.com

Huh.  Interesting.

The FBI DITU are the ones doing the data intercept, and then giving the info to NSA.
 
2013-07-02 10:36:47 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: If the government is hiding something important, then they're keeping information out of the hands of the people. Therefore, it's not a democracy.

The definition of Democracy does not include "The people know every state secret of the government."

The fact that you believe it does is very, very scary to me.


No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?
 
2013-07-02 10:36:52 PM  

numbquil: vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.

I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.


Yabut the article is claiming it without any supporting documentation. That's like saying, "Look! That SEAL team member has a gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute! We conclude he kills hundreds of Americans a year!"
 
2013-07-02 10:38:36 PM  

MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?


Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?
 
2013-07-02 10:40:21 PM  

RexTalionis: sendtodave: RexTalionis: Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?

They have access to basically all types of content, and are notified in real time when triggers for new content occur, but they're not actually recording anything.

I want to believe.

Or they can just record when a message is sent or received. Which is, once again, metadata.


See the slide I just posted.

In once step, they forward "metadata" to FALLOUT, and "voice content" to CONVEYANCE.  DNI and video content goes to PINWALE.

So, they have content. The question is how/when do they get it?
 
2013-07-02 10:41:33 PM  
I don't know. I've done as many illegal drug deals on my cell as the next guy and I've made out okay.

I think this is just a cover up for the nation's real problem, junk mail and phone books.

Think about it. Does anyone actually ever
 
2013-07-02 10:41:55 PM  

LedZeppelinRule: So what's the technological hurdle here? I would really love for someone to point it out, because at this point I believe the worst is probably true. It makes every bit of sense for the NSA to record every shred of communication they can get their hands on and look at it later, once they get a rubber-stamped "warrant" to access it.


You can't preemptively analyze it.  You don't have the processing power to shove everything through voice recognition looking for keywords and phrases preemptively (and we don't have the algorithms to beat 80% accuracy or so even if we did).

Now they can totally store everything and get access retroactively based on outside information or metadata analysis, but 99.999999999% of it will never ever get used.

/And from everything I've heard, the NSA and CIA are fairly good about having actual human beings not look at stuff known to be from inside the USA.  So as long as the FBI lacks access to NSA's databases (and given how much the various bureaucracies hate each other, this is a moderately safe bet), your stuff is safe.
 
2013-07-02 10:42:17 PM  

mayIFark: James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.

Start talking in SQL?


And hope the entire intelligence apparatus goes down because the NSA forgot to sanitize data inputs?  I suppose it's worth a shot.
 
2013-07-02 10:42:33 PM  

MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?


This seems like such a quaint, silly notion to me any more.  Like telling a cop that you pay his salary.
 
2013-07-02 10:44:41 PM  
How hard would it be to clone every phone and use the clone to record the call?
 
2013-07-02 10:45:28 PM  

Bronson Gigabit: I don't know. I've done as many illegal drug deals on my cell as the next guy and I've made out okay.

I think this is just a cover up for the nation's real problem, junk mail and phone books.

Think about it. Does anyone actually ever


And here is our social media / news aggregator monitoring program, code named CANDLEJACK.  It primarily targets websites with political message boards, such as Fark.com and Redd-
 
2013-07-02 10:45:29 PM  
A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.

Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".

Waste NSA's time.
 
2013-07-02 10:46:08 PM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


That's BS. Of course it's possible.  Just as your voice it turned into a digital signal it can be copied just like any other packet.

It is recorded, analyzed into text and if any keywords or phrases match certain criteria or possible voice prints of known bad actors or suspect phone numbers than it is sent to a human for further evaluation. They weed out 99.9%+ using this so they only have to listen to a few thousand/hundred phone calls a day for real.
 
2013-07-02 10:47:27 PM  

MisterRonbo: That's the purpose: it's a wiretapping time machine


Essentially.

LedZeppelinRule: So what's the technological hurdle here? I would really love for someone to point it out, because at this point I believe the worst is probably true.


The ability to process it all. But I hear their newest data center will be able to do more FLOPS than any other computer built so far.

We've built Skynet but instead of national defense we made him a voyeur.

mccallcl: I'll even go one farther, not only does it exist, but the Feds have probably built this system three times over and all the different agencies are operating their own clones in secret from each other.


More of a collusion of existing systems with the traditional technological limits gutted. It's essentially total information awareness.
 
2013-07-02 10:47:28 PM  
Also vary the discussion points, 'I have the kilo of enrich uranium, do you have the 50 million, just kidding'
 
2013-07-02 10:47:43 PM  

Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.

Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".

Waste NSA's time.


Then they'll just need to hire more analysts to sort through the false positives, on the government's dime.

Brilliant!
 
2013-07-02 10:49:46 PM  

sendtodave: So, they have content. The question is how/when do they get it?


And isn't that the biggest question? In and of itself that slide you put up there is not incriminating in the slightest, it's just a flowchart of where stuff goes when they get it. It's almost meaningless in this discussion until your question is answered, and NOONE has even suggested that they have an accurate answer based on documented evidence except the government.

If there's another slide that outlines the process and thresholds for getting a warrant to get the information that comes out of the 'Provider' cloud on the left, then that slide is demonstrating the flow of information through a completely legitimate program.

Something tells me though that even if that slide exists it won't make it into the dripfeed of 'incriminating' information...
 
2013-07-02 10:50:57 PM  

Mrbogey: We've built Skynet but instead of national defense we made him a voyeur.


That's an unfair characterization.

Mr. Clapper specifically said that the  "NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' emails."

They still pore through them, but they aren't voyeurs!
 
2013-07-02 10:51:02 PM  

Silverstaff: MisterRonbo: There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.

Citation Needed.

Please.  I'm kinda curious.  What Government officials say that the US went back to pre-existing archives of tapped calls to investigate the Tsarnaev Brothers?  I'd not heard anything about this, and I'm kinda wondering what official would say this if it was a classified program.


Here ya go:

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks
On Wednesday night,
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
 
2013-07-02 10:51:23 PM  

Giltric: How hard would it be to clone every phone and use the clone to record the call?


Depending on how faithful the cloning hardware had to be, and how paranoid you are about the NSA's capabilities, very trivial to very hard.

Very hard => You don't have help from the phone companies or the phone manufacturers and you require a physical match for each phone.  Repeat for every $400 smartphone out there, keeping in mind that the phone manufacturers will catch your clones.

Very trivial => You do have help from the phone companies and hardware manufacturers, and can just run thousands of "phones" on a VM.

Mind you, this is all way harder than "running a pipe into the phone companies main trunk," which is what they're actually doing.
 
2013-07-02 10:52:08 PM  
There's something about this that I just don't get.

I get the outrage, I used to feel it too.  What I don't get is the surprise.  I've just assumed that they've recorded all our electronic transactions for the last decade or so.

Has anything been revealed about financial transactions?  I guess I still assume that every credit card, atm, and bank transaction is recorded somewhere.  I suppose that this has also been going on for 10 years or so.
 
2013-07-02 10:52:46 PM  

mrlewish: Just as your voice it turned into a digital signal it can be copied just like any other packet.


Digital signal... packets?
 
2013-07-02 10:53:25 PM  
sendtodave
Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.
Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".
Waste NSA's time.
Then they'll just need to hire more analysts to sort through the false positives, on the government's dime.
Brilliant!


More people like Ed Snowden?

I have dealt with cops randomly following me for no good reason, and wasting their time works.
 
2013-07-02 10:55:05 PM  

Evil High Priest: "All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".


Why do we have FBI and NSA guys coming out saying that they can do this, if they can't?

Are these programs so broad and opaque that the people working on them don't know their limits?
 
2013-07-02 10:55:36 PM  

Evil High Priest: Czech.


Sis indy male.
 
2013-07-02 10:57:04 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Is anyone here compiling a list of Fark handles that are being used by obvious NSA agents or flacks for the military-industrial complex?


Yes
 
2013-07-02 10:57:13 PM  
All the dopes invested in defending this are to the point of doing some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics at this point, it's getting to Iraq invasion apologizing levels.
 
2013-07-02 10:58:17 PM  

Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.

Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".

Waste NSA's time.


If they are looking for "keywords" then their time is being wasted.

Because they cannot possibly be investigating every time someone says "Yo, I think they set us up the bomb!"

I just don't know why people think that because they CAN collect and monitor everyone's data/"metadata" that they ARE. And that if they are, they're somehow combing it for incriminating "keywords" in the hopes of finding something. This is the same agency that when presented with the Phoenix memo couldn't connect enough of the dots to stop the 9/11 terrorists--not even one of them. The one guy who was caught was stopped by an alert ticket agent, ffs, who found it odd that someone would be flying into Miami with no money or luggage and only a shaky grasp of the English language.

Here's an actual story you might find instructive. A law professor once asked a roomful of hard-bitten cops what they'd do if the warrant requirement was totally abandoned--if they didn't have to ask for any warrants at all anymore. "Kick in doors!" one of them yelled. "Just kick in doors, all day long!" OK, the lawyer said, but which doors? The cops were brought up short as they realized what a waste of time it would be to spend all day "kicking in doors" and rummaging around various apartments looking for "something" when they still needed a place to start looking.

It's the same thing here. The NSA may have infino-bytes of data and may even have computers that can pull out "keywords" to start looking at and find suspicious numbers to analyze...or they could do it more efficiently from the other end, and find suspicious people first and then listen to their phones afterward, either with or without warrants. They may--like everyone here on Fark--think it's more effective to do it the long way around by gathering data first and combing through it afterwards, but I suspect that like the cops given free rein to kick down doors, they're going to find that trying to sort through infinite amounts of data with more coming in every second is just not as efficient as finding a rat and convincing him to talk.
 
2013-07-02 11:02:28 PM  

DustBunny: sendtodave: So, they have content. The question is how/when do they get it?

And isn't that the biggest question? In and of itself that slide you put up there is not incriminating in the slightest, it's just a flowchart of where stuff goes when they get it. It's almost meaningless in this discussion until your question is answered, and NOONE has even suggested that they have an accurate answer based on documented evidence except the government.


I guess these are possibilities:

1) The NSA and FBI are doing blanket surveillance.  They get all (or at least much of) the relevant data floating around the cloud (bad).

2)  They are targeting specific people without a warrant, and getting data on them (bad).

3)  They are targeting specific people with a rubber stamp warrant (less bad).

If it's the third, well, there is a political solution - get rid of secret FISA courts.
 
2013-07-02 11:04:00 PM  

Gyrfalcon: This is the same agency that when presented with the Phoenix memo couldn't connect enough of the dots to stop the 9/11 terrorists--not even one of them. The one guy who was caught was stopped by an alert ticket agent, ffs, who found it odd that someone would be flying into Miami with no money or luggage and only a shaky grasp of the English language.


Plus technology hasn't improved and projects under the guise of defending against terror haven't been given billions of dollars in the past 13 years so I'm sure this is still the case.
 
2013-07-02 11:06:40 PM  
If anyone can make sense of the NSA documents Snowden released, here is the links below:

Link
 
2013-07-02 11:07:02 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?


The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?
 
2013-07-02 11:07:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I just don't know why people think that because they CAN collect and monitor everyone's data/"metadata" that they ARE.


Because they can.  That's usually how those with unchecked power roll.

Their job is to collect data.  It isn't their job to act on that data, nor to restrict themselves.

It's supposed to be our representatives job to check their power, but it seems they're all "Erm, I don't really know what the NSA does, but they told me they are protecting America, so, I'm sure that's what they are doing."
 
2013-07-02 11:07:40 PM  

sendtodave: guess these are possibilities:

1) The NSA and FBI are doing blanket surveillance. They get all (or at least much of) the relevant data floating around the cloud (bad).

2) They are targeting specific people without a warrant, and getting data on them (bad).

3) They are targeting specific people with a rubber stamp warrant (less bad).

If it's the third, well, there is a political solution - get rid of secret FISA courts.


You forgot the most likely one:

4) They are targeting specific people with a difficult to obtain warrant (Perfectly fine).
 
2013-07-02 11:08:24 PM  

MrEricSir: Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?

The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?


And? What would the real world consequences of this "no secrets" government look like?
 
2013-07-02 11:10:18 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?

The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?

And? What would the real world consequences of this "no secrets" government look like?


It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."
 
2013-07-02 11:11:16 PM  

MrEricSir: It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."


LOL! Ok man. You keep herping that derp. Have fun.
 
2013-07-02 11:12:22 PM  

sendtodave: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

This seems like such a quaint, silly notion to me any more.  Like telling a cop that you pay his salary.


If you told a cop you paid his salary, he could give you a nickel and tell you that you're even. And he'd be right.

But if a majority of citizens is unhappy with the work the police are doing, that's pretty different.
 
2013-07-02 11:14:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.

Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".

Waste NSA's time.

If they are looking for "keywords" then their time is being wasted.

Because they cannot possibly be investigating every time someone says "Yo, I think they set us up the bomb!"

I just don't know why people think that because they CAN collect and monitor everyone's data/"metadata" that they ARE. And that if they are, they're somehow combing it for incriminating "keywords" in the hopes of finding something. This is the same agency that when presented with the Phoenix memo couldn't connect enough of the dots to stop the 9/11 terrorists--not even one of them. The one guy who was caught was stopped by an alert ticket agent, ffs, who found it odd that someone would be flying into Miami with no money or luggage and only a shaky grasp of the English language.

Here's an actual story you might find instructive. A law professor once asked a roomful of hard-bitten cops what they'd do if the warrant requirement was totally abandoned--if they didn't have to ask for any warrants at all anymore. "Kick in doors!" one of them yelled. "Just kick in doors, all day long!" OK, the lawyer said, but which doors? The cops were brought up short as they realized what a waste of time it would be to spend all day "kicking in doors" and rummaging around various apartments looking for "something" when they still needed a place to start looking.

It's the same thing here. The NSA may have infino-bytes of data and may even have computers that can pull out "keywords" to start looking at and find suspicious numbers to analyze...or they could do it more efficiently from the other end, and find suspicious people first and then listen to their phones afterward, either with or without warrants. They may--like everyone here on F ...


I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.

Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.
 
2013-07-02 11:14:51 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."

LOL! Ok man. You keep herping that derp. Have fun.


Wow, stunning argument you have there! You really are the master of reasonable ideas about government. Enjoy your rationalizing!
 
2013-07-02 11:16:26 PM  

sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.



No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.
 
2013-07-02 11:17:35 PM  
To be useful, the data would have to be at least on magnetic disk. At around $10/GB, each zettabyte would cost almost $11 trillion (1,099,511,627,776 GB. Check my Math. I am very tired).

Of course, the NSA could probably get a much better price, but they also only have a $20 Billion annual budget. The GDP of the U.S is less than $16 Trillion.

I am not saying that the NSA couldn't be storing a lot of crap, but there is a lot of hyperbole in the press about this subject.
 
2013-07-02 11:17:58 PM  
Evil High Priest
I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.
Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.


Read the link below regarding minimizing the US citizen data.  It is all about how much faith you have in people doing this work with the right intentions, and how much you believe how unlikely it is that this data could be abused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document
 
2013-07-02 11:20:07 PM  

Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.

No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.


Nice! You are now greenied as "Mind Flayer".
 
2013-07-02 11:20:47 PM  

Enemabag Jones: If anyone can make sense of the NSA documents Snowden released, here is the links below:

Link


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document

Some snips that caught my eye.

---
Processed or processing means any step necessary to convert a communication into anintelligible form intended for human inspection. (U)(11) Pabliclyevailable information means information that a member of the public couldobtain on request, by research in public sources, or by casual observation. (U)Technical data base means information retained for traffic analytic, orsignal exploitation purposes.  ---

Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether infonnationacquired must be minimized and will destroy inadvertently acquired conirnunicationsof or concerning a United States person at the earliest practicable point in theprocessing cycle at whi ch such corninunication can be identifi ed either: as clearly notrelevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition the communication doesnot contain foreign intelligence infonnation); or, as not containing evidence of acrime which may be disseminated under these procedures. Such inadvertentlyacquired conrniunications of or concerning a United States person may be retained nolonger than five years in any event. The that may be retainedinclude electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSASS abilityto filter communications.  ---A communication identified as a domestic coinmunication will be destroyed upon. recognition unless the Director (or Acting Director) of NSA specifically determines, in writing, that: (S) (1) the communication is reasonably believed to contain significant foreign intelligence information. Such communication may be provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (including United States person identities) for possible dissemination by the FBI in accordance with its minimization procedures; (S) (2) the coinniunication does not contain foreign intelligence information but is reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be Such comniunicati on may be disseminated (including United States person identities) to approp1ja.te Federal law enforcement authorities, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. l806(b) and l825(c), Executive Order No. 12333, and, where applicable, the oriines reporting procedures set out in the August l995 "Mernorandurn of Understanding: Reporting of Information Concerning Federal Crimes," or any successor document. Such communications may be retained by NSA for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed. six months unless extended in writing by the Attorney General, to permit law enforcement agencies to determine whether access to original recordings of such is required for law enforcement purposes; (8) (3) the cornrnunication is reasonably believed. to contain technical data base information, as defined in Section or information necessary to understand or assess a communications security vulnerability. Such communication may be provided to the FBI and/or disseminated. to other elements of the United States Government. Such comnnmications may be retained for a period sufficient to allow a thorough. exploitation and to permit access to data that are, or are reasonably believed likely to become, relevant to a current or future foreign intelligence requirement. Sufficient duration may vary with the nature of the exploitation. ---
So, if they accidentally get target a non-relevant American citizen, they must destroy the recording / data within five years.

If that citizen is relevant, and, they keep it, and/or give it to the FBI.

If that citizen is not relevant, but believed to be committing a crime, they give the info to law enforcement.

So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.
 
2013-07-02 11:21:05 PM  

MrEricSir: Wow, stunning argument you have there! You really are the master of reasonable ideas about government. Enjoy your rationalizing!


When you encounter stupidity of "government should have zero secrets" magnitude, there's not much to argue against.

I mean, you think we would be better off with more crime because the police can't have any undercover or covert operations anymore? You think we would be better off if we had zero spies in enemy nations telling us what they are up to? You think we would be better off if every foreign country knew our exact military strength and how to disable, disarm, and/or destroy every piece of military equipment we have?

A country with no secrets would be a shiat hole, and this is obvious to anyone with more than 2 braincells to rub together. I didn't give you a reasonable argument because you are not farking reasonable.
 
2013-07-02 11:21:06 PM  

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?

The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?

And? What would the real world consequences of this "no secrets" government look like?


Government by the People, for the People?
 
2013-07-02 11:22:14 PM  
I can't believe this shiat. I was listening to 2 co-workers talking about it and they said they have no problem with this stuff. I was not surprised because the 2 are truly sad there is no Klan office near them to join, and believe the earth is 200 years old,  But talking to another co-worker, the libbiest lib who ever libbed a lib, he also had no problem with it. I'm just speechless, and if it goes on, so will we all be...
 
2013-07-02 11:23:39 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Evil High Priest
I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.
Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.

Read the link below regarding minimizing the US citizen data.  It is all about how much faith you have in people doing this work with the right intentions, and how much you believe how unlikely it is that this data could be abused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document


The nsa has obviously already sabotaged the text:
MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES USED BY THE SECURITY light i iiCONNECTION WETB ACQUESITEONS OF FUREEGN 5: INFORRMTION PURSUANT T0 SECTIGN 762 THE FGREEGN it 3'
But thanks, I'll check it out.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:14 PM  

LasersHurt: cannotsuggestaname: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.

Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.

It's not just storage space, dude. It's ALSO the combined amount of power to intercept, decode, record, and then transmit that all to a datacenter. It's a HUGE undertaking.

On top of that, unlikely also specifically said "I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could ".


You don't need to decode it on the fly. If the intent is just to keep it around until the need arises, you would just store it in encoded form and decode it if, as, and when. That assumes they haven't already worked it out with the companies to decode it for them when it's in the system and supply it in the clear.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:28 PM  

LewDux: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


www.rumormillnews.com
hmmmmmm
 
2013-07-02 11:27:07 PM  

sendtodave: So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.


Right, and now we're back to possible abuse of these powers. This is selective, targeted enforcement of laws. Singapore does the same thing: there are a billion laws, but if you never piss off the government, they aren't enforced, on you.
 
2013-07-02 11:27:22 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Government by the People, for the People?


I don't want people knowing my social security number. I don't want random idiots having access to my grandmother's medical records. I don't want my friend the soldier to have his position outed to the enemy. I don't want my friend the police officer killed by the guy he's investigating.

If you do, you're not rational. Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society. Accept it, or you're going to sound like a farking nutball.
 
2013-07-02 11:29:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: sendtodave: So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.

Right, and now we're back to possible abuse of these powers. This is selective, targeted enforcement of laws. Singapore does the same thing: there are a billion laws, but if you never piss off the government, they aren't enforced, on you.


When everything is against the law, there is no more rule of law.  But that's another (bigger) topic.
 
2013-07-02 11:29:32 PM  

sendtodave: [www.washingtonpost.com image 700x525]

Huh.  Interesting.

The FBI DITU are the ones doing the data intercept, and then giving the info to NSA.


More interesting:  what is the redacted word above "Processing" and was it redacted by Snowden or the Washington Post?
 
2013-07-02 11:30:17 PM  

sendtodave: mrlewish: Just as your voice it turned into a digital signal it can be copied just like any other packet.

Digital signal... packets?



"IP works by exchanging pieces of information called packets. A packet is a sequence of octets and consists of a header followed by a body. The header describes the packet's source, destination and control information. The body contains the data IP is transmitting. "
 
2013-07-02 11:30:56 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society


But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.
 
2013-07-02 11:33:36 PM  

MisterRonbo: Trail of Dead: That's kind of what I was getting at - if they aren't using this system to prosecute people for non-terrorism related stuff, then I'm just not seeing the issue here beyond "slippery slope". Does the NSA give one rat's ass if I'm calling my dealer?

If you're a journalist about to publish something embarrassing then yes, they might find that information useful.

As someone who has had a government security clearance in the past, and might need one for a job in the future, I'd rather have some privacy on my phone calls.

Both of these are examples where the information can be used to someone's detriment - or even for political purposes - with no pesky due process. So if you think courts and warrants are all the protection you need, I think you're being naive.

Our elected officials were willing to burn a CIA operative, and everyone she ever worked with, over a political grudge. I'm pretty certain some would be willing to use information from this repository for political ends.


Wouldn't journalists be the first people to figure out they were being wire tapped? Seems very risky.
Agree with you though.
 
2013-07-02 11:35:17 PM  

Trail of Dead: Wouldn't journalists be the first people to figure out they were being wire tapped?


No? Because journalists are not magical experts on technology.
 
2013-07-02 11:35:18 PM  
"IP works by exchanging pieces of information called packets. A packet is a sequence of octets and consists of a header followed by a body. The header describes the packet's source, destination and control information. The body contains the data IP is transmitting. "

Signal:  Electronics An impulse or a fluctuating electric quantity, such as voltage, current, or electric field strength, whose variations represent coded information.

Neat trick, encapsulating the signal inside the frame.
 
2013-07-02 11:38:05 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society

But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.


That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.
 
2013-07-02 11:38:34 PM  

Evil High Priest: Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.

No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.

Nice! You are now greenied as "Mind Flayer".


Oh, wake up, sheeple.
 
2013-07-02 11:39:46 PM  

RexTalionis: sendtodave: RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."

Did you notice that the slide also says things like IM, email, chat...

Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?


How do you figure they have access to what they claim to have access to without having access to content? Something has to scoop up the raw data in the first place before there can be segregation of "content" from "metadata". At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between NSA personnel and content.

It's like saying, my date left her phone at my house, but I don't have "access" to her nude self-pics or videos that may or may not be in there because it would be illegal and wrong for me to look, that is, if I think I'd get caught. Trust me.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:27 PM  

Nobodyn0se: it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment


you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:46 PM  

Nobodyn0se: sendtodave: guess these are possibilities:

1) The NSA and FBI are doing blanket surveillance. They get all (or at least much of) the relevant data floating around the cloud (bad).

2) They are targeting specific people without a warrant, and getting data on them (bad).

3) They are targeting specific people with a rubber stamp warrant (less bad).

If it's the third, well, there is a political solution - get rid of secret FISA courts.

You forgot the most likely one:

4) They are targeting specific people with a difficult to obtain warrant (Perfectly fine).


or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements
 
2013-07-02 11:43:20 PM  

Headso: you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.


The secret courts have been around since before most Farkers were born, and they are incredibly hard to get warrants from.
 
2013-07-02 11:44:23 PM  

DustBunny: 5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements


That's just a longer winded version of what I said, but yes. This.
 
2013-07-02 11:45:01 PM  

Nobodyn0se: That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.


At this point, this is what interests me the most.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/senators-wyden-udall-nsa -s urveillance

Two US senators on the panel overseeing the National Security Agency said intelligence officials were "unable" to demonstrate the value of a secret surveillance program that collected and analyzed the internet habits of Americans.

Well, that, and the fact people like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with, even for following their conscience and disobeying set rules at personal risk.  But that's just how people are, I guess.

The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.
 
2013-07-02 11:45:19 PM  
why do you think your Google account keeps asking you to verify it with a cell phone number?

they want to be able to track you on the net or on the phone
 
2013-07-02 11:46:52 PM  

DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements


How broad is this "specific set?"
 
2013-07-02 11:47:34 PM  

davynelson: why do you think your Google account keeps asking you to verify it with a cell phone number?

they want to be able to track you on the net or on the phone


Huh.  So it really is for your security.  I mean Security.
 
2013-07-02 11:47:54 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.

The secret courts have been around since before most Farkers were born, and they are incredibly hard to get warrants from.


yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:09 PM  

Nobodyn0se: it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment,


That is note remotely a settled issue, and you shouldn't claim it as such.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:52 PM  

sendtodave: DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements

How broad is this "specific set?"


Do you need the hexidecimal values or is "brown" specific enough?
 
2013-07-02 11:50:53 PM  

sendtodave: The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.


People like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with.
 
2013-07-02 11:51:00 PM  

PonceAlyosha: sendtodave: DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements

How broad is this "specific set?"

Do you need the hexidecimal values or is "brown" specific enough?


Americans:  Constantly scared of brown people, be they down the street, or around the world!
 
2013-07-02 11:52:10 PM  

Nobodyn0se: sendtodave: The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.

People like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with.


"We believe that the broader lesson here is that even though intelligence officials may be well-intentioned, assertions from intelligence agencies about the value and effectiveness of particular programs should not simply be accepted at face value by policymakers or oversight bodies any more than statements about the usefulness of other government programs should be taken at face value when they are made by other government officials," Wyden and Udall said.

"I think Snowden is a traitor."

Yeah, close enough.
 
2013-07-02 11:52:28 PM  

Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.


There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.
 
2013-07-02 11:53:15 PM  

Nobodyn0se: PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society

But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.

That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.


"Nothing to see here. Move along."

a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent
I don't care how long it's existed.

is being overseen by the legislative branch
How so?

is using the warrant process
The FISA court. With a .00003% fail rate. Packed with judges chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John farking Roberts. With no voting, no discussion, no debate. He packs that Court. And, surprise, they tend to err on the side of authoritarianism.
 
2013-07-02 11:53:32 PM  

PonceAlyosha: That is note remotely a settled issue, and you shouldn't claim it as such.


I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.


I'm going with "settled."
 
2013-07-02 11:54:41 PM  

Evil High Priest: The FISA court. With a .00003% fail rate. Packed with judges chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John farking Roberts. With no voting, no discussion, no debate. He packs that Court. And, surprise, they tend to err on the side of authoritarianism.


Nobodyn0se: There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants, you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.

 
2013-07-02 11:54:54 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.


I would enjoy these citations, strictly to delineate myself from crazy people. Can you point me in what you view as the right direction?
 
2013-07-02 11:55:08 PM  
The mustache is waxed.   4565ghty345593dcfdj:  Little John Whiskey SANDTRAP 34:56:WW:577 ReFqx:09 FFFFGGG :end:::1z30+++eQQ:32
Solar ZuLU 3rd813:IKX:::}}
 
2013-07-02 11:56:31 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.

I would enjoy these citations, strictly to delineate myself from crazy people. Can you point me in what you view as the right direction?


The internet is a good place to start. It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it, and how every time federal agents want to access any of the data they need a warrant to do it.
 
2013-07-02 11:56:45 PM  
i am a coldbloded amercain and if the secret courts want to kill a terrerist cause they tapped there phones fark them, you fark with ameria you fark with me. i dont like obummer,hes a loser and a socialist, but im glad hes taking the right move in making sure we kill people who want to kill us
 
2013-07-02 11:56:55 PM  
So, anyway, at this point, what can the government do to restore trust for those that don't, uh, blindly trust it already?
 
2013-07-02 11:58:05 PM  

Nobodyn0se: It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it


That's absolutely, 100% not a guarantee of constitutionality. Direct, link form citations, please.
 
2013-07-02 11:59:02 PM  
They haven't had th

Nobodyn0se: Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.

There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.


go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...
 
2013-07-02 11:59:32 PM  

Jaykzo: i am a coldbloded amercain and if the secret courts want to kill a terrerist cause they tapped there phones fark them, you fark with ameria you fark with me. i dont like obummer,hes a loser and a socialist, but im glad hes taking the right move in making sure we kill people who want to kill us


IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!
 
2013-07-03 12:00:31 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it

That's absolutely, 100% not a guarantee of constitutionality. Direct, link form citations, please.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304565-obama-administrati on -counts-22-hill-briefings-on-prism-program-

There's one. Literally the first Google hit for a search on "PRISM legislative briefing." If you want more, get them yourself.
 
2013-07-03 12:02:17 AM  

Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.

There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...


Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.
 
2013-07-03 12:02:57 AM  
Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/senators-wyden-udall-nsa -s urveillance

Well, then, I guess if I don't talk to any foreign nationals, I have nothing to worry about.

/lives in China
 
2013-07-03 12:02:59 AM  

Nobodyn0se: There's one. Literally the first Google hit for a search on "PRISM legislative briefing." If you want more, get them yourself.


You are positing that congress approving something makes that act constitutional. Provide a citation that is the case.
 
2013-07-03 12:03:29 AM  

Propain_az: Jaykzo: i am a coldbloded amercain and if the secret courts want to kill a terrerist cause they tapped there phones fark them, you fark with ameria you fark with me. i dont like obummer,hes a loser and a socialist, but im glad hes taking the right move in making sure we kill people who want to kill us

IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!


if you have nothign to hid you shouldnt worry about this program.

or are you a plotter?

have fun rotting in prison with your muSLIME brothers
 
2013-07-03 12:04:04 AM  
btw we will torture you
 
2013-07-03 12:05:13 AM  

PonceAlyosha: You are positing that congress approving something makes that act constitutional. Provide a citation that is the case.


No, you parsed that sentence in a way I didn't intend it.
I was saying that he gets the advice/consent of the legislative (which is good) and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).
 
2013-07-03 12:06:22 AM  
For anyone who doesn't think that the NSA can record most if not all phone conversations, I recommend you check out the fact that they "listened" to the Boston bombers conversations *after* he planted the bombs. Also, there was the ancedote from Shia Labeouf on Jay Leno. You are putting your own preconceved notions of what is possible and what isn't possible given *your* knowledge, not what the NSA is capable of doing given a distributed network and billions of dollars. They aren't using tinkertoy corporate tools.
 
2013-07-03 12:06:33 AM  

Nem Wan: At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between NSA personnel and content.


At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between everything and everything.

The cops could kick your door in and search your house without a warrant, but they don't because there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing it.

The FBI could pick you up and hold you for a month interrogating you without letting anyone know where you are, but there's a there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing it.

The government could shut down all dissenting newspapers and broadcasters, but there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing so, so they don't.

In most cases the "there's a technical or policy fig leaf " preventing them is a law, and in the vast majority of cases, it prevents abuse. I still don't get why people think this isn't occurring in this case...even though so far most of the 'revelations' that are being made rely on the interpretation of words and conflating capability with authorisation and/or practice.
 
2013-07-03 12:07:20 AM  

Nobodyn0se: and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).


While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.
 
2013-07-03 12:08:06 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.

There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...

Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.


Over 15,000 granted since 2005, and less than 20 terrorist attacks in that same time period?

Wow, this program DOES work!
 
2013-07-03 12:08:32 AM  

Nobodyn0se: That's just a longer winded version of what I said, but yes. This.


well you inferred that the warrant would be difficult to get, I say it's easy if all the ducks are in a row. Perhaps your first one might be difficult until you know the requirements, but after that it's probably easy as pie
 
2013-07-03 12:08:37 AM  

PonceAlyosha: While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.


I didn't say it guaranteed constitutionality. I said it didn't violate the fourth amendment, which is what the VAST majority of people who are saying this is unconstitutional are claiming.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:02 AM  
I might need to go looking for a needle in a haystack some day, so I'm going to start stockpiling haystacks just in case.

Yeah farking right.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:03 AM  

Jaykzo: Propain_az: Jaykzo: i am a coldbloded amercain and if the secret courts want to kill a terrerist cause they tapped there phones fark them, you fark with ameria you fark with me. i dont like obummer,hes a loser and a socialist, but im glad hes taking the right move in making sure we kill people who want to kill us

IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!

if you have nothign to hid you shouldnt worry about this program.

or are you a plotter?

have fun rotting in prison with your muSLIME brothers


Oooh. Too bad. You looked promising.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:30 AM  

DustBunny: ell you inferred that the warrant would be difficult to get, I say it's easy if all the ducks are in a row. Perhaps your first one might be difficult until you know the requirements, but after that it's probably easy as pie


Only if you can actually meet the requirements, which is hard to do.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:53 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.

There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...

Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.


You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...
 
2013-07-03 12:10:08 AM  

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:00 AM  
Nobodyn0se:
I didn't say it guaranteed constitutionality.   I said it didn't violate the fourth amendment

Then you are saying NOTHING.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:18 AM  

Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...


No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:59 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Then you are saying NOTHING.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am in fact saying that many/most of the doomsday criers and the conspiracy theorists are full of shiat.
 
2013-07-03 12:12:46 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...

No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.


Wouldn't they also be in a position that requires they keep secrets?
 
2013-07-03 12:15:23 AM  
While there is a role for the NSA, what is coming to light is something I cannot support and think it is something that needs to be curtailed dramatically.

Anyone that that thinks they can hide in the volume of data produced everyday, I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis requesting your consumer file (it's free) and you will be surprised to learn how much information on your life is easily accessible.

When I made my request, there were several things that caught my attention:

1. I mailed my request on a Friday and received my file the next Friday.
2. The file was roughly 25 pages long
3. Any e-mail address I have ever had was part of this report
4. Of my record of residences, my address in high school (I never applied for credit while at this address)
5. One of the addresses listed was one I had never lived at, just had applied for a lease at that address..never had any mail forwarded to this address, never stepped foot in the front door-chose another property from this landlord same day..
6. There was a yellow sticky placed on the file that read "I know what you did in Tiajuana.... that poor donkey..."

/ok. I might have made up number 6.....

For those that claim they aren't doing anything wrong so they have nothing to hide... I have never been arrested/detained and I do not do drugs or prostitutes, yet I do have a problem with this program..
 
2013-07-03 12:15:26 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Wouldn't they also be in a position that requires they keep secrets?


So you're saying there's a giant conspiracy across the entirety of Federal law enforcement to plant the exact same rumor in my head about how hard it is to obtain warrants from FISA courts?!?!!?

Yeah, I'm going to go with "All those stories about how they wished they could get warrants but couldn't are true."
 
2013-07-03 12:17:00 AM  

sendtodave: How broad is this "specific set?"


Good question. Without knowing that, everyone's in the dark and imagining monsters.

Problem is, they don't think they're imagining monsters, they're positive that there's monsters and can describe them in detail even though they've never seen them and they may not even exist.

I agree that a release of the requirements would be useful but I doubt it would shut anyone up so the powers that be probably reckon it'd be more trouble than it's worth to make them public.
 
2013-07-03 12:17:25 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...

No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.


First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.
 
2013-07-03 12:18:52 AM  

Headso: First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.


Ok man. Keep on herping and derping. Don't let those pesky "facts" get in the way.
 
2013-07-03 12:20:15 AM  

Evil High Priest: I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.

Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.


What I can think of is neither here nor there. I can think of stuff that would curl your nose hairs. The question is, and what nobody  is asking (although i think somebody did and it got lost in the whargarble): Has anybody been actually prosecuted or persecuted under this supposed abuse of power? Of all these thousands of secret warrants issued to obtain this metadata and use it to legally spy upon US citizens, how many have resulted in arrests, let alone convictions? How many warrantless wiretaps have resulted in even embarassment, nevermind arrests or harassment, to innocent people?

The idea that the government is doing this at all is both appalling and irritating--mostly because it tests the limits of legality, like Cheney having his pet lawyer write up the torture memos and find a legal way to redefine pain so it was legally allowable. But I don't think it's as imminent a threat because it "might be abused" simply because the sheer volume of data prevents it from being abused. A government that wants to torture people, yet goes the extra mile to redefine torture in legalese so it will be defensible in court, isn't the sort of government that will be using metadata, however illicitly collected, to create black dossiers on random citizens; even if they could dig through infino-bytes of data and find such incriminating evidence. And a government that will do so will not need to create a legal fiction to do it--they'll just be rounding up people on the streets by then.

So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.

Or you can imagine that we do live in such a dystopia and only you and your brethren are wise enough to see through the government whitewash into the lie we're all living. But then what's the difference between such a dystopia and a better life?
 
2013-07-03 12:20:34 AM  
I made a chart.

i10.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-03 12:22:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.


Decent way to look at it.
 
2013-07-03 12:23:43 AM  

Mangoose: Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.


Yeah the 4th amendment is overdue for a removal.  If you're alive you're in the public domain.  Luckily the one with this power is our intelligence agencies reigned in only by our legislature.  Let's let it run its course.
 
2013-07-03 12:24:13 AM  
 

Gyrfalcon: What I can think of is neither here nor there. I can think of stuff that would curl your nose hairs. The question is, and what nobody is asking (although i think somebody did and it got lost in the whargarble): Has anybody been actually prosecuted or persecuted under this supposed abuse of power? Of all these thousands of secret warrants issued to obtain this metadata and use it to legally spy upon US citizens, how many have resulted in arrests, let alone convictions? How many warrantless wiretaps have resulted in even embarassment, nevermind arrests or harassment, to innocent people?


You mean like how the Patriot Act has been primarily used to indite"narcoterrorists"/drug drealers as opposed to actual/political/murderous terrorists?
 
2013-07-03 12:25:04 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Headso: First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.

Ok man. Keep on herping and derping. Don't let those pesky "facts" get in the way.


facts like what? you knowing people and appealing to their authority or facts like your opinion on the numbers not being high enough to be concerned with?
 
2013-07-03 12:27:44 AM  

jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.


Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.
 
2013-07-03 12:28:13 AM  

Headso: facts like what? you knowing people and appealing to their authority or facts like your opinion on the numbers not being high enough to be concerned with?


Facts like saying my argument went from "30,000 since the 1970's is too low, it would be 30,000 per year if they were easy to get" to "2,200 per year is too low, it would be 30,000 per year if they were easy to get" is not in any way changing my argument.

You tried to say I changed my argument when I didn't. The fact is, my argument has been the same the whole thread, and trying to say it has changed like you did is what's known (politely) as "not a fact."
 
2013-07-03 12:29:49 AM  

Gyrfalcon: A government that wants to torture people, yet goes the extra mile to redefine torture in legalese so it will be defensible in court, isn't the sort of government that will be using metadata, however illicitly collected, to create black dossiers on random citizens; even if they could dig through infino-bytes of data and find such incriminating evidence.


Step 1: Convince everyone "we have the data", regardless of whether or not they can actually access it.
Step 2: With "help from the data", child pornography and terrorism crimes go up ten-thousand percent, oddly skewed towards those who have views contrary to the state.
Step 3: Ta da!
 
2013-07-03 12:30:26 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).

While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.


Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?
 
2013-07-03 12:30:29 AM  

GhostFish: We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.


Wow, that is absolutely pathetic.
 
2013-07-03 12:30:59 AM  

Gyrfalcon: So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.


Except that is has happened before. See COINTELPRO.

And that was only revealed to the public because a group of citizens broke the law by breaking into an FBI office to steal files related to the program.

The only thing inevitable about these programs is that they will be abused.
 
2013-07-03 12:32:04 AM  

James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.


Damn, dude, someday you'll end up farkied in green if you keep this up.

/I have no doubt /b/ is working on that right this second
//I doubt it would work, but it'd be really freakin' hilarious if someone did that and looped an hour of Oppan Gangnam Style
 
2013-07-03 12:32:31 AM  

Biological Ali: Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?


I mean in the sense that slavery was very basically unconstitutional the entire time it was allowed it to occur. Though obviously, even the most overblown Minority Report style conspiracies would not be equivalent to slavery, etc etc. That, however, doesn't make this any less blatantly a plain text violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.
 
2013-07-03 12:33:05 AM  

PonceAlyosha: GhostFish: We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.

Wow, that is absolutely pathetic.


Not helpful. Elaborate or don't bother to respond.
 
2013-07-03 12:35:21 AM  

HairBolus: whistleridge: 99.99% of those calls are utterly useless to anyone - hairdressers ordering pizza,

They won't listen to 99.99999% percent of the calls. But yes they want to record pizza orders.

1) If you are tracking someone then a pizza delivery order can tell you where he was.

2) If you know the guy had pizza delivered then the phone call can tell you what phone he used to order it.


You are brighter than the average analyst. We'll miss you.
 
2013-07-03 12:35:54 AM  

jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis


Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.
 
2013-07-03 12:36:47 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Biological Ali: Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?

I mean in the sense that slavery was very basically unconstitutional the entire time it was allowed it to occur. Though obviously, even the most overblown Minority Report style conspiracies would not be equivalent to slavery, etc etc. That, however, doesn't make this any less blatantly a plain text violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.


"Bad" and "unconstitutional" are not synonyms. Slavery was perfectly constitutional up until the constitution was finally amended so as to disallow it.
 
2013-07-03 12:39:50 AM  
I'm sure they have the man power to review it all too..


Don't contact criminals, that simple...
 
2013-07-03 12:40:20 AM  

GhostFish: jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.

Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.




Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.

www.dw.de
 
2013-07-03 12:42:25 AM  

HempHead: Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.


Step 1: Build an entire social media revolution on the idea that you are a special, unique snowflake.
Step 2: "LOLL WHO CARE'S IF THE GOVERMNET IS SPYIGN ON ME IM NOT A SPECIAL UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE"
 
2013-07-03 12:43:37 AM  

DustBunny: jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis

Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.


Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.
 
2013-07-03 12:45:47 AM  

HempHead: GhostFish: jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.

Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.



Stasi in East Germany collected the scents of dissidents and suspects.


Did they collect everyones scents, multiple times a day?
 
2013-07-03 12:46:24 AM  

GhostFish: Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.


The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?
 
2013-07-03 12:53:56 AM  

sendtodave: GhostFish: Yes, thank you. I completely agree.

I don't like the idea of the government having so much direct access to so much aggregated data, but we pretty much allowed this to happen.

We all decided that getting access to internet and communications services was worth the risk. They were worth the tradeoff of some company having information about us.

And now all the info has pooled where logic would dictate that it would, and we're farking upset with...someone! It should be largely ourselves for being so lacks in our responsibility to protecting out privacy, but that's a little too real. Best to just dump all our outrage on the government, and ignore that we should have seen this coming from a million miles away.

The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?


Practically. The info was already being collected by private companies, and the government could usually get access with a simple warrant.

Newer programs point to the government cutting out the middleman so that they have more ready and reliable access to the data once the warrant is issued. So from that perspective, things haven't changed greatly beyond what was already being done by private entities.

There is of course danger in having all this info in one place, where people can access it illegally without a warrant.

But absolutely none of these developments should really shock or surprise anyone. You don't have to like it, but we all should have seen it coming.
 
2013-07-03 12:57:50 AM  

sendtodave: The only way to keep this from happening would be to have gone off the grid and shunned technology?


To be honest the whole thing shows the fundamental imbalance not between the people and the government, but the people and the lawyers that write the contracts for the benefit of the companies that have the foresight to create ownership of things that don't yet have a use.

They claimed ownership of all our data long before anyone even knew it could be collected, in some cases before the techy-types building the infrastructure knew it could be collected...hell in some cases they created language that claimed ownership of types of data that didn't even exist yet.

Once they owned it, they collected it, and once they collected it they studied it and monetised it. It's no coincidence that most practical psychology research (especially organisational psychology) these days is either done specifically by and for marketing companies, or used by them.

The government is a latecomer to game and is just hoovering up what the corporations and marketers have already collected.
 
2013-07-03 12:59:54 AM  

GhostFish: Did they collect everyones scents, multiple times a day?


This is perhaps the most interesting computer system in the world. What planet do you live on that you don't think this would be interesting to the government?
 
2013-07-03 01:04:49 AM  
while, i'm neither shocked, nor surprised by this, i'm not desensitized enough to where i can just shrug it off. it's unsettling still to know there's no such thing as privacy anymore.
 
2013-07-03 01:05:17 AM  

thurstonxhowell: firefly212: It's not that I don't think they have the capacity to collect all the data alleged... it's that I know they aren't competent enough to analyze it.

Yup. Collecting every phone call ever made would render the data useless. You'd be searching for a needle in a universe.


I prefer the phrase, "needle in a needle stack."
 
2013-07-03 01:08:04 AM  

GhostFish: Practically. The info was already being collected by private companies, and the government could usually get access with a simple warrant.

Newer programs point to the government cutting out the middleman so that they have more ready and reliable access to the data once the warrant is issued. So from that perspective, things haven't changed greatly beyond what was already being done by private entities.

There is of course danger in having all this info in one place, where people can access it illegally without a warrant.

But absolutely none of these developments should really shock or surprise anyone. You don't have to like it, but we all should have seen it coming.


So, really, there was no practical way to keep this from happening.

Living in public.

Well, | guess it's back to the days when all your neighbors and leaders knew what your shiat smelled like.
 
m00
2013-07-03 01:15:32 AM  

TheBigJerk: Now y'all republican asshats wanna DO something about it or you wanna keep scoring points on the Obamanation?

If you got a problem with this, blaming the democrats won't change it, because the rank-and-file you manage to convert with that argument are the same motherfarkers who were JUST FINE with worse under Dubya and who watched "The X-Files" as if it were a documentary in the late 90s.

You need more than "It's OK If You Are Republican."


You need more than two colors in your paint brush
 
2013-07-03 01:22:31 AM  
I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.
 
2013-07-03 02:01:44 AM  
Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.
 
2013-07-03 02:04:40 AM  

firefly212: LasersHurt: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

Likely they're storing the output from ARGUS drones.

I can only assume it's because people aren't intimately familiar with tech, but it's silly how people keep bringing up the storage capacity of the datacenter. It's irrelevant. Amazon has more than enough CAPACITY to store every call made, but the issue is slightly more complicated than raw capacity.

The data center is big enough that pretty much, no matter what you say they're recording, it's possible. I don't think voice data would take up that much space, given decent compression. Even if you get into the email/sms side of things, weeding out duplicates and spam is easy enough, and storing whats left wouldn't be that big of a feat.

The problem (in my mind) is not one of storage, but of organizing all of it in such a manner that it is usable/mineable in a semi-efficient manner. I have strong doubts about the ability to filter such unfocused and erratic information flows into something useful, actionable, and productive. Thus far, the keywords released have indicated that they could have their data mining operation alert someone if there was a major event happening, but none of it is indicative of an ability to foresee events prior to occurrence.


-------------------------------------

I remember folks talking about and personally reading about research/work on computer systems designed to detect, classify, identify and preempt activity over a decade ago. Which is why many people assume we have very little privacy beyond some of the personal freedoms we enjoy in the privacy of our homes.

Like so many other things, people ask if you are wearing your tin hat when you mention things like this.  Then when something leaks, of course the gov only admits to what has become public - like they are doing now.

Is Snowden a hero or a traitor? Who knows what history will say about him, but I must admit it's a bit humorous to watch him release bits of info at a time in order to show how our gov keeps us in the dark and feed us BS much of the time.

Old school, and suddenly relevant:

ts3.mm.bing.net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office
 
2013-07-03 02:04:54 AM  

whidbey: And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd2nd option.


FTFY
 
2013-07-03 02:05:09 AM  
".....until there is a viable 3rd option"

Everybody move to Peru?
 
2013-07-03 02:12:22 AM  

whidbey: Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.


Look, you're a discerning eye. Consider, for a moment, just the documents released, not what other people tell you they're saying. Note the one with the FBI - it suggests the NSA doesn't look at any of that stuff until the FBI (domestic) or CIA (foreign) direct it. Doesn't that suggest this isn't a net collecting all marine life but hooks specifically baited?
 
2013-07-03 02:14:05 AM  

vygramul: whidbey: Putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult if not downright impossible.

It basically depends on 2 things:

1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional
2. We stop electing social conservatives to office to spite the Democratic Party

And yes we are going to need the Democrats until there is a viable 3rd option.

Look, you're a discerning eye. Consider, for a moment, just the documents released, not what other people tell you they're saying. Note the one with the FBI - it suggests the NSA doesn't look at any of that stuff until the FBI (domestic) or CIA (foreign) direct it. Doesn't that suggest this isn't a net collecting all marine life but hooks specifically baited?


I'm just saying we need a top-level judicial review of this shiat.
 
2013-07-03 02:21:49 AM  

swahnhennessy: I, for one, will trust and defend the guys who keep lying to us about all of this. It's legal! What more do you want?


Obama or Greenwald?
 
2013-07-03 02:29:59 AM  

whidbey: I'm just saying we need a top-level judicial review of this shiat.


Not likely that it would make a difference. The only plausible Constitutional issue, based on how far it got in the courts before, is the warrantless wiretapping of foreign communications, and that doesn't really have anything to do with what's been leaked.

And even that isn't necessarily a strong case. I know a number of people have commented that the ACLU didn't have standing and that they could sue again if they had information about specific wiretaps (which as far as I know they don't have yet). But it's also plausible (perhaps more so) that the only reason the case went as far as it did was because of the standing issue - i.e., the Supreme Court took the case because they wanted to clarify that one technical point.
 
2013-07-03 02:43:22 AM  
Stopped reading after the first two paragraphs.  I'm tired of journalists who don't know how the internet works.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:40 AM  

jst3p: I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.


300 posts later and people still think they know everything that is technically possible.

Newsflash sport, you don't. Did you know a fighter jet could be 100% stealth 5 years before the F-117 was publicly unveiled as well? No, you didn't.

The gov't collects, analyzes, and stores everything. Period.
 
2013-07-03 03:01:48 AM  
I can't figure out how anybody is surprised about the cellphone stuff. I remember watching a 20/20 or one of those shows back in the 90's about the war one drugs. The person that they were interviewing, I forget what agency he was from, said then that they have the ability to listen to every cellphone call and record them, he even went on to explain why it was legal to do so with cellphone calls.
 
2013-07-03 03:04:47 AM  

PreMortem: jst3p: I work for a company that makes fibre switches and directors. Trust me, the government can't be storing this much data. At least not for any useful retention period. If they were, we would get bigger bonuses.

300 posts later and people still think they know everything that is technically possible.

Newsflash sport, you don't. Did you know a fighter jet could be 100% stealth 5 years before the F-117 was publicly unveiled as well? No, you didn't.

The gov't collects, analyzes, and stores everything. Period.


Yep. I remember back in the 80's and 90's people were talking about the NSA headquarters and how all of the landline traffic was being recorded there. Back then this was blown off as conspiracy theories because people who thought they knew everything that was technically possible said that it wasn't possible.
 
2013-07-03 03:23:57 AM  

GameSprocket: To be useful, the data would have to be at least on magnetic disk. At around $10/GB, each zettabyte would cost almost $11 trillion (1,099,511,627,776 GB. Check my Math. I am very tired).



Apparently so..otherwise, are you honestly trying to tell me that the 500GB HDD in my $400 laptop cost $5000..?

Looking at the Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB HDD on walmart. com ($53.86), I come up with a cost/GB right around $0.10

Yer off by two orders of magnitude in your calculations..at least..
 
2013-07-03 03:25:33 AM  

whidbey: 1. A Supreme Court Ruling that what the NSA is doing is un-Constitutional


Any decade now..
 
2013-07-03 03:29:30 AM  
According to this survey, cell phone users said they spend 23 days a year on their phones (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/you-spend-23-days-a-year-on-your-pho ne -say-new-figures-50010588/).  That comes out to be about 33,000 minutes.  Let's say 1mb/min for a phone call...so that'd be 33GB per person.  300 million people in the US --> 9.2 exabytes.

Considering they are talking about storage capacity in the Zetabytes - they can not only record every phone call in the US - they can easily record every phone call in the world.  Whether they are doing it or not is a different story, and whether other parts of the technology are there is not something I know much about, but their storage capacity is certainly way more than enough.
 
2013-07-03 03:31:01 AM  
So...they know when people login to their email accounts and/or send messages or chat programs? That's...not too big of a deal. Nor is it storing everything. It's not real-time access to items, it's real time notification of chat and email accounts.

Many people, especially those using Chrome, login to those accounts as soon as they start using their computers. Hell, my phone is always connected to my email accounts.

And 'Glenn Greenwald said so' is not a source.

/learn about data storage
//check sources
///avoid media hysteria
 
2013-07-03 03:35:28 AM  
As a side note, Snowden didn't graduate high school, he got a GED. At 16. Learned enough in a couple years of college to be scooped up by the gov't to be a cyber spook.
 
2013-07-03 03:38:14 AM  

Drannon: According to this survey, cell phone users said they spend 23 days a year on their phones (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/you-spend-23-days-a-year-on-your-pho ne -say-new-figures-50010588/).  That comes out to be about 33,000 minutes.  Let's say 1mb/min for a phone call...so that'd be 33GB per person.  300 million people in the US --> 9.2 exabytes.

Considering they are talking about storage capacity in the Zetabytes - they can not only record every phone call in the US - they can easily record every phone call in the world.  Whether they are doing it or not is a different story, and whether other parts of the technology are there is not something I know much about, but their storage capacity is certainly way more than enough.


For the record, 1 Zettabyte = 1024 Exabytes.  So if they have a storage capacity of 5 Zetabytes, they can store every phone call made by every US citizen during their entire lifetime in less than ONE zetabyte with only mp3 level compression....

As I said, I'm not saying they are, or about other aspects of technology necessary to do it, but if they have data centers measuring in the zetabytes, storage is not the limiting factor...
 
2013-07-03 03:53:26 AM  
That's an awful lot of "yada, yada, yada..."
 
2013-07-03 04:01:19 AM  
i.imgur.com

Proof positive that the Library of Congress contains trillions of books.
 
2013-07-03 04:20:31 AM  
Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...
 
2013-07-03 04:21:58 AM  
It's Mother Jones dude.  They're like the WND for liberals. 

Don't ever sign up for their email news letter, you cannot unsubxcribe.  Fark them
 
2013-07-03 04:25:00 AM  

Jabberwookiee: Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...


So says someone who has never worked in aerospace or any other defense industry.

/worked in aerospace. They aren't kidding when the classifed shiat is about 50 years ahead of what's not.
 
2013-07-03 04:28:24 AM  

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Did not read the entire thread, but...

If you think this is technologically possible, you're just as stupid as the fascists that wish it were possible.

FFS...

So says someone who has never worked in aerospace or any other defense industry.

/worked in aerospace. They aren't kidding when the classifed shiat is about 50 years ahead of what's not.


Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about it.
 
2013-07-03 04:33:44 AM  

DustBunny: jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis

Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.


This.
This.
And this again.

Which I've been saying since this broke. If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere, having cellphone conversations, the convenience of one-swipe purchasing, cloud storage, online communication, etc. etc.......well....there's going to be someone, whether it's our government or someone else's, or a company or a black-hat hacker or SOMEBODY who is going to collect it and sell it off to the highest bidder. Are people honestly naive/stupid enough to think "Well, I should be able to leave my personal info out there and nobody else should look at it,' as if that would do it; like a teenage girl upset that her little brother read through her VERY PRIVIT DIARY cuz it was locked?

Yeah, in a perfect world, I guess an ethical government wouldn't peek at someone's very privit dariy because it had MARY'S DAIRY! SEKRIT! PRIVIT! written on the cover; but we don't live in that world. And does it matter so much if the US Government is collating your data, or if Walmart is doing it (which they are) or if Hackerbob is doing it (which he is) or the Israeli government, or China (yep, them too). The best we can do is try to keep our personal info to ourselves, pressure our lawmakers to write tighter laws with stricter controls on who gets access to what data, and realize that it's now the 21st century, and if we want convenience, then personal data is pretty much available.

Or, you know, go back to the barter system, old fashioned cash registers with the little buttons, no more online purchases and point-of-sale transactions and everything goes back to how it was in 1950. There are people who'd like that a lot. Probably nobody here on Fark. But there ARE people who would profit by everyone being suspicious and paranoid of the government, you know. Very much so.
 
2013-07-03 04:41:23 AM  

Jabberwookiee: Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about


Prove me wrong then?

I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.

Gyrfalcon: If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere,


And that's about the worst part of it. I'd be wiling to bet most of the information they've got we've given up voluntarily, every time we use our FB login to make a purchase from Amazon or look at movies on Netflix. There's a reason I'm a ghost on Google, and it's served me pretty well (at least until people start complaining that I'm too unavailable because I'm not on Facebook, and employers look at me like I'm anti-social, but w/e, not out to impress them anyway).

/you should hear the uproar because I don't have a cell phone. It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to. Someone not being available 24/7 has now become the exception, not the rule.
 
2013-07-03 04:47:41 AM  

cptjeff: Shotgun Justice: They probably can't store actual phone calls because the data is too great. However, they could process them with speech to text programs - kinda like a teletype system that would store the phone call in plain text format. Assuming they have good deciphering algorithms they have the gist of the call on file without having to actually save audio.

And I bet they're including the text file they generate when they talk about "metadata".

I'm generally a fan of Obama. But if this is even close to true, he should be impeached. This is such a radical overreach that an example needs to be set.


Err what? A program that preceeds Obama, was implemented by Congress and wasn't vetoed by a previous President, and over which Obama has no direct control is a reason to impeach Obama why?
 
2013-07-03 04:49:56 AM  

Peki: I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.


Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread...

/computer science/information technology student
 
2013-07-03 04:52:01 AM  

Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student


Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)
 
2013-07-03 04:56:56 AM  

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student

Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)


Heh, thanks. I attribute this superhuman ability to my philosophy education, which I'm told is completely useless. :p
 
2013-07-03 05:09:55 AM  

Jabberwookiee: Peki: Jabberwookiee: Okay, my flippant comment might have conflated those two points. I think we actually agree with each other. Perhaps I should read the entire thread.../computer science/information technology student

Acknowledged. You just went up a rung or two on my Fark respect ladder for at least admitting that. :)

Heh, thanks. I attribute this superhuman ability to my philosophy education, which I'm told is completely useless. :p


No worries. I'm an English major. Similarly useless.

/also want to get my Masters in Divinity. I know, I'm really looking to be in the 1%. . .
 
2013-07-03 05:11:59 AM  

Peki: Jabberwookiee: Keep farking that chicken. And being needlessly presumptuous about

Prove me wrong then?

I know what the gov't has the way of technology. You want to claim incompetence in being able to manage it? I'll give you that one. But not having the pure ability to do it? Nope. That's a load of bs right there, and anyone who has a decent grounding in computer science knows that.

Gyrfalcon: If people insist on spraying their data out into the ethersphere,

And that's about the worst part of it. I'd be wiling to bet most of the information they've got we've given up voluntarily, every time we use our FB login to make a purchase from Amazon or look at movies on Netflix. There's a reason I'm a ghost on Google, and it's served me pretty well (at least until people start complaining that I'm too unavailable because I'm not on Facebook, and employers look at me like I'm anti-social, but w/e, not out to impress them anyway).

/you should hear the uproar because I don't have a cell phone. It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to. Someone not being available 24/7 has now become the exception, not the rule.


You do realize that just because you give information (contractually) to a third party does not mean that you give up all rights to privacy?  I conduct business contractually with my bank.  They are a third party.  I am not spraying my information into the "ethersphere" simply by doing it electronically instead of in-person with a bank employee.

Now...that isn't to say that facebook might wanna redo its EULA to allow for more privacy (this goes for all social networks) and yes you do have a reasonable right to privacy in your emails and phone calls regardless of whether or not they are on a cellular or other wireless device.  There is a level of encryption involved which indicates that it isn't broadcast like say KISS 97.7 is or whatever radio station is in your area.  You aren't electronically ejaculating.

In-fact the FBI has devices which they may have misused and indeed falsified court papers in order to get judges to sign off on warrants to use.  These devices co-opt the cell tower locally and re-route your cell phone through their device.  Quite neat actually but basically they have access to not just the target call but the calls of anyone in the affected area.

no, I'm not joking.
 
2013-07-03 05:16:13 AM  

TDBoedy: You do realize that just because you give information (contractually) to a third party does not mean that you give up all rights to privacy?  I conduct business contractually with my bank.  They are a third party.  I am not spraying my information into the "ethersphere" simply by doing it electronically instead of in-person with a bank employee.


Yes, I do. There's a legal phrase called expectation of privacy. It's why the FBI called when I turned my ex-husband in regarding stuff on his computer. If the computer had been password protected, then I would have no right to turn the evidence over to the cops. There wasn't, so there was no "expectation of privacy."

However, I'm old school. I was raised that no matter what you send out there, someone can grab it and use it against you, privacy be damned. As I've gotten older, that just seems to hold more and more true. Also, expectation of privacy is a small consolation when you're being held indefinitely in GITMO and never get a trial (and if you think that people aren't being held indefinitely on US soil without trial, you don't know much about the immigration situation).

/same as how yes, I have an expectation that a bank won't send people to trash all my stuff, but it happens anyway. You might win the court battle, but your shiat is still gone and you're gonna go through a lot in legal fees before you get anything remotely approaching "justice"
 
2013-07-03 05:19:41 AM  

Peki: No worries. I'm an English major. Similarly useless.

/also want to get my Masters in Divinity. I know, I'm really looking to be in the 1%. . .


Ew, an English major who wants a masters in divinity? Get the fark away from me!

The NSA will probably consider you mostly harmless. So there's that.
 
2013-07-03 05:21:41 AM  

Jabberwookiee: The NSA will probably consider you mostly harmless. So there's that.


Yeah, except I'm UU. We tend to gum up the works. .

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/martha-northington-7 4- year-old-woman-arrested-wendy-davis-filibuster/66698/

/recently converted, so a bit of a zealot. If you've got questions, please e-mail me so I don't preach here. :)
 
2013-07-03 05:46:30 AM  

RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."


Another interesting thing about that image is the case numbering system - if they are recording every email from yahoo (and so on), and have been doing so for years, why does the case number only go up to 10 million? For the major providers wouldn't that be probably 3-4 digits short of how many emails/chat logins/posts or whatever they are tracking over such a long period, let alone future proofing it for even the medium term.
 
2013-07-03 06:14:16 AM  

vygramul: numbquil: vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.

I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.

Yabut the article is claiming it without any supporting documentation. That's like saying, "Look! That SEAL team member has a gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute! We conclude he kills hundreds of Americans a year!"


Well then why not just say that. You know instead of claiming that the technology doesn't exist and whatnot. I'm pretty sure that we'll have a much larger picture of what is really going on by the end of all this. I think Snowden is using the fact that they have no idea exactly what he took to insure his safety. He's not going to do one big dump of all the data at once.
 
2013-07-03 06:54:56 AM  
I imagine that a good bit of space could be saved doing voice recognition and then storing the text. Even if it's not perfect, I wouldn't be surprised if you could to a degree automate determining the quality of the transcription (are there nonsense word pairings? is the grammar totally off?) and then store the original digitized voice (needn't be terribly good quality) for those calls where the voice recognition is questionable.

Plus they could probably weed out a lot of things like repeated calls between businesses that have a logical reason to communicate.
 
2013-07-03 07:01:29 AM  

RexTalionis: If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.


It doesn't look like that's what they did.

The slide was intended in support of item #1 and relies on processing the metadata we already knew about, then providing the opportunity to tap specific content due to the real time notification. This would presumably be somewhat focused.

The bulk recording and storage is item #2.
 
2013-07-03 07:01:49 AM  
Main Page:  A request to join a protest against NSA surveillance overreach.

Politics Page: Farkers voice counter-protest.
 
2013-07-03 07:32:43 AM  

Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.

No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.


In the highest antiquity, the people did not know that they had rulers. In the next age they loved and praised them. In the next, they feared them. In the next, they despised them.  -Lao Tzu
 
2013-07-03 07:42:04 AM  
Don't worry, one day, a Republican will be President again. And then 50% of the people who posted in this thread will be happy about the NSA again. It will be like magic.
 
2013-07-03 07:48:38 AM  
I know Fark is not news, but this really shouldn't be news to anyone.
 
2013-07-03 07:48:53 AM  

KeatingFive: Don't worry, one day, a Republican will be President again. And then 50% of the people who posted in this thread will be happy about the NSA again. It will be like magic.


I don't see what wedge social issues have to do with this.
 
2013-07-03 07:53:17 AM  

KeatingFive: Don't worry, one day, a Republican will be President again. And then 50% of the people who posted in this thread will be happy about the NSA again. It will be like magic.

 
2013-07-03 08:22:23 AM  
As an agency, the NSA is probably violating the HIPPA act if they record any call by a doctor or nurse discussing a patient.  I call doctors on their cell phones all the time to get orders on my patients.
 
2013-07-03 08:29:39 AM  

Peki: It's not storage or technology, it's analysis.

Call me when there is a spike in work-at-home transcription jobs (gov't sends you a tape, you write it down. Or pick out key words. gov't sends you a check. Easily done for pennies per assignment, and there are people rabid at the chance to make money from home) or minimum-wage clerical positions in the quantity you'd see after a call center opens.


Ahem. A friend of mine might have heard of such jobs. Though supposedly, the transcriptions to are used to train speech recognition algorithms.
 
2013-07-03 08:35:31 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: i am not afraid of terrorists.
this needs to stop.

 
2013-07-03 08:36:38 AM  

kinkkerbelle: As an agency, the NSA is probably violating the HIPPA act if they record any call by a doctor or nurse discussing a patient.  I call doctors on their cell phones all the time to get orders on my patients.



Attorney-client privilege, too.

The Stasi would have wet themselves to have this kind of technology.  No, really, that's what the Stasi said -- Former Stasi Officer: The NSA Domestic Surveillance Program Would Have Been 'A Dream Come True' For East Germany
 
2013-07-03 10:02:40 AM  

numbquil: vygramul: numbquil: vygramul: firefly212: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

As impossible as a massive datacenter tapping into all the lines and having multiple Zetabytes of storage capacity? Whaddya suppose they're storing there, cookbook recipes?

5 zetabytes isn't enough to hold all the phone calls made by Americans since 9/11. Of 2006.

I'm not saying they are doing it but for one thing you are assuming that they store the calls forever. Secondly, the article does not claim that they are recording every single phone call. It simply claims that they are recording billions of phone calls. That is a lot different than every single call ever since 9/11.

Yabut the article is claiming it without any supporting documentation. That's like saying, "Look! That SEAL team member has a gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute! We conclude he kills hundreds of Americans a year!"

Well then why not just say that. You know instead of claiming that the technology doesn't exist and whatnot. I'm pretty sure that we'll have a much larger picture of what is really going on by the end of all this. I think Snowden is using the fact that they have no idea exactly what he took to insure his safety. He's not going to do one big dump of all the data at once.


I'm hoping we have a clearer picture at the end of all this. Then finding someone who says they totally support Snowden will be like finding a 70 year-old who admits they voted against JFK.
 
2013-07-03 10:35:17 AM  
I'm hoping we have a clearer picture at the end of all this. Then finding someone who says they totally support Snowden will be like finding a 70 year-old who admits they voted against JFK.

No it won't because some people don't want the government storing large amounts of data about them whether or not it includes actual voice recordings. He has the support of the libertarian right as well as the libertarian left. He has the support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is definitely a heavy hitter when it comes to online freedom and privacy. You're just painting a picture of your fantasy because you support an authoritarian government. You also don't have any supporting documentation to prove your claim so you are a hypocrite.
 
2013-07-03 10:47:33 AM  
Since Messiah Obama is 100% okay with what the NSA has been doing, why are people complaining? Therefore, this MUST BE A GOOD THING, since Messiah Obama is behind it!

So, how is that whole "Change" thing working out? Is it everything you "Hope"d for?
 
2013-07-03 10:52:39 AM  

numbquil: I'm hoping we have a clearer picture at the end of all this. Then finding someone who says they totally support Snowden will be like finding a 70 year-old who admits they voted against JFK.

No it won't because some people don't want the government storing large amounts of data about them whether or not it includes actual voice recordings. He has the support of the libertarian right as well as the libertarian left. He has the support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is definitely a heavy hitter when it comes to online freedom and privacy. You're just painting a picture of your fantasy because you support an authoritarian government. You also don't have any supporting documentation to prove your claim so you are a hypocrite.


Next thing you know, it'll turn out the government even has our social security numbers and driver's licens information.
 
2013-07-03 10:55:15 AM  

Silly_Sot: Since Messiah Obama is 100% okay with what the NSA has been doing, why are people complaining? Therefore, this MUST BE A GOOD THING, since Messiah Obama is behind it!

So, how is that whole "Change" thing working out? Is it everything you "Hope"d for?


My, what an apt handle you have.
 
2013-07-03 10:59:01 AM  

vygramul: numbquil: I'm hoping we have a clearer picture at the end of all this. Then finding someone who says they totally support Snowden will be like finding a 70 year-old who admits they voted against JFK.

No it won't because some people don't want the government storing large amounts of data about them whether or not it includes actual voice recordings. He has the support of the libertarian right as well as the libertarian left. He has the support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is definitely a heavy hitter when it comes to online freedom and privacy. You're just painting a picture of your fantasy because you support an authoritarian government. You also don't have any supporting documentation to prove your claim so you are a hypocrite.

Next thing you know, it'll turn out the government even has our social security numbers and driver's licens information.


Yeah that would be real insane considering that the government issues those things, smart ass. It takes a special kind of stupid to not understand that those pieces of information are different from tracking your actions and communications.
 
2013-07-03 11:11:30 AM  

numbquil: Yeah that would be real insane considering that the government issues those things, smart ass. It takes a special kind of stupid to not understand that those pieces of information are different from tracking your actions and communications.


Ture. If only the government was tracking our actions and communications. We'd be in complete agreement.
 
2013-07-03 11:11:42 AM  
And here I was, worried that no one was reading my gay erotic Breaking Bad fan fiction blog.  Thank you for caring, NSA.
 
2013-07-03 11:23:11 AM  

Peki: It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to.


That is legitimately amazing. How do you deal with the social pressure? Don't you take shiat about that several times a day? I have always wanted to ask a non-cellphone person about how they deal with it, but felt I was just being part of the problem by doing so.
 
Bf+
2013-07-03 11:40:39 AM  
osten.net
 
2013-07-03 11:54:22 AM  

vygramul: numbquil: Yeah that would be real insane considering that the government issues those things, smart ass. It takes a special kind of stupid to not understand that those pieces of information are different from tracking your actions and communications.

Ture. If only the government was tracking our actions and communications. We'd be in complete agreement.


You have no idea whether or not they are tracking our actions and communications. They are most definitely monitoring the information that is posted publicly on social media sites. Why would they not monitor the information that is not public as well? It is 100% legal and they have the ability to do it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are. We know that they use an algorithm to sift through all the public data and search for certain words and combinations of words. This knowledge has been made available to us via FOIA requests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Is it not possible that they are also collecting non-public information based on provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that make it legal to do so, and then sifting through it using the same algorithm and dumping the garbage? I say we meet in Fredericksburg and settle this issue man to man.
 
2013-07-03 11:57:06 AM  

numbquil: I say we meet in Fredericksburg and settle this issue man to man.


I call dibs on the fence.
 
2013-07-03 02:16:38 PM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts.

Understood, but there are qualifiers missing.  Before you start claiming they can capture everything twice, you need to think about how long to store shiat so it can be at least lightly scanned.  Turns out, the data just keeps coming in.  So, maybe not everything.  Also, it's rather remarkable how much metadata gets generated on really big transactional databases.  Ask our friends at Google, it's  rather remarkable the hoops you need to jump through when you're dealing with data on these scales.

It's not going to be easy to have a rational discussion about whether or not the NSA is too intrusive if we don't really know how intrusive they are.  This article is not a good starting point.

Cheers.

//Never built anything transactional larger than 1 TB
//Bloody datawarehouses at 100TB are a major pain


I realize all of that. I work with big data, a lot. While we aren't quite at the Google level we are pretty close.
 
2013-07-03 03:02:22 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: GameSprocket: To be useful, the data would have to be at least on magnetic disk. At around $10/GB, each zettabyte would cost almost $11 trillion (1,099,511,627,776 GB. Check my Math. I am very tired).


Apparently so..otherwise, are you honestly trying to tell me that the 500GB HDD in my $400 laptop cost $5000..?

Looking at the Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB HDD on walmart. com ($53.86), I come up with a cost/GB right around $0.10

Yer off by two orders of magnitude in your calculations..at least..


Told you I was tired. The $10/GB came from an article about the cost of storage in a data center and probably rolls in the cost of backup and maintenance.
 
2013-07-03 03:12:42 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: There is a reason they have 5 ZB in SLC and another 2.5 in San Antonio. They didn't just put that crazy amount of storage capability out there because ZOMG SO COOL!

They did it because of intercepts.


Let's keep in mind that 95% of the world's population lives outside of our borders, and is a legal target of un-warranted and unlimited NSA surveillance.
 
2013-07-03 04:50:14 PM  

mccallcl: Peki: It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to.

That is legitimately amazing. How do you deal with the social pressure? Don't you take shiat about that several times a day? I have always wanted to ask a non-cellphone person about how they deal with it, but felt I was just being part of the problem by doing so.


Take shiat everyday? No, I'd stab someone in the neck after about the 50th time. Helps that I'm a little weird to begin with. Basically I tell them that I am not at anyone's beck and call. E-mail me, and I will get back to you when convenient to me. I'm not a dog; I don't get a leash. I also have a lot of time that I'm not working, and because a lot of my actual work is volunteer, people think, "Well, Peki doesn't have a job, so she'll be available for anything I ask her." Not having a cellphone is a convenient way to disabuse people of that notion.
 
2013-07-03 08:50:48 PM  

Peki: mccallcl: Peki: It's amazing what you find you can live without when you have to.

That is legitimately amazing. How do you deal with the social pressure? Don't you take shiat about that several times a day? I have always wanted to ask a non-cellphone person about how they deal with it, but felt I was just being part of the problem by doing so.

Take shiat everyday? No, I'd stab someone in the neck after about the 50th time. Helps that I'm a little weird to begin with. Basically I tell them that I am not at anyone's beck and call. E-mail me, and I will get back to you when convenient to me. I'm not a dog; I don't get a leash. I also have a lot of time that I'm not working, and because a lot of my actual work is volunteer, people think, "Well, Peki doesn't have a job, so she'll be available for anything I ask her." Not having a cellphone is a convenient way to disabuse people of that notion.


I just refuse to give out the number. If work wants to reach my by cellphone, they'll have to give me one.
 
2013-07-03 08:57:22 PM  

vygramul: I just refuse to give out the number. If work wants to reach my by cellphone, they'll have to give me one.


I tried that, but the fiancé sabotaged the plan.

/which is why I originally went from pre-paid TracPhone to unlimited Metro. Farker has a lot of friends, and they all started calling me. :/
 
2013-07-03 10:02:27 PM  

Peki: TDBoedy: You do realize that just because you give information (contractually) to a third party does not mean that you give up all rights to privacy?  I conduct business contractually with my bank.  They are a third party.  I am not spraying my information into the "ethersphere" simply by doing it electronically instead of in-person with a bank employee.

Yes, I do. There's a legal phrase called expectation of privacy. It's why the FBI called when I turned my ex-husband in regarding stuff on his computer. If the computer had been password protected, then I would have no right to turn the evidence over to the cops. There wasn't, so there was no "expectation of privacy."

However, I'm old school. I was raised that no matter what you send out there, someone can grab it and use it against you, privacy be damned. As I've gotten older, that just seems to hold more and more true. Also, expectation of privacy is a small consolation when you're being held indefinitely in GITMO and never get a trial (and if you think that people aren't being held indefinitely on US soil without trial, you don't know much about the immigration situation).

/same as how yes, I have an expectation that a bank won't send people to trash all my stuff, but it happens anyway. You might win the court battle, but your shiat is still gone and you're gonna go through a lot in legal fees before you get anything remotely approaching "justice"


oh good we're comparing the government to thugs now.  At least we're on the same page.  And GITMO has nothing to do with this.  Ohh look a red herring!  And if it (the computer) had been pw protected and you knew the pw yes you could have turned it in and also your testimony could be used to get a warrant to break the pw.  So it seems to me that the legs you're standing on are a bit flimsy.
 
2013-07-03 11:30:49 PM  

Evil High Priest: Silverstaff: MisterRonbo: There are quotes from authorities that strongly indicate this happened with the Boston bombers.

Citation Needed.

Please.  I'm kinda curious.  What Government officials say that the US went back to pre-existing archives of tapped calls to investigate the Tsarnaev Brothers?  I'd not heard anything about this, and I'm kinda wondering what official would say this if it was a classified program.

Here ya go:

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks
On Wednesday night,
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".


So, a FORMER FBI agent says this, on CNN, speaking as a private citizen acting as a talking media head.  Just why is he former?

Looking on IMDB and other sites, it looks like he left the Bureau to be a TV writer, actor and consultant, specializing in espionage and law enforcement series.  The guy makes a living writing spy fantasies, and you're buying something he vaguely implied once to say there is a vast "big brother" system out there?

I'm not buying it.  Tim Clemente could cook up any bullshiat he wanted and feed it to people just to make ratings.  He makes his living telling people fantasy tales about spies and agents, based on the fact that at one point he was an agent himself.  Ian Fleming was a former Intelligence Officer, but that doesn't make James Bond a real agent.

I said where a government official said that, not a former agent vaguely implying so in his role as a media commentator.  Funny thing is, that if it could do this, the PRISM briefing slides that were leaked should mention it, but it only mentions capturing metadata in bulk.  If Snowden had proof of some monolithic "big brother" project, why didn't he reveal that, instead of PRISM, which certainly appears to be compliant with Fourth Amendment rules and Intelligence Oversight directives.

I honestly believe the idea that the NSA is recording every phone call, every bit of internet traffic, is a tinfoil hat paranoid conspiracy.
 
Displayed 382 of 382 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report