People believe their phone calls are being listened to...

[nadinbrzezinski]

That is misinformation...

Congress critter on the TV with tweety.

No you idiot, we get it...calls, metadata, are being stored and they can go back later and look at the contents.

Oh the spinning is amazing.

[Whisp]

1. they can't go back and look at the contents.

There is no content, there are phone numbers from and to, duration of call.

If the FBI requests the metadata on a particular number, that is all they get. NO FUCKING CONTENT as there is None.

How they got that number could be a variety of ways that could include regular old legwork.

Once they get the number, they can collect content by wiretapping that particular number. They can't go to the past and collect, they can only collect content after they have the phone numbers.

lordy. my spinning eyes must look really amazing.

[corkhead]

2. Who I talk to, when, and for how long IS fucking content as far as I am concerned.

[Whisp]

6. no it isn't. Content is the actual recording of conversations.

Every phone bill has numbers called and duration of call and where the call went to - it's been that way for a very very long time.


The only way you can avoid all this information on you is not to have a phone and go live in the hills completely off the grid.

[corkhead]

13. Maybe you are fine with it, but I am just a little uncomfortable having to resign myself

to just silently accepting this invasion of my privacy.

[Whisp]

19. I am not fine with it, I haven't been for a long time.

and I would be as worried about what corporations are getting from you as the NSA might be able to, if someone decides to break the law and get information they are not legally allowed - which is Snowden. I am much more creeped out by Facebook and corporations that could use their tech savy for evil. Peeking in on me doesnt worry me at all, but what can be done to plant false data etc., for advantage of the powerful, now that is a lot to worry about.

[corkhead]

38. We're on the same page then.

I am completely creeped out by FB and the amount of information being collected on me by not just them, but just about any place I visit on the Internet. I know it is the way of life in the 21st century, but I don't have to like it.

Btw, It is my nature, I am typing from my home which is arguably one of the most remote locations in the county I live in. I bought it before the Internet was a gleam in Al Gore's eye. At least I do have crappy 1MB DSL through my phone line.

[Th1onein]

85. Whisp, doesn't it strike you that they have done what they CAN do?

And, Whisp, they CAN do this, store the content, and go back and get it. What in the world makes you think that they don't do this, when they've shown, time and time again, that they are willing to do what they CAN do, every time, despite our Constitution, despite morality, despite everything? It's just absolutely naive to believe that they aren't storing the content of these calls, and ensuring that they can go back and get it when they want to make a case against somebody.

[Tx4obama]

7. That is NOT content - that is meta-data. Content is the actual conversion which they don't have.

[corkhead]

31. Thanks, but I already understand the definitions. Its the information "contained" in the meta-data

I am concerned with.

The contents of everyone's meta-data in the hands of the government and it's private contractors is still intrusive in my opinion and may already be having far reaching unintended consequences. Just as one example, it could be creating a chill to journalism by having both parties know that any contact they are having might be not necessarily recorded, but is at least being documented. That could be the end of any hope for whistle-blowing as we know it.

Here's an analogy; let's say I have a jealous wife that suspects I am cheating on her. Without hearing the content of any phone conversations I am having, or knowing where I am when I am not at home, her jealous state of mind would make it would be all too easy for her to jump to some incorrect conclusions about what I am doing just by incorrectly analyzing patterns in my phone and credit card bills.

I have actually been unfairly put in that household Gitmo in the past because of incorrectly intepreted meta-data.



Finally, I did say "as far as I am concerned" ; I am not judging anyone or pressing an agenda. I am merely stating my own level of discomfort with the erosion of my privacy.

[Tx4obama]

48. Probable cause must be presented to a judge before a judge signs an order to retrieve the...

... the meta-data.

The examples you given regarding journalists, etc would not be presented to a judge.

Probable cause would have to relate to a terrorist threat, cell, foreigner, etc.

If you're an American that is not conversing with suspected terrorist then no one will be looking at you.

[corkhead]

87. The fact remains that it's being collected. I personally am not comfortable with that.

who knows who has "unofficial" access to this information and what it could potentially be used for. I guess we just have to trust that everyone who has access to this data will always play by the rules.

[Trekologer]

18. According to the Supreme Court, no it is not

In Smith v. Maryland, the SC ruled that the phone metadata is not protected by the 4th amendment. Same goes with the outside of an envelope: the contents are protected but the addresses and postmark are not.

[corkhead]

39. Understood; I wasn't going by Hoyle, just my perceptions.

[Katashi_itto]

40. Don't forget metadata can provide the location you called from

[limpyhobbler]

3. How do you know whether they are archiving call contents or not?

actual question.

[Whisp]

8. That is what many people have been saying for days now

and the President confirmed it last night.

Snowden is full of it. He's an O'Keefe wanna be teabagging Pauler shit stirrer.

[limpyhobbler]

10. got link to show they are not archiving calls?

actual request for information.

[Whisp]

22. if you are so certain, please feel free to investigate it

and post your results here.

No teabagger urls please.

[limpyhobbler]

30. I searched (googled) for an answer to this question but could not find one.

Again the question: Does the government do dragnet collection of content of telephone conversations. Under such a scheme they would in theory need a warrant to access the stored conversations.


With so much secrecy & so many lies, the burden of proof is on the government. They should be more transparent and declassify the nature of their mass surveillance programs.

There is no national security risk to disclosing something like that.

Burden of proof is on the government to be transparent so the people will have confidence in government.

[Whisp]

34. No, there is no content (conversations) in meta data.

Metadata on a phone number is allowed if the proper legal work is done.

There they get the number and number called and destination and duration only.

Then they have the legal right to wiretap that particular number, but they can't go back in time before the warrant because there is no Content at that point.

The content only appears once they can wiretap and gather it themselves.

[limpyhobbler]

47. How do you know they are not recording conversations and storing them in the data center?

[Whisp]

52. I believe the President over Snowden. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

57. I don't. I hope this stays in the forefront of the news till we get more transparency

and are able to find out just exactly what they are doing. He is just the latest whistle blower. Others have come before him.

[limpyhobbler]

58. Did the President say they are not recording phone conversations?

[Tx4obama]

75. Yes. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

89. Seen this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023050432

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023050432

Possibly the Pres. was giving the least untruthful answer he could muster up.

[pipoman]

71. Just to be clear..

you are ok with secret warrants issued by secret courts, ex parte, with no recourse for anyone affected? Why not just get the warrant from a US District Court? Maybe because there isn't a judge sitting on any US District bench who would sign such a blanket warrant? And as for the ridiculous arguments about corporations and facebook, when my taxes and the full force of the Federal Government are behind their marketing schemes, maybe it would be similar...never heard of microsoft imprisoning more people per-capita than any other nation on the planet..'til then, I can choose not to be on facebook..then there are the attempts to claim meta data isn't part of the content of a call...by your definition..no, it has become defense of the indefensible by people who would be spittn' nails and rightly so if this were exposed whilst a different party was in power..

[Tx4obama]

76. FISA Court is not secret. You can read all about it on Wiki and even see the names of the judges

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court

List of Judges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court#Current_membership

[pipoman]

78. So that's a yes?

Let us know how your public information request goes..oh, wait..we know how it goes don't we?

[Tx4obama]

77. The Judges on the FISA Court ARE Federal District Judges

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court#Current_membership

[pipoman]

81. Maybe you could post their oath taken to sit on the FISA, eh?

What can they do that any of the Federal Courts across the country can't...it must be something or there would be no need for the FISA court..

[reformist2]

25. Just read about the size of the databases they are building.

[limpyhobbler]

33. Maybe they are building the world's largest mp3 juke box. You can't prove they're not.

[ManiacJoe]

35. They, who?

How do you know whether they are archiving call contents or not?

Depends on who you are referring to as "they".

The telecoms are not recording the conversations. That would be too expensive for them and does not help them in supplying the service to you.

The NSA is certainly recording conversations, at least ones connecting to foreign countries. They are archived, scanned for keywords, and handed off to human researchers as needed.

[limpyhobbler]

42. So if you call Canada the NSA might record the phone call conversation?

And they might listen to it just to check whether you're a terrorist?

actual questions

[ManiacJoe]

45. It is certainly possible.

They have the physical ability. I am not up on the current legal restrictions they are under for monitoring calls to/from the USA.

They are not actually listening, at least not by a human in real time. A computer will record it, scan it for keywords (maybe in real time), and then forward the recording to a human analyst if necessary.

[Tx4obama]

49. No, the NSA cannot record phone calls of Americans.

If a judge orders a 'wiretap' on a phone it is the FBI that places the wiretap AFTER a judge issues a warrant (after probable cause has been shown).

[pipoman]

72. Which judge on which court?

There is no probable cause to scan my meta data or infiltrate my cell carrier with warrants issued by courts which are not subject to upholding the US constitution, yet a warrant has been issued to do just that..by a court which is not public record..

[Kahuna]

4. Right. They're not recording the calls unless they have probable cause and they obtain

a warrant.

[Tx4obama]

9. And it would be the FBI that wiretaps a phone if there is a warrant, not the NSA. n/t

[pipoman]

73. How about a link to this protocol you seem to have access to?

[morningfog]

82. They don't have access to protocol, only talking points.

Like it's their job.

[99Forever]

55. Really?

Prove it.

I'll bet my membership here, against yours, you can't.

Well?

[Whisp]

56. prove what you had for lunch yesterday first. n/t

[99Forever]

70. As expected.

You got nothing.

All hat, no cattle.

[Whisp]

74. I thought so. You can't do it. Something as simple as that. n/t

[morningfog]

84. NSA probably could answer it for us.

[99Forever]

88. Tell you what, brainchild.

I'll provide complete, accurate documentation of every statement and claim I made about what I "had for lunch yesterday first." I made zero claims or even references to that subject. Your request is, as such, fulfilled.

Here are your statements and claim about the subject of this thread:

they can't go back and look at the contents.

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)


There is no content, there are phone numbers from and to, duration of call.

If the FBI requests the metadata on a particular number, that is all they get. NO FUCKING CONTENT as there is None.

How they got that number could be a variety of ways that could include regular old legwork.

Once they get the number, they can collect content by wiretapping that particular number. They can't go to the past and collect, they can only collect content after they have the phone numbers.


Step up and prove them, if you have the integrity to do so, which I doubt. In fact, I'll still wager my membership here against yours, that you CANNOT do it.


Well?

[morningfog]

79. That's not right. The NSA collects all the call data on all Verizon customers everyday.

At the minimum, that is what they collect.

And with a warrant (at least that is the claim) the NSA can access content which means it is being stored somewhere.

[Brother Buzz]

5. Some people believe they're watching us through our TVs!1!1!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3023113

[randome]

12. And if that doesn't work, they can watch our thoughts form as we type!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[FSogol]

15. What if I hit backspace. Do they still see the characters I erase?

What if I type away from the TV?

[randome]

23. They know you like popcorn and will use that against you.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Just Saying]

80. Thanks for the chuckle.

It's a nice break from all the Chicken Little hysterics and paranoia.

[Whisp]

24. what if I close my eyes while I type?

and get an earworm going while doing so?

this is a great earworm, just in case big brother is watching while you type. They will Never get through. Start at about 2:30 for instant blockage of anything NSA.

[FSogol]

27. Theres a feral cat who comes in when the weather is bad and likes to sleep on my keyboard.

Does the NSA have a separate file for what she types or is the "xlxgjsd'yjspyjshjhm lgkgoeros" all put under my account?

[Catherina]

20. HD Guru: "Is Your New HDTV Watching You?"

Is Your New HDTV Watching You?
March 19th, 2012

Samsung’s 2012 top-of-the-line plasmas and LED HDTVs offer new features never before available within a television including a built-in, internally wired HD camera, twin microphones, face tracking and speech recognition. While these features give you unprecedented control over an HDTV, the devices themselves, more similar than ever to a personal computer, may allow hackers or even Samsung to see and hear you and your family, and collect extremely personal data.

While Web cameras and Internet connectivity are not new to HDTVs, their complete integration is, and it's the always connected camera and microphones, combined with the option of third-party apps (not to mention Samsung's own software) gives us cause for concern regarding the privacy of TV buyers and their friends and families.

Samsung has not released a privacy policy clarifying what data it is collecting and sharing with regard to the new TV sets. And while there is no current evidence of any particular security hole or untoward behavior by Samsung's app partners, Samsung has only stated that it "assumes no responsibility, and shall not be liable" in the event that a product or service is not "appropriate."

...

Weeks have passed since we formally requested answers to these questions from Samsung asking what if any privacy assurances Samsung provides. To date no privacy statement has been furnished to HD Guru or end users. The first models with these features arrived on dealer’s shelves over two weeks ago. All that we’ve been told is that when connecting to the Internet, the TVs first connect to the Samsung cloud, and from there, they connect to the various streaming video services and other apps for activation.

...

http://hdguru.com/is-your-new-hdtv-watching-you/ & http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-483619

[bornskeptic]

11. It's just that he understands the system better than you do.

The NSA is forbidden by law from retrieving records on domestic numbers. Of course you have the right to believe they don't obey that law, bt there's no evidence of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Nope, he does not

He can't given he knows the same you or I do...since he is not in the intel comittee.

But nice for trying.

It was nice to see twitty go there...he asked the hard questions. Congressman, at this point in this matter I don't give a damn what letter behind name, squirmed a lot.

[giftedgirl77]

37. Hey guess what I've answered this allegation

about gathering intel on US citizens or even suspected US citizens it's against the law as someone who is legal & worked in intel units. Nobody can gather physical evidence i.e. phone calls without a specific warrant & there has to be probable cause not just a phone number. Not to mention investigations of us citizens is not an intel based function. Furthermore, If it is determined that ANY type of intel was gathered on a US citizen it has to be completely destroyed.

You are simply trying to stir shit up through hyperbole nonsense.

[randome]

51. Apparently even Snowden couldn't get access to anything but internal office documents.

He has actually given more evidence against his theories than for them.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[giftedgirl77]

65. Lol I just posted a lovely little tibit that will get the hair on fire crowd in a tizzy.

First real post so we will see. Big difference is all of my evidence is case law & federal law.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. Spinning like crazy. Spin, baby, spin.

We're all Germans now

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yup

[Catherina]

21. What show was this? I'd like to see it if it's online n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Hardball

Screech, as my hubby calls him, did a good job

[graham4anything]

28. Yeah, people are listeing on phone calls...

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_joT9tMocuC8/TF_rTCt03FI/AAAAAAAABhA/UjopnsrFrIQ/s1600/Green+Acres+Telephone.JPG[/img]

remember the party phone?
It was the basis for many jokes 40 years ago on Green Acres.

[wandy]

36. Stop reminding me how old I am. nt

[customerserviceguy]

29. You don't know that for 100% certain

Hell, if I said that the government was collecting metadata a month ago, anyone relying solely on the official denials would have said that I was crazy.

I really don't trust anything anymore when it comes to communications. I don't say anything on the phone, or in an email, or even on this board that I wouldn't put on a billboard over my house. About all I can trust are face-to-face conversations, and that's only if I trust the person I'm speaking with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. They confirmed what I suspected for years

What you are doing is what people in dictablandas do.

I understand.

[HardTimes99]

69. For anyone who wondere what the phrases "chilling effect" and

"secret government" mean, your post offers good illustrations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Yup

[quadrature]

41. you CAN'T drive faster than the speed limit.

is the story being peddled by some people.
believe whatever you wish.

use PGP or one-time-pads
to encrypt email.

[backscatter712]

43. They don't actually need to listen to the calls.

The metadata alone gives them enough information, in a format that's much easier to analyze, index and search with software, that the actual act of listening to the calls is moot.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

• They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.


• They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.


• They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.


• They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.


• They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yup...and we have been told

That if need to, they can retrieve the contents later. Screech confronted this guy.

[OilemFirchen]

46. Actually, they don't know that.

They know that someone (or something) at that number called those numbers. They don't know who that someone or something is.

Fun examples though!

[backscatter712]

63. Getting the names of those that own the numbers is incredibly easy, especially for the NSA.

Hell, when I get called from a strange number, I google it, and usually get a useful answer.

Starting with a source phone number, and a destination phone number, the NSA can get both parties in the calls, and all their other calls, and all the other people that both parties talked to, including names, and graph out your entire social network in about five seconds, just using the metadata and the information that's already in their databases.

[randome]

50. And you assume they would get a warrant to check those kind of things out about you, right?

None of those things you mention are illegal.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BenzoDia]

53. Yep, a really large group of forum members here were led to believe that actually.

And as more info came out, they slid those goal posts in the usual learn-as-you-go fashion.

And even now, they still haven't absorbed all the entirety of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I recommend reading the whole OP

The good congressman was spinning

[BenzoDia]

59. Oh I see. nah, the storage and processing requirements to listen in on everyone makes it an

in futility. There are much easier ways they could cheat w/o listening in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Hmmm hmmm.

[BenzoDia]

61. How much time/space do you think it'd take?

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Well, a free hint is the facility they are building right now.

I will take Bamford on this.

[BenzoDia]

64. Bamford? That guy makes money to sell books with these ideas.

How much space/time will it take?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. So he made all up?

Cute...

Have a good life in the party aparatchtick ignore list.


*plonk*

[BenzoDia]

68. I'm asking you to explain it in your own words. That's not too much to ask imo.

[SoCalDem]

86. We once had a party-line & I KNOW that people listened in

Youngsters here don't even know about party-lines..

Seriously though, I don't care one bit who has my call record.. We are boring people and only re-call the same people over and over anyway

Everyone knows everything about everybody anyway..

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I do...my family has personlly experienced the results

Of this movie.

And yes...it is happening here!!!