OT - NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls

[Flasch186]

see the problem with the idea of you can have my phone records cuz I dont commit a crime works until the interpretation of a law or ideal changes. See it might be fine for you today but what if someday they decide that calling X should be a crime and eventhough the constituency is in an uproar no one in the government does anything about it because the Congress has shirked their responsibility to be a check and the Pres. is under the impression that he has a mandate. I guess, what Im saying is what if someday they decide that Jews seem to be a hotbed of terrorist activity so they start looking closely at my calls and one day I say, "I hate our President" and at that time, maybe a year from now, the Admin and its supporters have cowtowed to that statement being a precursor to terrorism. Off I go to Gitmo. It is a slippery slope but from where we started a while ago, years ago, we ARE moving down it.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But I'm looking really, really hard at how this is a link from a chain. The sheer numbers and staggering amount of data will make it difficult for them to track anyone specific. What they have is a huge storage of data, nothing more, nothing less.

Is it true that its really so staggering? Assuming that the average American makes 50 outgoing phone calls per month. Also assume that table holds source phone number, desitnation phone number, date/time of call (accurate to the minute) and duration of the call in seconds. In that case you're looking at each row containing 14 bytes of data (4 bytes for 10 digit phone numbers, 2 bytes for duration, and 4 bytes for date/time). So you end up with the following:

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

That seems like a lot of data to the layman, but my firewall logs generate 1 GB of data per day for a single subnet and I can pretty easily keep a month of data online and fully searchable and generate useful reports on the data in reasonable time (measured in hours) on database server that's over five years old.... assuming you have the budget, staffing, and motive of a group like the NSA and I can't see how that amount of data is anywhere near staggering.

[flounder]

Here's an interesting article showing what Republicans were saying about this kind of stuff when it was going on in the Clinton administration. The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

Two of the principal mechanisms by which the rulers of 20th century police states maintained their control over their people were the file and the internal passport. These governments kept a cumulative file (called the dangan in Communist China) on every individual's performance and attitudes from school years through adult employment. Citizens carried an internal passport or "papers" that had to be presented to the authorities for permission to travel within the country, to take up residence in another city, or to apply for a new job.

These two methods of personal surveillance -- efficient watchdogs that prevented any emergence of freedom -- required an army of bureaucrats fortified by a Gestapo, a Stasi or a KGB, plus the ability to commandeer an unlimited supply of paper and file folders. Technology has now made the task of building personal files on every citizen, and tracking our actions and movements, just as easy as logging onto the Internet.

Unknown to most Americans, coordinated plans are well underway to give the Federal Government the power to input personal information on all Americans onto a government database. The computer will record our school, business, medical, financial, and personal activities, and track our movements as we travel about the United States.

These plans were authorized by the so-called conservative Congress and are eagerly implemented and expanded by the Clinton Administration liberals. They plan to force all Americans to carry an I.D. card linked to a federal database, without which we will not be able to drive a car, get a job, board a plane, enter a hospital emergency room or school, have a bank account, cash a check, buy a gun, or have access to government benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Putting all that information on a government database means the end of privacy as we know it. Daily actions we all take for granted will henceforth be recorded, monitored, tracked, and contingent on showing The Card.

[Franklinnoble]

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flounder

Here's an interesting article showing what Republicans were saying about this kind of stuff when it was going on in the Clinton administration. The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

I'm not sure these situations are close enough to use for a comparison.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by tategter

I really don't see the problem here. Hell, the government can post the transcripts of all of my personal calls on the front page of the NY Times for all I care. If the NSA can nip even one terrorist action in the bud by monitoring phone calls then by-all-means let them.

Setting aside any constitutional arguments of turning over evidence against yourself, this is the argument I would expect from people who will support one agenda without blinking.

So let's say the government does have a list of your personal calls -- not transcripts, because these are just lists of calls. Last month, you tried to call a store to see how late they are open. You transpose a number and call the wrong number. The number you called is an idividual linked to terrorist. You are called in for questioning and held on suspcion of terrorism. You protest that it was a wrong number, but you can't prove that. The call was short, but it was certainly long enough to get a across a coded message.

Is it far fetched? Might seem that way, but there have been plenty of people held in times of war in this country, including today, on weaker evidence. A stroll through a history book will show you that.

[BrianD]

On the plus side, I was under the impression that the NSA was already doing all of this tracking and more, so I'm not really any farther behind.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.

Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted. It used to be for what your party stood before it got sidetracked by the neocons...

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by flounder

The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

Lucky for me that I don't hold allegiance to any political party, and vote instead based on individual candidates.

Speaking of which, I hate this shite.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. More power to them.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

see the problem with the idea of you can have my phone records cuz I dont commit a crime works until the interpretation of a law or ideal changes. See it might be fine for you today but what if someday they decide that calling X should be a crime and eventhough the constituency is in an uproar no one in the government does anything about it because the Congress has shirked their responsibility to be a check and the Pres. is under the impression that he has a mandate.

The real problem is that every time we've had something like this in the past it has ended up being subverted and used for political purposes. See the Church Committee stuff I posted earlier. Guilt and innocence aren't important, it's political affiliation that will determine whether or not you'll be victimized by this program.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Subby

Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted. It used to be for what your party stood before it got sidetracked by the neocons...

As far as I'm concerned, my privacy and personal freedom isn't compromised by this.

If they start telling me that phone calls to my office or to my parents in Tennessee is a crime, then I'll worry about it. But right now, my phone calls are just a handful amongst billions. The only thing this database is good for is if someone wants to be able to do a quick and easy query against a specific phone number. I could see it being very helpful for law enforcement, and it will have zero effect on me.

[tategter]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Setting aside any constitutional arguments of turning over evidence against yourself, this is the argument I would expect from people who will support one agenda without blinking.

So let's say the government does have a list of your personal calls -- not transcripts, because these are just lists of calls. Last month, you tried to call a store to see how late they are open. You transpose a number and call the wrong number. The number you called is an idividual linked to terrorist. You are called in for questioning and held on suspcion of terrorism. You protest that it was a wrong number, but you can't prove that. The call was short, but it was certainly long enough to get a across a coded message.

Is it far fetched? Might seem that way, but there have been plenty of people held in times of war in this country, including today, on weaker evidence. A stroll through a history book will show you that.

I'll take those odds if the program foils even one terrorist plot before it happens. I love the 'what if' scenarios that people come-up with to counter a problem that doesn't exist.

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by tategter

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

No, but our rapidly eroding right to live our life without the government controlling/watching every move we make IS more important.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by tategter

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

It's like Madlibs:

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your _____________ are/is more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

______________ can equal any liberty or intrusion

private mail
day spent in jail
right to attend a mosque
access to books
right to vote
being fired by your employer because the government database flags you
weekly home searches by the police
freedom from constant video surveillance

The list is virtually infinite. And each intrusion can be justified on its own terms with that simple rhetorical question.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It's like Madlibs:

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your 4-fingered anal cavity search is more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

This game is fun.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by tategter

I'll take those odds if the program foils even one terrorist plot before it happens. I love the 'what if' scenarios that people come-up with to counter a problem that doesn't exist.

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

That's part of the problem. It seems that to stifle debate, people pull out "It's part of the war on terror" card.

No one is saying phone records are more precious than a life. That's a strawman intended to also stifle debate and ridicule those who are against this practice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted.

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?

Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by cartman

No one is saying phone records are more precious than a life. That's a strawman intended to also stifle debate and ridicule those who are against this practice.

Bingo. And it's the tactic that the GOP has used to death for 4 years to an unbelievable degree of success. I'm glad to see the tide is turning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/wa...erland&emc=rss

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?
Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?

Freedom also includes freedom "from" something. An athiest/Jew/Buddist in a public school isn't forced to do or not do anything when the teacher decides to lead the class in prayer to Jesus Christ, but our laws protect us "from" being subjeced to religion in the public schools. No one is claiming they don't think they will be able to make a phone call, rather we should be able to do so without being spied upon unwarranted.

not the strongest analogy, I know...

[cartman]

The government's track record for "compartmentalizing" data they collect and not allowing it to be used for other than the originally intended purpose is extremely poor. For example, did you expect that the data collected from the "No Child Left Behind" act would be used by the Pentagon to find potential military recruits?

No one is against being protected from harm. That goes for both external threats as well as internal threats. This current program of collecting all phone calls reeks of "out of the frying pan" (detecting and preventing terrorist attacks) and "into the fire" (other government agencies culling this data without explanation or oversight).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

This current program of collecting all phone calls reeks of "out of the frying pan" (detecting and preventing terrorist attacks) and "into the fire" (other government agencies culling this data without explanation or oversight).

Did you really just equate those two possibilities?

And if so, was it intentional?

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?

Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report. Not just talking about government leaks but corperate connections, people with connections to illegal activity, whatever. Maybe on the surface this looks harmless but it is far from that.

[NoMyths]

Link: Bush: We're Not Trolling Your Personal Life

Full Text:
Bush: We're Not Trolling Your Personal Life

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans" with a reported program to create a massive database of U.S. phone calls.

"Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," Bush said. "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."

Bush was responding to a USA Today report Thursday that three telecommunication firms provided the National Security Agency with domestic telephone call records from millions of Americans beginning shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001. (Transcript of Bush's statements)

Bush did not specifically mention the newspaper's report.

In response to the USA Today article, NSA spokesman Don Weber issued a statement saying, "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide.

"However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
Lawmakers concerned

Members of Congress expressed concern Thursday about the report.

"It's our government, government of every single American -- Republican, Democrat or independent," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "...Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing."

In the House, Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "I'm concerned about what I read with regard to the NSA database of phone calls. ... I'm not sure why it's necessary to us to keep and have that kind of information."

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said he would call on representatives from the companies named in the USA Today story, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, to testify.
Conservatives defend program

However, during a morning session, Republican members of the committee defended the legality and necessity of such a database.

The USA Today report said the program did not involve the NSA "listening to or recording conversations," a point that Sen. Jeff Sessions touched on.

"No recordings and no conversations were intercepted here, so there was no wiretapping here," Sessions said.

"The president after 9/11 told the American people he was going to use the powers given to him to protect this country. ... It's not a warrantless wiretapping of the American people."

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona also faulted the revelation of the program as harmful to national security.

"This is nuts," said Kyle. "We are in a war and we've go to collect intelligence on the enemy and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you are going to do it. And discussing all of this in public leads to that."

But Leahy, a vocal critic of the wiretapping program, praised the USA Today report, saying "it's a sorry state" that the committee will have to call on the telecom companies for the information.

"We have to do that because our own government won't answer questions," Leahy said. "Neither this committee nor any committee in the House or in the Senate has gotten adequate answers. ...

"The press is doing our work for us and we should be ashamed."
Hayden visits canceled

The report comes at an awkward time for CIA director nominee Gen. Michael Hayden, whom President Bush named this week to replace Porter Goss as head of the spy agency. Hayden, whose confirmation hearings begin next Thursday, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005.

Boehner said he thought that Hayden will "have a lot more explaining to do."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California -- who supports Hayden's nomination -- said the information will "present a growing impediment" to his confirmation, a development she said she regretted.

Facing Senate confirmation hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 18, Hayden's meeting today with Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, were canceled.

The report comes months after the Bush administration came under criticism on Capitol Hill for ordering an NSA surveillance program, that allowed communication to be monitored between people in the United States and terrorism suspects overseas without a court order.

Hayden headed the NSA when the wiretapping program was launched in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

President Bush has argued that the resolution authorizing military action after the 9/11 attacks, along with his authority as commander-in-chief of the military, give him the power to initiate the program without a court order, as a 1978 law requires.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report. Not just talking about government leaks but corperate connections, people with connections to illegal activity, whatever. Maybe on the surface this looks harmless but it is far from that.

Good point. Would have changed the "who is the leak to xyz story" investigations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report.

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

When too many times this administration seems to believe that anything criticizing the government is against 'national security', the scales should balance for the reporter. Freedom of speech is the last bulwark of a free society and all attempts to diminish it should be fought tooth and nail against the big government folk.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

Does this DB really help national security? Seems if they identify a number as being related to terrorist activity they can pretty easily get the same information that would be in the DB through legit channels that no one would complain about.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

How about this one Jon. Which would you rather our government is doing? Compiling phone information on everyone or scanning every single shipment that comes through our ports. I sure know which one I would choose yet they don't seem to be focused in on simple, effective, ideas that have already been proposed. They seem intent on stupid things like this that are relatively worthless AND are an inconvienience for a reporter.

[dixieflatline]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans" with a reported program to create a massive database of U.S. phone calls.

"Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," Bush said. "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."

They aren't mining through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans? That is exactly what they are doing. And, if they are actually going to use this data to try to catch terrorists, then that is exactly what they need to do. They need to mine the data to find regular paterns so they can find the anomolies. Without the regular paterns this is useless.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

You have a very good ability to take a point and twist it to make it sound absurd. This inconvenience for a reporter could well amount to an informant being unwilling to talk about corruption or scandal becase he knows his anonymity can't be protected. This sort of thing could weaken national security as well.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not near as sensitive to this as others I guess. By the way, when Republicans were making claims about liberals collecting data about everyday citizens in huge databases, I rolled my eyes as well. If I look at this as simply a governement agency collecting data to use in the protection of our Nation, I don't have a problem with it. If the NSA records every call in the US, I don't have a problem, so long as they are using the information to protect the people of the United States.

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program. If I understand it correctly the FISA court ruled that anything gathered using the techniques employed wouldn't be admissable in a court of law. So, from that perspective, why would a warrant be required in the first place?

[BishopMVP]

Without even arguing the merits of the case, I did find it hilarious to see this as the huge front-page story today in the USA Today. I mean, the EFF sued AT&T over this back in January hxxp://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ and the government filed a State Secrets motion 2 weeks ago hxxp://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/USA_statement_of_interest.pdf

AT&T's Daytona database and its uses (Hawkeye - the program in question here) is even on the web @ http://www.research.att.com/~daytona/

Originally Posted by Daimyo

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

According to that last link,
Hawkeye, the database of record for all of AT&T's call detail, consisting of over 312 terabytes of information and 1.88 trillion records.

Here http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php#16 is probably a much better FAQ on the actual program than anything out of mainstream news reports.

Overall, maybe it's just that I know people who have worked for the government in areas near this, but this is really that surprising? I can't wait until USA Today, CNN and everyone else up in arms about FISA court violations find out about the NSA's Echelon program.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

..

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

...

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program.

I'm curious why you would assume that given that past evidence has consistently shown the opposite?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program. If I understand it correctly the FISA court ruled that anything gathered using the techniques employed wouldn't be admissable in a court of law. So, from that perspective, why would a warrant be required in the first place?

Shit, it's behind the subscriber archive wall now, but law enforcement has been data-mining this for a looooooong time already. AT&T's database at least also predates 9/11 - it's been collecting and storing data pretty much since the 50's at least from what little I've heard.

Originally Posted by http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C16F8345A0C768EDDAB0894DE404482

the mining of the databases in other law enforcement investigations is well established, with documented results. One application of the database technology, called Security Call Analysis and Monitoring Platform, or Scamp, offers access to about nine weeks of calling information. It currently handles about 70,000 queries a month from fraud and law enforcement investigators, according to AT&T documents.
A former AT&T official who had detailed knowledge of the call-record database said the Daytona system takes great care to make certain that anyone using the database - whether AT&T employee or law enforcement official with a subpoena - sees only information he or she is authorized to see, and that an audit trail keeps track of all users. Such information is frequently used to build models of suspects' social networks.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive corporate matters, said every telephone call generated a record: number called, time of call, duration of call, billing category and other details. While the database does not contain such billing data as names, addresses and credit card numbers, those records are in a linked database that can be tapped by authorized users.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You have a very good ability to take a point and twist it to make it sound absurd.

Honestly Brian, you did that for me. For you to even hint that your hypothetical was somehow a concern worth not undertaking this program over was, frankly, absurd all by itself.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Is it true that its really so staggering? Assuming that the average American makes 50 outgoing phone calls per month. Also assume that table holds source phone number, desitnation phone number, date/time of call (accurate to the minute) and duration of the call in seconds. In that case you're looking at each row containing 14 bytes of data (4 bytes for 10 digit phone numbers, 2 bytes for duration, and 4 bytes for date/time). So you end up with the following:

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

That seems like a lot of data to the layman, but my firewall logs generate 1 GB of data per day for a single subnet and I can pretty easily keep a month of data online and fully searchable and generate useful reports on the data in reasonable time (measured in hours) on database server that's over five years old.... assuming you have the budget, staffing, and motive of a group like the NSA and I can't see how that amount of data is anywhere near staggering.

I think we have a misunderstanding.

Is the data so staggering it can't be tracked? Hell no. Creating a database that can do it is not all that complex.

But once you have data, you have to do something with it. You can number crunch data. (ie: length of calls, distance of calls, time of day calls happen in) or any variety of that fairly easily.

Now, digging down deeper than that in a large database? It's a thankless, time consuming mess. Even if they get the information that say Tim at 555-555-5555 has called these numbers at these times, they then have to find out who the hell Tim is, who the hell he was calling, if it varied from the norm. . . It never ends.

Getting macro data on the habits of the "average" American will be a snap. Digging down to individuals and being able to use things for "evil" purposes is a ridiculously tough thing to do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I can't wait until USA Today, CNN and everyone else up in arms about FISA court violations find out about the NSA's Echelon program.

LOL, nice play.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.

Yeah, espeically with the recent proliferation of cell phones. AT&T's database alone is "over 312 terabytes of information and 1.88 trillion records." And I don't think they even deal with cell phones. When people are talking about the NSA eavesdropping, it seems like they have this mental picture of thousands of employees listening to every conversation. I then think about walking around campus and the thousands of different inane conversations people are having and laugh. Just imagine a government employee sitting there and listening to some college-age girl talk about what this cute boy said to her and what the professor said and oh my god totally and whats going on tonight and multiply by several thousand.

The reality is far different, with flagging and stuff, but I've always assumed that every phone call could be eavesdropped on - if I mention something on the phone like "you see the vice president is in trouble for shooting somebody" my dad will half-jokingly say "well, this call's been flagged."

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Now, digging down deeper than that in a large database? It's a thankless, time consuming mess. Even if they get the information that say Tim at 555-555-5555 has called these numbers at these times, they then have to find out who the hell Tim is, who the hell he was calling, if it varied from the norm. . . It never ends.

Getting macro data on the habits of the "average" American will be a snap. Digging down to individuals and being able to use things for "evil" purposes is a ridiculously tough thing to do.

Guess who is the leading employer of mathematicians in the country? http://www.nsa.gov/careers/careers_3.cfm

For a bonus question, guess what building contains the largest accumulation of computer power in any one building on Earth? Congrats if you figured out the answer - "one Cray Triton supercomputer at the facility can handle 64 billion instructions per second, and there are many of them at the NSA."


Overall, yeah, I know what you're getting at and I'm trying to find some article somewhere that discussed how the NSA was handling this and the algorithms and crazy stuff they were doing and implementing. EDIT - I can't find it now, but if you're interested in the topic there is some fascinating stuff on the cryptanalysis out there.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Shit, it's behind the subscriber archive wall now, but law enforcement has been data-mining this for a looooooong time already. AT&T's database at least also predates 9/11 - it's been collecting and storing data pretty much since the 50's at least from what little I've heard.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement collecting the data directly from the vendors with a search warrant, which is what I believe you are talking about. I just don't want my local PD to decide that they want a list of all numbers frequently calling or being called by those temporary cell phones in some sort of attempt at a drug probe. I don't want this particular data available for mining by just any portion of the governement.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I'm curious why you would assume that given that past evidence has consistently shown the opposite?

What evidence do you have that ANY of the so-called wire-tapping evidence has made it to law enforcement officials. This kind of thing is spurred on by shows like Law and Order showing detectives dropping into libraries with search warrants, citing the patriot act, to gather evidence regarding a fraud or murder investigation. It just isn't happening, but that doesn't stop people from citing it as fact.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly Brian, you did that for me. For you to even hint that your hypothetical was somehow a concern worth not undertaking this program over was, frankly, absurd all by itself.

I never said it was worth not undertaking this program over. Just pointing out that it was valid enough to not dismiss so completely.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What evidence do you have that ANY of the so-called wire-tapping evidence has made it to law enforcement officials. This kind of thing is spurred on by shows like Law and Order showing detectives dropping into libraries with search warrants, citing the patriot act, to gather evidence regarding a fraud or murder investigation. It just isn't happening, but that doesn't stop people from citing it as fact.

Have a look at my post on the Chuch Report, or better yet, go read it yourself. They found that programs for domestic surveillance, be they FBI, DoD, CIA, or NSA, going back four decades through numerous presidential adiminstrations, had all been twisted to political ends, used for political espionage, interference, and intimidation. Not by a few bad apples, but consistently and repeatedly.

I have no information on precisely how this program is being used. It's classified. I don't have security clearance. Nobody knows except the NSA and possibly some of the high level administration officials. We're all in the dark on this. But my point is, why do you assume it isn't being used to other ends when every other similar program has been?

Democracy is founded on the idea that unchecked power cannot be trusted. Accumulated political power is made acceptable through transparency and accountability. If you believe in the basic tenets of democracy, why would you assume that secret and unaccountable powers would not be abused? Particularly when we have so much evidence that in similar situations in the past that is exactly what has happened? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

Ok, lets say a competitor of yours gets your call info via a contact at the NSA or which ever agencies end up with access to the data, and starts to target your customers for account takeovers. You find out, get pissed off, and want to know how they got this data. "Sorry your business is ruined, Mr. JIMGA, but that is classified information in the War on Terror. We can't divulge how that information was leaked."

something for national security vs. one guy's business

I wonder how that balances on the scales.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Did you really just equate those two possibilities?

And if so, was it intentional?

Dola,

In no way was I equating them as being equally bad. You might have read that into it, but it was more of an argument against "the ends justify the means" when there is more than one possible "end".

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Have a look at my post on the Chuch Report, or better yet, go read it yourself. They found that programs for domestic surveillance, be they FBI, DoD, CIA, or NSA, going back four decades through numerous presidential adiminstrations, had all been twisted to political ends, used for political espionage, interference, and intimidation. Not by a few bad apples, but consistently and repeatedly.

I have no information on precisely how this program is being used. It's classified. I don't have security clearance. Nobody knows except the NSA and possibly some of the high level administration officials. We're all in the dark on this. But my point is, why do you assume it isn't being used to other ends when every other similar program has been?

Democracy is founded on the idea that unchecked power cannot be trusted. Accumulated political power is made acceptable through transparency and accountability. If you believe in the basic tenets of democracy, why would you assume that secret and unaccountable powers would not be abused? Particularly when we have so much evidence that in similar situations in the past that is exactly what has happened? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends. The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court. Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.

[SirFozzie]

Here's the part I love.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

FISA won't rubber stamp us and might say no.., so we won't ask em. Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it, so should you.

and they wouldn't even go to the AG (who's a Bush yes-man) to get a letter to say it was ok!

Way way out of bounds

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends.

That will get roundly ignored, like the other laws they encourage others to break.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court.

That the NSA ignores, because they won't rubberstamp whatever they want to do.

[quot=Glengoyne] Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. [/quote]

And if they complain, the door is slammed in their face with regards to clearnace.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.

See my post above, it's being shared with various other intelligence agencies.