General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey did NOT listen to your phone calls. Repeat: They did NOT listen to your phone calls
I just want to make this clear, lest people get confused on this minor point. Unlike Bush, who illegally wiretapped people, Obama legally collected information with congressional oversight and explicitly did NOT record or listen in to anybody's phone conversations.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled poutrage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Drale
(7,932 posts)MEDIA....OUTRAGE....RABBLE RABBLE.....RAWWRRR!!! 
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)But how can you really know?
That question also applies to the people who think that they are listening.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...over the hypothetical possibility that the government might be doing something bad with NO EVIDENCE it's actually occurring and screaming scandal because of THAT they are a fucking idiot.
SCANDAL!!!! OUTRAGE!!!! I imagine there's some possibility that the government might maybe be doping something I don't know about and it might not be good!!!!! Quick!!! Take to the streets!!!!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think for some around here, the anti-government OUTRAGE is the intent.
The details are irrelevant.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)that there's no evidence whatsoever that any innocent has ever been ensnared by this. Regretfully, there's no good evidence that a guilty party has either.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)is naive, to say the least. Hell will freeze over before the government produces evidence (pro or con) resulting from "no such progrm".
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)If they've hooked a perp using this info but don't use the info as evidence, then they have to rely on some other proof of wrongdoing. Absent that, the perp walks. Moreso, if they've trapped an innocent but withhold the evidence, how can they pursue charges?
In other words, the evidence is either evidence or it's not. Can you cite an example of anyone ever having this information used against them?
dgibby
(9,474 posts)If it's a covert/classified op, the government will neither confirm nor deny it's existence, much less the results of any action taken with the info collected through the use of said non-existent program.
The problem is we will never know whether or not anyone has had this evidence used against them unless the government wants us to know about.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Unless you're suggesting that innocent citizens are being swept off the streets because they ordered extra pepperoni, then tried in extrajudicial courts near the earth's core, there's simply no evidence that anyone has been convicted, let alone tried, or charged, or arrested based upon telephone records stored by the NSA.
Do you believe that there are phantom juries assembled across the street from Hell?
dgibby
(9,474 posts)Here's the problem. That info can be used in any number of ways that we or the individual in question, will never know about. For instance: no fly list, denied passport application, denied government job, denied military service, denied food stamps, welfare, etc, etc. It doesn't have to be something that results in a trial and/or conviction in a court of law.
Has it occurred to you that if the republicans get into the White House again, there's a good chance everything you've posted on DU could be used against you? It's all in a metadata base somewhere. What's to prevent it from being used against you?
NSA, which is a branch of DOD has contracted with Booz Allen to collect info about US citizens. Booz Allen is owned by The Caryle Group (think Bush Family and Friends). In addition, Clapper, the head spook, is an alumni of Booz Allen. What could possibly go wrong with this scenario?
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Can you give me a cite from someone who experienced one or more of the above, based on nothing whatsoever? Because that would have to be the explanation, right?
I'm serious, BTW. Not snarking. I want to know if someone has been denied food stamps because of their telephone conversations.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I'm just saying it's possible, depending on who's in charge and what their agenda is.
My experience (22 years in the military) and a brother who was invoved in black ops for most of his adult life (unbeknown to his family and friends) tells me that the government can do anything it wants to do whenever it wants to do it, without ever divulging it to anyone.
After my brother retired, and before he died, we all believed he was a National Guard Reservist and a civil servant. While that was true, what we didn't know was that he had, at sometime, early in his career, been recruited for black ops work. When he was recruited back in the early '60's, I think, ALL of us were subjected to background checks (without our knowledge). I became aware of this in early 2008, right before he died, but only because he was allowed to tell us. Of course, he wasn't allowed to say anything about what he'd done, just that he'd been undercover for years.
I had no trouble believing him because, by that time, I was retired from the Navy, so had first hand knowledge of how the military operated. In fact, to this day, I'm not allowed to talk about some of the things I was aware of when my security clearance was active, and that was pretty tame stuff.
I was young, idealistic, and very naive when I joined the Navy, believed everything the government told me, and was in awe of authority, as I was raised in an authoritarian Republican, religious family environment in the South. My dad was Chief of Police and my mother was a Justice of the Peace (magistrate).
When my generation was engaged in the peace movement in the '60's and '70's, I was all like God, Mother, and Apple Pie, my country, right or wrong, and love it or leave it. After 22 years in the military, I had gone from conservative to moderate to a very liberal secular Independent.
I base all my political opinions/beliefs on personal experience and independent news sources as much as possible, and I am definitely NOT as trusting and naive as I once was.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)listen in in real time But they certainly have it All stored for a later date--to be used at the whims of the contractors (NOT "Our people"-Corporate Contractors) and whomever future leaders are....
It's cool if you're "ok" with it---I'm not. Perhaps the "Bigger Picture" might offer clues about how this could go terribly wrong for ordinary citizens.
The fact that many lawmakers are alarmed by this is well, alarming to me.
I think all testimony, opinions, interpretations of laws, constitution and recognition of the differences between constitutionality and legality should be examined.
Next, what good does this sort of data collection do For us? Why is this sort of Security Task contracted out to begin with? Doesn't it alarm you that a young man with a short employment history has this sort of access? Who else does? Are they trustworthy? Why do they have this much access at such a "low level"?
How much does it cost us? Harm VS Benefit definitely plays a role here.
Do Corporations use this gathered info to track us online? Have those confidentiality laws been violated?
Just listen...before forming an opinion.
They have stored records of who we called when, not what was said on that call.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that we don't have a Constitutional expectation of privacy on that, though there are statutory limitations on when that information can be used.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)is that they do have content gathered and stored-Metadata>
http://www.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
How are you certain what you believe is fact in 2013?
How are you assured the 1970's statutory limitations on information are indeed still law?
This has been going on forever-no doubt. What we have now--feels different.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)they're not?
Those who decry the possibility have no credible information to demonstrate they are Not collecting and storing full content--But there are too many lawmakers and others who do know more who are very concerned but cannot discuss this because it's "classified"...Sen Wyden has been objecting to this for many years.....He's alarmed.
Sen Sanders is alarmed and has been for years.
As far as what we are allowed to know--we are in a "Catch-22"....
Recursion
(56,582 posts)in the world.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)How many Zetabyte Centers does one Corporation need?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
just record it, every call in the country, all of them 
That's my job. I sit there and talk to a dude at Sprint so whenever I send a call to him he knows I'm recording and when he sends a call to our network he let's me know so I don't record. No sense in recording the same call twice right? We're good though, we handle like 40 million calls a shift 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Everything in Facebook...everything in Google....everything you do at Google or even the Piggly Wiggly. That's how it is...I fail to understand this sudden outrage.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Money. Privatize security and corporate oligarchs get to mix state security with their financial interests. It's a win win - for them.
cali
(114,904 posts)History is replete with denials from NSA and the CIA that we later found out were entirely false.
You may now return to your pathetic apologist, sycophant bullshit.
We don't know if they do or don't, because everything is.............wait for it.............SECRET. 
Thanks cali for pointing that out.
"I'm afraid we don't know that. History is replete with denials from NSA and the CIA that we later found out were entirely false."
..."we don't know that," why are some people trying to create the impression they did?
"You may now return to your pathetic apologist, sycophant bullshit."
Wow, nasty.
cali
(114,904 posts)Just responding in kind.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Uzair
(241 posts)You don't know what you don't know!
So let me get this straight. You believe exaggerations and hyperbole and outright misdirection from the corporate media that has been trying to destroy Obama from the get go over the word of Obama himself?
He said they didn't record phone calls. I believe him. Why don't you?
PID767
(5 posts)just a thought.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)EVERYTHING about you is stored...by EVERYONE that you do business with...
disidoro01
(302 posts)to disclose any information regarding Fisa and the decisions made, we are stuck with either believing or not believing what the NSA tells us. The NSA has admitted in the past to over gathering information but they say they fixed that issue. They say they don't eavesdrop anymore. They say they just stockpile the information. None of this fills me with confidence. They tell us that the 4th amendment should be reinterpreted to keep us safe. Safe from what? "TERROR"
This boogieman argument is tiresome.
What many on DU really mean is that because it's happening under President Obama, it isn't that bad. What happens if a republican gains the presidency and this is not only continued but expanded? Then will it matter?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)For instance, we know that last year there were about 1700 requests to FISA to look into this data, and all of them were approved. This is note in dispute.
Now, some immediately scream RUBBER STAMP!!!!
But think for a second. 10s of millions of pieces of data, and only 1700 requests. That's it? 1700 requests. That's tiny.
So in reality, there were 1700 requests to dig into the data ... and here on DU, that's a POLICE STATE, and the consensus is that everyone of our calls is monitored.
disidoro01
(302 posts)Have proof of this 1700 number? I'm not trying to be snarky but are you repeating a a line or do we know this for a fact?
To your tens of millions of pieces of data. We have multi billion dollar data warehouses with the ability to hold billions of terabytes...that's the police state. Billions upon billions of terabytes being stored indefinitely, for what purpose? It's unnecessary and it is absolutely ripe for governmental overreach. What happens when your facebook post calling for Bush to be hung for treason is revisted in 5 years after a law has been past that accusing a governmental official, current or past, of treason is now a felony?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The 1700 number.
The most recent place I saw the 1700 number was reported on Lawrence O'Donnell last night during his (apparently live) interview with Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald pointed out that of the 1700+ requests to FISA, not one was denied. Glenn used it to argue that the court is a rubber stamp. So if that's not the number, I'm sure Glenn would have been screaming about that fact.
Also, Huffpo has an article in the last couple days indicating that in the 33 years since the FISA court was created, there have been 33,900 requests to the FISA court. That's a little over 1,000 a year. So that's 2 different sources for roughly the same number.
Storage.
Presently, there is not enough storage to hold all of the content of all of the calls that get made. The servers that you'd need to keep and maintain all of it would need massive amounts of cooling, and that's just to store it all. Capturing it as it happens requires even more storage to hold what you have before sending it to the "main facility". And then theire is the band width need to move it all around. At some point they will be able to store it all. But we are not there yet.
Facebook. Facebook is public. Anything you have ever said there is now part of the public record and potentially recorded for ever. Even if you delete something you said, some one probably took a screen cap of it. Or its in the history files. Bottom line: don't threaten the President on FaceBook.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You are using "somebody told somebody that so and so said this" as fact. Those numbers are what we are being told, that doesn't mean they are real or legit.
http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/index.html
Speculation isn't fact, if you don't want to provide support, that's your call. Do you think Nixon was wrong, Was Reagan?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Oh wait ... according to you that table must also be a lie, and part of the conspiracy.
And as for your link ... certainly you know that is a parody website, right?
... and apparently the site is so secret, that it was announced (along with the intent to build other sites) back in 2009. For instance ... http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12744661
As for speculation not being fact ... yes, and the same goes for much if the hair-on-fire nonsense being posted about how we now live in a police state.
KinMd
(966 posts)if you're doing anything other than chit-chat on a phone..you need a burner. Just ask Avon Barksdale
PSPS
(15,321 posts)As you spin along there, keep in mind that "listening to phone calls" is far from the worst of this anyway. If you're OK with this, then feel free to send me copies of your emails and phone bills, and let me install a keylogger and SpectreSoft on your computer. Thanks!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)But some people do not seem to understand that BILLING information is NOT the same as "listening in to your phone calls."
I am choosing to ignore the scandal du jour. Verizon has all of my information, and I still pay too much for my cell phone.
Personally, I would be willing to provide *all* of my billing information for FREE without hesitation if I could get cheaper cell phone rates.
Cha
(319,079 posts)
Hysterical! And seriously, how many people actually look at the dratted things (other than the bottom line owed)?
I used to work in telecom - I
this graphic!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)it's not going to stop jack shit. Legal or not. If someone is willing to die for their cause all the phone tapping, spying, and security in the world will not stop them. But hey, go ahead and spend billions upon billions of dollars spying on people, it's not like that money could be used any more wisely. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)You can store all the fucking data in the world in one place and have millions of people pouring over it daily. That is not going to stop some crazed religious psycho from bombing a subway...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Every fucking store and website you visit is also storing everything about you that they can....that's called technology. If there wasn't anything that could be done with that data do you think that they would spend their precious bucks on storage of inconsequential minutiae they have on you? They use it to find patterns....exactly what the govt is doing with it...
No one is listening to your phone calls!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)No one is listening to my phone calls, but they are storing all the data to find patterns. Well, thank god no one is listening otherwise they might find some patterns
Do you think terrorists get on the phone and announce what they are planning like they would announce they just ordered some crap from Amazon? Really, get a grip...
Fact. The money being spent on killing and on spying could actually stop terrorism were we not wasting it on spying and killing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why does every business store every damn thing about you they can....if it is so worthless...would they spend the money on it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Is there something I should know? Yes, businesses track you trying to sell you stuff. What in gods name that has to do with spying on terrorists I cannot figure out. If I was going to do something bad I wouldn't be advertising it on the internet or talking about it on the phone. If I'm going to buy a book from Amazon I'll announce it to the world.
And in response to your "data storage is cheap" I suggest you look at the cost of the Utah Data Center and what it's operational costs are going to be and then tell me how "billions" is cheap.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its about patterns....
the real scandal here and you completely missed it....that we paid this high school drop out $200,000 a year...meaning we pay THAT and
probably another $100 grand goes in the pocket of Booz Allen for providing him. $300 grand a year for him and everyone PRIVATE employee like him.....and this is happening thousands apon thousands of times over...because the govt has "outsourced" so many govt jobs to private contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton.....THAT is what you SHOULD be outraged about!
The Carlysle Groupon bought Booz Allen for 2 Billion and now they are valued at 6 Billion....guess who is Booz Allen's ONLY client? YOU are!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)The real scandal is not that we spent billions upon billions in the war on terror and haven't made a dent. We have money for war, for data mining, for tanks and planes we don't need, for bullets, guns and drones, for Halliburton, KB&R, Lockheed and Boeing, for the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the DOD, for contractors like the "high school dropout" you are complaining about, yet there is no money for food stamps, for schools, libraries, for Veterans services, Social Security and Medicare...
A few days ago I heard we were broke as a country. That we all have to make "sacrifices". Funny, I don't see anyone in the Military Industrial Complex sacrificing shit.
But hey, a high school dropout is making $200,000 a year contracting for the government. I should be outraged about him. And I should give up some of my social security to the military so they can make sure that doesn't happen anymore
And one last thing. The data mining is all about patterns. Well Bin Laden had a pattern, shit, the guy announced to the world what he was gonna do. Didn't stop him.
Fact: If a man is willing to DIE for his insane cause there is nothing on the planet that will stop him.
One day we as a nation will learn that war and authoritarianism are the causes of terrorism not the solution. Unless of course you believe that Bush bullshit about "they attacked us for our freedom"...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not by a long shot. I have debt....student loans...but I still have money coming in...I am NOT broke...no more than the U.S. are!
If you are so concerned about our debt....you should be screaming at the top of your lungs to stop the outsourcing of good govt jobs to The Carlysle Group et al.!
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)If Snowden is lying then he hasn't actually revealed sources and methods but according to Boehner and others who want him charged, he has. It can't be both.
Btw, Snowden didn't say they were listening -- he said they record every call so that, if needed, they can listen to it later.
Given the video clip above from a popular TV show, this is not a secret anymore. It is just that many choose not to believe it.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Hey, LESS homeless job-seekers should not be that much bad news around here (I hope).
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)People obeying the law don't commit perjury to cover-up what is perfectly legal.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)or are you curiously selective about civil liberties that matter to you.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We now know that to be untrue. Whether or not he's indicted, tried and convicted remains to be seen -- though I doubt it as the law does not apply to the elites -- but his statement and the opposing truth are there for all to see and cannot be denied.
If what he was doing was not illegal, unethical or immoral then he would not have had cause to lie under oath. If it was a state secret he had plenty of time to prepare an answer to account for that matter.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)and why you wouldn't be selected for Clapper's jury. You continue to repeat that he lied under oath. I assume the congressional committee he lied to will soon charge him.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We know that what he said was not the truth and at the time he said that he was under oath.
Are you asserting his statement was truthful?
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)and that in order to be convicted of a crime, he must first be tried. Trials allow him and his attorney to present evidence, to question their accuser, have a jury of his peers, and other constitutional stuff. I guess we could just skip the formalities since you know the truth but I for one would prefer not to.
When do you suppose the congress will charge him?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Right after they indict Rumsfeld.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)that he's a perjurer and not be confusing my opinion with fact.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)There hasn't been any trial yet (at least to my knowledge) so I have heard no evidence or even accusations of perjury from the people supposedly lied to. For some reason I haven't been invited to participate in any closed hearings they may have had.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Clapper, in answer to Wyden's questions in March testimony, denied that any intentional and massive sweep of Americans phone records as part of counterterror surveillance was occurring. It was revealed in the last week that two such programs do exist and were recently renewed.
In a statement to The Associated Press, Wyden said when NSA Director Keith Alexander didn't provide a full answer to questions about the programs, Wyden gave Clapper a day's notice that he would be asked the question at the hearing. Afterwards, he said, he gave Clapper's office another chance to amend his answer, but Clapper declined.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-no-plans-end-broad-surveillance-program
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)OK, fine. No charges of perjury have been filed but Clapper was asked point blank --
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/07/privacy-wyden-clapper-nsa-video
Explain how that is not a abject, deliberate lie.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)You accused Clapper of perjury, which is a crime, to bolster your argument against civil liberty violations. Then you give me a video link showing Clapper using a weasel word to escape directly answering the question.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper: "No, sir."
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."
There are no weasel words here. "Not wittingly" is not a weasel phrase because the program was very much deliberate. There is nothing "inadvertent" about the program. He lied and the fact he did it in front of the senate is a felony.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)"Not wittingly" is not a weasel phrase because the program was very much deliberate. There is nothing "inadvertent" about the program."
Again you are making claims that you are unable to support with evidence. I still am waiting for a liar or perjurer accusation from the people you claim were lied to.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)since you apparently think disagreeing with you is lying.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is what they are doing, and they are apparently doing it against all phone calls. Or all phone calls to/from foreign countries. In any case it is very broad.
Now how do you suppose they can detect a suspicious pattern? I mean, a phone call's a phone call, right? If I call my daughter and speak for 30 seconds to leave a message, or we speak for an hour, which one is part of a suspicious pattern? You can't really tell, right?
They detect suspicious patterns first by identifying suspicious individuals ("terrorists" or "potential terrorists" . That number is then a nexus for finding other contacts. Now we are told not to worry, they are only targeting bad guys. Terrorists and the like.
But the category of "terrorists" or "potential terrorists" is very broad. OWS, anyone? AFSC? Pretty much any activist group, actually, except for the Tea Party apparently, who can carry loaded weapons to demonstrations and no one bats an eyelash. But apart from them, few activist groups get a pass on this.
In other words: the initial scanning is only part of the picture. They can't even detect patterns without some targeting. But how does the targeting work? Who is initially targeted? And can we rely on their assurances that it's only terrorists who are targeted, and only calls to/from foreign countries?
Finally, a point that has been made before, but deserves to be made again: with all this surveillance they still didn't come up with the Boston Marathon bombers. Even though they were explicitly warned by Russia. Even though Tamerlane left the country, and had phone calls outside the country to known terrorists.
Things that make you go, "hmmm".
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)I challenge you to prove your statement.
Uzair
(241 posts)Obama SAID IT. He said they didn't record phone calls. Why don't you believe him?
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)When did he say that? Did he name me?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Because... he's a fucking politician?
Do you really give credence to things politicians *say*? Even when they're concerning issues that would make them look bad? Even when their associates have already been caught flat out lying on the same subject, and are currently walking things back and in damage control mode?
That's great if you do-- I have some great beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I will know it immediately. It will be in all the papers:
NSA employee found dead at work station. Coroner lists cause of death as "extreme, unrelenting boredom"
eissa
(4,238 posts)I can only imagine the look of utter misery on the poor soul tasked with listening to yet another conversation I'm forced to have with my elderly aunt as she details her latest medical diagnosis.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I would probably be in the papers for the same damn reason. 
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)
PDJane
(10,103 posts)They do have all the information they think they need from the numbers that you call. They will listen if you are calling, for instance, Turkey or the middle east. They will take notes of who you call and when.
And the fact that they are doing this via third-party contractors should have everyone pissed beyond belief. It's a really, really, expensive way to do the fact gathering, and it's full of very leaky holes.
Yes, I really object to every damn company in the world knowing my business, but I really, really object that governments are doing this under the guise of 'making the people safe from terrorism.'
The fact that everyone seems to think that the law allows this merely shows how far down the corporate road we've walked, and how close to the police state we are.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Information storage is cheap. A one-terabyte hard drive is less than a hundred bucks retail.
A good-quality MP3 is a megabyte a minute for audio. For phone conversation quality, you can probably get buy with 8 minutes for one megabyte.
A 1TB hard drive can store 8 million minutes of phone coversations... about 15 years worth.
So, given their budget, how many years of phone-quality audio can they preserve?
I have no idea. But I dare not exclude the possibility that they are storing everything in the US.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)This is from the NSA site on the UDC:
Utah Data Center Technical Specifications
Data Storage Capacity
The storage capacity of the Utah Data Center will be measured in "zettabytes". What exactly is a zettabyte? There are a thousand gigabytes in a terabyte; a thousand terabytes in a petabyte; a thousand petabytes in an exabyte; and a thousand exabytes in a zettabyte. Some of our employees like to refer to them as "alottabytes".
http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
krispos42
(49,445 posts)so, 15 billion years worth of phone conversations. Per zettabyte.
And storage will only get cheaper.
If 200 million people make an average of 30 minutes of calls per day, that's 6 billion minutes a day. Or 11,415 years worth per day.
Or about 4.2 million years per year.
At that rate, a zettabyte would take 3,600 years to fill up.
But I'm sure they're not recording every call they can.
Uzair
(241 posts)Or do you just not believe him when he said they didn't record your phone calls?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The tool is far too valuable to not use. either he's lying, which is part of national security, or he is not fully informed or aware of what they are doing.
Response to Uzair (Original post)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #38)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #41)
Post removed
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)We just want to verify you're not associating with undesirables. For your own protection, of course.
You'll excuse me for pointing out that those of us that aren't fascist quislings have a problem with that.
sagat
(241 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)??
Uzair
(241 posts)Why do YOU believe this shit over the word of the president?
frylock
(34,825 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)recording, only that weren't initially listening. There are 2 ways to read this statement by Obama:
"If the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call they’ve got to go back to a federal judge,"
It implies that they have and use the ability to record everything. They don't listen live in real time because the massive data storage facility in Utah functions like a kind of time machine in that they record every call so that they can go back to the recordings from weeks ago and listen.
I don't have to disbelieve the word of the President because he did not directly deny recording. In fact he came very close to confirming it outright.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Recall the expert on CNN who said the Government had the conversation between Tsarnaev and his wife before they knew his Identity.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)And you know this for a fact? You, like the rest of us, know what the government wants you to know, unless, of course, some whistleblower throws a wrench into the monkey works. As for your use of the word "poutrage".......that tells me exactly what I need to know when evaluating your opinion. Probably good for you that they're NOT listening to your calls, considering how transparent your agenda is.
Uzair
(241 posts)You guys make me laugh. Obama went on TV and said it. He said they didn't listen to your phone calls. Why don't you believe him?
What is it with all the people in this thread so QUICK to dismiss Obama?
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Jane Austin
(9,199 posts)I have been dumbfounded that everyone from right wingers to Michael Hastings and Cliff Shecter (On Sam Seder's show) have either invoked "wiretapping" or "listening to your calls".
So disappointing to see such sloppy reporting on our side.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)<snip>
The gist of the defense was that, in contrast to what took place under the Bush Administration, this form of secret domestic surveillance was legitimate because Congress had authorized it, and the judicial branch had ratified it, and the actual words spoken by one American to another were still private. So how bad could it be?
The answer, according to the mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau, whom I interviewed while reporting on the plight of the former N.S.A. whistleblower Thomas Drake and who is also the author of “Surveillance or Security?,” is that it’s worse than many might think.
“The public doesn’t understand,” she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. “It’s much more intrusive than content.” She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying “who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happening—you don’t need the content.”
For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.
Metadata, Landau noted, can also reveal sensitive political information, showing, for instance, if opposition leaders are meeting, who is involved, where they gather, and for how long. Such data can reveal, too, who is romantically involved with whom, by tracking the locations of cell phones at night.
<snip>
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/verizon-nsa-metadata-surveillance-problem.html
They don't want to listen to them. They get more info from just the numbers.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)The American Stasi is playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama Bin Laden, and if you're less than eight degrees separated from OBL, you are a Security Risk, and they'll stalk you like a psycho ex-boyfriend.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)dgibby
(9,474 posts)Excellent! Please post as an op.
kentuck
(115,407 posts)Or are you one of those folks that say "trust, but verify"?
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts) 
William769
(59,147 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)Uzair
(241 posts)How the hell do YOU know they did? Oh, right. You don't. It's all a bunch of Obama bashing bullshit. Obama said they didn't. I believe him. I can't believe the number of people in this forum who don't trust the man, as if he's in any way the same thing as George W. Bush. He's been doing everything on the up and up, and still people doubt him.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Um okay, you're not a blind cultist or anything.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Uzair
(241 posts)Prove that I didn't gallop over here on my unicorn.
frylock
(34,825 posts)i'm in no rush. take as much time as you need to provide that proof.
Phentex
(16,709 posts)We know we're on somebody's list for that alone!
TheBadWolf
(67 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Ugh.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)On what probable cause do they have the right to DEMAND, COLLECT, and STORE MY PRIVATE INFORMATION and that of MILLIONS of other Americans?
They don't.
Your argument is ABSURD. It is like saying a thief can come into my house and take my things, as long as he promises not to use them.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why was that? Is that admitting that as long as you are in the executive branch, all actions (legal or illegal) doesn't matter since you have immunity?
Why did Clinton almost lose his job over a blowjob, yet Bush and Cheney run roughshod over the Constitution and get treated like war heroes!?
Why is that?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But they were and are.
So you might want to change your title to "They haven't admitted to listening to your phone calls, ...".
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)THEY STORED YOUR PHONE CALLS SO THEY COULD LISTEN TO THEM LATER. And, if you step out of line, they will take the content of those phone calls and twist it, and TARGET YOU.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And listen to the call...that somehow makes it better?