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  
•       •       •

4803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:10 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report