Glenn Greenwald: NSA Can Store A BILLION CELL PHONE CALLS Every Day

[Segami]

Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald says he has another big scoop about the National Security Agency's surveillance practices up his sleeve. Speaking over Skype to the Socialism Conference in Chicago, Greenwald claimed that the NSA has the ability to store one billion phone calls each day.



Greenwald's reporting earlier this month sparked the scandal over NSA surveillance practices that is currently plaguing the Obama administration. The stories were based on classified documents leaked to him by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and Greenwald indicated Friday night that he's sitting on several more -- one of which he decided to talk about even though his story on it hasn't been published yet.



"It talks about a brand new technology that enables the national security agency to redirect into its own repositories one billion cell phone calls every single day. One billion cell phone calls every single day," he said.



"But what we're really talking about here is a localized system that prevents any form of electronic communication from taking place without its being stored and monitored by the National Security Agency," Greenwald continued. "It doesn't mean that they're listening to every call, it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time, and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon millions upon millions of our phone and email records."




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html

[intaglio]

1. So they own a lot of hard drives

FFS. Do you want to ban the NSA from owning hard disks?

If Google wanted they could probably store 10 billion.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I think what we are suggesting is that the NSA adhere to the 4th amendment.

[baldguy]

3. And we can have that discussion without elevating a RW libertarian douchebag to the status of a hero

Along with his corporatist mouthpiece.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. You need more talking points. You left out China, Russia, Ecuador, and Cuba.

[Pholus]

31. Yes, the moment he's not the only source for the info.

In the face of outright lies told during congressional hearings, I think we have a right to know PHILOSOPHICALLY what the Government's approach to data collection is. This is not operational details, this is merely a statement as to what can be considered "fair game" for collection.

You don't like Greenwald talking? Where is our transparent government? We were guaranteed congressional oversight!

Is that working?

No. When 46% of all DEMOCRATIC Senators had to sign a letter yesterday saying, "look NSA we need more info cause we're thinking you are saying it's legal when it is not," we do not have meaningful congressional oversight.

Remember, surveillance can be democratic (minimize info collected, maximize transparency) or authoritarian (maximize info collected, minimize transparency).

We just don't want the AUTHORITARIAN treatment. Thanks.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

90. Did all of those 46% attend the briefings and such about the NSA or its programs et al?

considering how many seemed to skip the last one i think its a fair question.

I mean if they didn't do their job by skipping briefings and such then i think they are in a position to chide based on lacking info.

Now if they did attend then obviously they are in a position to question.based on lacking info

[Pholus]

117. Collins' argument was that you can't request a briefing for things you don't know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/susan-collins-nsa-briefings_n_3418866.html

The term is "highly compartmentalized" meaning when the senate was "briefed" it was really just a couple tame ones.

The highly touted "22 separate briefings?" Read the list. Pretty f'ing select and it appears that includes unclassified meetings as well, so how much are you really doing to learn there?

Then there is this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/nsa-surveillance-program-oversight_n_3405716.html

Even when you're briefed it is at whirlwind speed with no aides and no note taking. But I guess it's a "fig leaf" to say disclosure was made. Kind of like the terms and conditions at the end of a TV ad.

And the the mid-June poorly attended briefing was too obviously too little, too late and were spin and damage control -- wow, just like the Bushies. Not a surprise, cause the majority of the people in the program got their jobs then.

No wonder Dick Cheney approves of this.

[ljm2002]

120. There's a lot of "Catch 22" here though...

...since, if they do attend the briefings, they then may not say anything about what they heard in the briefings.

It is similar to the Catch 22 that people can't sue the NSA for this surveillance, because they don't have standing, because they can't prove they've been surveilled. But they can't prove they've been surveilled because the information about who has been surveilled is Top Secret. Ergo, no standing.

Now that Snowden's leaks have come out, a lot of these groups may now be able to prove standing.

But anyway: all of these twists and turns are because of the secrecy.

Would I argue for no secrecy at all, or no surveillance at all? No, I don't think that is practical. But the level of secrecy and the level of surveillance have far exceeded what is healthy in a democracy. So I'm glad of Snowden's leaks, regardless of the hysteria that has erupted around it all.

[marions ghost]

141. Right, it's clear

there is no adequate oversight.

Their questions were basic and obvious--why have they never been answered so far? I am amazed that they don't have a clue about the surveillance.

Obviously the NSA is out of anybody's control.

[Fire Walk With Me]

44. I'm sure you have as much disdain and rejection of the neocon/Bush surveillance state

as you do for Mr. Greenwald, correct? And that Obama has expanded it to the tune of the destruction of the 1st, 4th,and 5th Amendments?

[baldguy]

52. Obama ended the NSAs abuses under the Bush Regime, & forced them to get warrants for their wire taps

Obama is operating well within the laws that we have, not as you might wish them to be. If you don't like the law because you think it infringes on individual freedoms, fine. Then work to have it changed. But, if that's really your goal then people like Greenwald & Snowden are not your allies. BECAUSE CORPORATIST APOLOGISTS & RW LIBERTARIANS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS!

[GoneFishin]

66. Nonsense. He clearly did not end the NSA abuses.

Otherwise this would not be a big story.

[think]

151. On behalf of The Carlyle Group, Booz Allen, Academia, Halliburton, Beltek, Stratfor, HB Gary etc

"I am sorry"....

[Fire Walk With Me]

158. Wait wut?

Obama LIES. You believe a word out of his mouth, you deserve the corporate, fascist (same thing) neocon surveillance state. You haven't noticed the death of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments on Obama's watch, and arguments against the 2nd? Nice Trend there, from mister doesn't lie corporate shill president. Know anything about billionaire Penny Pritzker, his latest appointment? Long-term workers' rights abuse to maximize profit. So he gave her a government position. Among others. Come on, it's about Obama, not his critics.

[baldguy]

163. .

[Fire Walk With Me]

164. "If the president does it, that means it is not illegal." ~Richard M. Nixon.

Note that he was drummed out for far, far less, like the death of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments on his watch.

You need to read this because Obama will sign it, just like he signed the last two NDAAs with their section 1021 which allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation.

Indefinite Surveillance: Say Hello to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

If you're capable of taking in information which may be contrary to what appears to be an absolutist position that Obama can do not wrong, WOULD do no wrong. Because your meme implies an if/then supposition. If a paulbot etc. then Obama can do no wrong? Wrong like the extra-judicial executions of US citizens suspected of terrorism or association with terrorists via robot death plane?

How about Obama's fucking lies? Here's a great Obama lie:

2011 video of Obama saying "attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable", regarding Egypt's peaceful protesters.

I'm part of the Occupy Wall Street movement and over 7400 of us have been arrested over a period longer than a year, as well as many, many brutal attacks including two peaceful Veterans nearly killed in Oakland during one of Quan's multiple riot police attacks upon peaceful protesters.

Obama lies. Period. He either ordered these attacks and the FBI and DHS spying which took place from day one, or sat back and allowed them to happen for more than a year.

Why not take a look at what Obama allowed or ordered to happen during the DEMOCRATIC national convention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Did Obama say anything against this brutality? Anything? Was Rahm Emmanuel or any police punished for engaging in what Obama says is "unacceptable"?

Because as an Occupier assaulted by a policeman while peacefully engaging in my 1st Amendment rights, I find Obama to be a complete hypocrite. And I have in person witnessed and experienced the death of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Did Greenwald destroy any Constitutional Amendments? No, didn't think he did. Get your proportions right. Obama is neither a democrat nor a representative of the people of this country.

[baldguy]

166. So, what you really want is to impeach Barack Obama. And why not Joe Biden while you're at it.

I never thought I'd see the day when a DUer would campaign for John Boehner for President.

[randome]

169. He's been obsessed with the NDAA for a year now.

The Apocalypse is always just around the corner.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

179. I'm sure Snowden took note of that "small" detail in the NDAAs

[randome]

183. Funny he didn't mention it. Funny he didn't understand what a secure FTP server is.

'Funny' as in 'not very smart'. Snowden is not all that he thinks.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

184. I hadn't consider that the NDAA clause could be used to indefinitely detain Snowden either.

Not sure what the "secure FTP server" reference is in regards to as my comment was about the NDAA and that the indefinite detention of US citizens like Snowden is possible.

Until Daniel Ellsberg pointed out the potential for the NDAA clause being used to indefinitely detain Snowden in a recent interview the possibility that it COULD happen never really occurred to me.

So obviously though Snowden didn't "mention it" he certainly alluded to it and certainly made damn sure he wasn't subject to indefinite detention by leaking the illegal activities of the NSA in another country.

So I guess you could call him "not very smart" but his actions seem to speak otherwise....

[Fire Walk With Me]

170. If: I have a problem with Obama's UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts, Then: I want Boenher for president.

Can you hear yourself? Any dissent, any protest, any discussion of genuine, glaring, UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions by any president of any party is bad and wrong?

This country was FOUNDED upon protest of intolerable acts against the rights of the people, far far less than we are currently enduring.

What in the world makes you imagine that being an Obamabot is any less ugly than the Paulbots? Your logic completely resists viewing or processing the facts regarding what is occurring in this country. Do you realize that by the "patriot act" and the FBI's own definitions, that Obama's militarized police response to the Occupy Movement is domestic terrorism? A domestic terrorist president. How can that possibly be defended, and it is only one of many unConstitutional acts under his belt. That you are upset I'm pointing out =facts= regarding Obama is the problem; you should be upset about what Obama, or any president of any party, has done against the country and its people. By your "if/then" logic, you support Obama's unConstitutional actions, you support the death of one of the founding articles of this country.

One more ludicrous, absolutist, illogical, fact-free response and off to Ignore you go. There is apparently no reaching some people, despite the draconian severity of the problems involved.

[baldguy]

172. Your comment proves that you have no fucking clue how our govt works.

The only remedy we have to deal with a President who Congress believes is committing illegal, unconstitutional acts is impeachment & removal from office. (Art. 2; Sec. 4) When Nixon so famously said "If the president does it, that means it is not illegal," that's what he was talking about. Congress has the sole responsibility for determining when and if the President is breaking the law. And they always have had it.

So, if you believe - as you have said - that Barack Obama is breaking the law (and in some manner that W didn't - because he got off scot-free), then you must support the ONLY remedy for such criminality: impeachment & removal. And since Biden seems to agree with the Presidents policies, he would have to be impeached & removed also. Next in line after the VP is the Speaker of the House of Representatives: John Boehner (per the XXII Amendment). Those are the facts. If you imagine that some how, some way, some where that there could be some other outcome, then you've living in a fucking fantasy world.

Unless, of course, you're advocating to overthrow the United States Government & toss out the Constitution?

[Logical]

182. For some reason someone alerted this, Jury voted 3-3....

At Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"If the president does it, that means it is not illegal." ~Richard M. Nixon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3129780

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Disruptive, crazy talk, post shows that the author does not vote for Democrats. I'm surprised the poster isn't demanding to see Obama's REAL birth certificate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:50 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Wow, I assume this alerter thinks any attack on Obama should be banned. Alerter, did you read the part where the poster said "I'm part of the Occupy Wall Street movement". Does that sound like someone who would not vote Dem? If you disagree then post your disagreements. Stop using the alert system to hide posts you disagree with. Waste of time!!!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: This post and poster do not belong on DU.Stop making DU suck. Hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post says nothing about voting. When you conflate the left with the right, you weaken your argument. If you think Fire is wrong, you should say why, not throw around tea-bag bait and birtherism as your hole card.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Fire Walk With Me]

185. Thank you, what an asshole to alert and ASSume. I =do= vote for democrats.

However, Obama is no damn democrat. And "crazy talk"? Go to hell, alerter

=I= don't belong on DU? Is there any future for the democratic party? I truly question whether there is, in this creeping corporatocracy which far too many will not recognize. DU makes me sick at times, the level of head-in-the-sandism which goes on but that merely reveals the continuing need for someone to post the truth.

Why not punish the idiot who called me a tea fuck? They're direct shills for the Koch brothers, if anyone doesn't yet know that it's been proven the Kochs co-created them (among other personal PACs). Sort of goes against my democratic and Occupy roots. Howling...

Thank you for posting this and thank you to the jury members who saw through the purity control motivation. In the mean time, I hope that every DUer is perfectly aware of this:

Because that's what I'm concerned about, and top democrats do not appear to give a flying fuck, so I'm not for top democrats, period. I'm here to hold their feet to the fire. Get the hell over yourselves, purity control, Obama doesn't give a flying fuck about income inequality and those who live paycheck to paycheck. Know why? Hint: He got billionaire Penny Pritzker, a known worker's rights abuser, a nice job in Washington. That's where Obama's allegiance lies. Mine lies with the people of this country. Join me!

[rhett o rick]

56. No we cant. That's the whole point. People have tried to "have that discussion" in the past and

those that dared to bring it up were dealt with swiftly and harshly. Even now, many people want to punish Snowden and Greenwald harshly and pretend this never happened. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

The NSA and FBI are spies and love what they do. They will push the legality past the limit because they can. They get an almost unlimited budget because the 1% Elitist propaganda machine tells us that we should worry about terrorists even if we allow half our population to starve.

Talking smack about Snowden is both childish and counter productive. The issue isnt Snowden it's whether we want to live in a police state or not. Of course the authoritarians among us would love the security it brings.

[baldguy]

59. What's childish is supposedly rational, supposedly liberal people trying desperately

to elevate his flight from fear of losing his internet connection to a Heroic Journey on a par with Gandhi or MLK Jr.

What's childish is accepting his lies at face value just because they conform to your preconceived prejudices.

What's childish is to dismiss the very real concerns about his allowing China and Russia access to the info he has, and to dismiss his threat to expose our active agents in place around the world.

You're allowing a RW libertarian Paulbot and an avowed corporatist to set your agenda. They don't give a damn about Civil Liberties!

[rhett o rick]

63. "You're allowing a RW libertarian Paulbot" Again childish.

It's interesting that whenever a whistle-blower comes forward, there are those that immediately start disparaging them. Calling them names and stating unequivocally that what they are saying are lies.

You dont know that what he says is lies. But your world relies on the hope that your authoritarian Big Brother wouldnt do that to you.

You dont know that he has given secrets to China.

If you were truly interested in the security of our spy machine, you might worry about who besides Snowden got access to that massive amount of secret data. Maybe they didnt give it to the Guardian. Maybe they gave it directly to China.

Calling someone a "Paulbot" is childish.

[zeemike]

68. And what is childish is hyperbole

I heard no one compare him with MLK of Ghandi...
I saw no evidence that what he revealed was a lie.
I saw no evidence that he exposed our spys.....and no evidence we are at war with China or Russia.

And no evidence that right wing are behind this....in fact all of them want Snowden executed as a traitor.

But just ignore this and continue with the propaganda, cause I know you will.

[baldguy]

76. Then you haven't been paying attention.

[TM99]

69. Well you fell for the propaganda it seems.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/exposing-dark-forces-behind-snowden-smears?page=0%2C3&akid=10640.319429.pWIfFF&rd=1&src=newsletter862157&t=3&paging=off

[Dustlawyer]

174. Greenwald may, or may not be a "douche," but he is REPORTING!

Reporters who get big scoops get paid more and get to write books, so what? The only thing important to me is did he get it right? This is in the news b/c he was brave enough to take on the story. His greed may have provided the "guts" it took for him to do this. I don't like the man myself, but neither do I begrudge him the fruits of this labor. I wish this type of reporting was allowed at the networks. The "Private Sector" in addition to controlling most of Washington's politicians, also owns the media.
This country needs to wake up to what has happened in the last 30 years that has changed governmental control, in large parts, over to "The Private Sector!" That's who this information is for, ultimately. They don't want to be caught off guard again like they were with OWS.

[intaglio]

4. Then they should say exactly how the 4th is breached

Because (as far as I can see) the 4th is battered but intact - as the law stands at present.

Now, if the law or the Constitution was clarified ...

[Warren Stupidity]

6. None so blind as those wont see.

[intaglio]

9. none so blind as those ignoring case law

The law concerning publication of data such as dialed telephone numbers was covered (inadequately) by the Supreme Court as I was informed by someone citing a Thurgood Marshall's dissent a reason that it was unconstitutional.

I agree that while FISC is no real protection, as the law stands it does grant a fig leaf of legality.

The scandal is not what the NSA does, it is that it is apparently legal and possibly constitutional.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Mass domestic surveillance has not gone through a 4th amendment challenge.

Some other things the NSA does might have. What the Snowden leaks are revealing: not at all. In fact courts have routinely rejected challenges using the "standing" and "national security" catch-22: the plaintiff is denied access to classified information that would demonstrate that the plaintiff is affected by the surveillance and without that documentation the plaintiff's case is tossed for lack of standing. The snowden leak re verizon has enabled a new 4th challenge by the ACLU and the NYCLU because they can document standing if the courts accept the leaked information.

But we have this odd and quaint document that clearly states the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

None of that is being followed if half of what is alleged to be going on is accurate.

[randome]

11. Metadata phone records are not your property.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[baldguy]

13. Bingo.

Mr. Stupidity doesn't understand that.

[grasswire]

176. I wonder how many threads must be hidden before TOS violations....

....bring a banning.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. ah of course. Arguably neither is the information passing over the internet, right?

[randome]

20. Data that is stored by a third party is not yours.

Data passing over the Internet is mostly not stored. Now what makes you think the NSA is collecting all that data? Snowden offered no evidence to support his claim.

He put on a good show initially. But it fell apart quickly for him when people started asking "Where is the evidence?" and then seeing that his resume was a lie.

He is a self-important fool so his claims -again, without evidence- need to be seen in that light.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Hold on there. One argument at a time.

The government has to get a search warrant or a subpoena both of which need to be specific in terms of whose records they are seizing. There is no precedent for seizing the records of everyone. The verizon case is now the subject of two law suits that are pressing exactly that issue.

I will not dignify your second argument with a respons.

[gholtron]

61. They need a search warrant to go on or search

the property of the owner, which in this case is Verizon. Not you. When I mean you, I meant John public. In this case, they searched Verizon's property to obtain information that's on Verizon's equipment. No one's else name was on the subpoena.

[gholtron]

65. I also want to make this point too.

You should read the agreement that you signed with your Internet provider. Take a look at their privacy agreement on what they can and will do with your information that YOU agreed to.

[intaglio]

79. Smith v Maryland

Sorry, but dialing a number or putting information on an envelope is publishing that data

[zeemike]

72. Then you medical and bank records can be had too right?

So they have the right to everything that is not in your house....and they can have that too if they want it...Just ask a secret court under a secret law.
If that is not a police state I don't know what is.

[randome]

77. There are entire volumes of laws and rules preventing that information from being shared.

Those have been exceptions for a long time. No one has thought it worth the time and effort to ensure that phone metadata is one of those exceptions.

In a very real sense, I think this is society coming to grips with the Information Age. It has never been easier to store and collate all this data.

If we need more laws regarding this type of data, we need to create them. But not in a climate of fear based on something Snowden said. If we're going to make new laws we need to do it right.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[zeemike]

89. Well state those laws.

All of them based on the forth amendment right?
You said sense they were held by a third party you did not own them....medical and bank records are held by a third party.
How about your school records?...are there laws to protect them or is it OK for the government to see them too?

I am astounded when I hear this stuff....even 20 years ago no one would ever have thought we could have pissed on the bill of rights o the extent we have done to date...and have Democrats themselves defend it...unbelievable.
Bush has been able to mind fuck the whole country with fear.

[randome]

92. I'm no law or privacy scholar. I have no idea what laws are in place for school records.

All I know is that third party records such as phone metadata are not considered personal property so therefore the 4th amendment does not apply.

It's been that way for a very long time, more than a hundred years I believe.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[boston bean]

106. Recording of calls and storing them for a possible evidence in a criminal case without a warrant

specifically intended for the person under investigation is a violation of the fourth amendment, IMHO..

I think most persons understand that the collection of a calls content need to have a warrant based on probable cause when the recording by authorities is taking place.

There is no probable cause to collect the info at the time of the recording against an individual, but you think a warrant after the fact to listen to all their calls at a later time, is sufficient?

[randome]

107. There is nothing to suggest that's being done.

And I would agree with you if there was any evidence that the NSA is recording purely domestic phone contents, it would be violating the 4th amendment.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Go Vols]

147. Long read,but worth it.

The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.

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

[intaglio]

84. Those are not published, metadata is published

Metadata can then provide evidence for a further search or seizure.

Example:
Write to a know terrorist and your letter or e-mail will be flagged by its use of meta or by its address; that e-mail or letter can then be further examined with court approval.

Note; I do not say that the evidence might be insufficient but that the evidence is there and that a court, however much of a door mat, has granted the Government the right to further examine the communication.

[zeemike]

97. How about your doctors meta data?

You know, how many times you saw him and what time of day, and how long you were there?
And that could be used to get a warrant for further information...
Same for the bank...how many deposits you made on what date and time...and that could be used to get a warrant because they suspected you were a drug dealer?

Yep....total information awareness is coming to the USA....and some of us love it.

[intaglio]

104. That is not published information

If your family doctor wrote a letter to a consultant and added on the envelope "this guy seems to have a persecution complex" that would be published data.

[zeemike]

135. So you mean the phone company publishes

how many calls you make and who you called and where you were when you called so that the public can see it?
Where would I find that published data?....I would like to see what my reps are doing and who they talk to.

[intaglio]

143. The information dialed into a phone system is published

Case law

Any records kept of that information are records of public information. The phone company keeps those.

The Government requests information from the phone company. The company releases the public information but not the details of your cost plan or the content of your calls.

I would suggest that if you want copies of published data such as that, you do what marketers and pollsters do, pay for it.

[OilemFirchen]

136. HIPAA prevents the reporting of medical records. No such statute applies to telephone metadata.

Banks are required to report deposits, withdrawals or exchanges of $10,000 or more (and, if suspicion is warranted, aggregates of such totalling $10,000 or more).

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/aml2007/31cfr103.22.pdf

[zeemike]

144. And does it prevent the FISA court from issuing a warrant

For all the meta data?...and if not, how do we know that they have not and already have it stored away?

And if the banks already have to report some, why not all?...
I am happy that you are so trusting but excuse me if I am not....they have no business doing it IMO.

[OilemFirchen]

152. Does what "prevent the FISA court from issuing a warrant"?

HIPAA?

Your questions, frankly, are a muddled mess. My point is that there are laws that both restrict the collection of data and allow for the collection of data. In the case of telephone metatdata, the courts have, thus far, allowed for it.

[zeemike]

155. Well then so are the answers.

Dose anything prevent them from getting it if they want it?
The answer seems to be no....and our differences are that you are cool with it and I am not.
And that is the bottom line for all of this discussion...whether there are any limits to what the government can or not...
And the whole purpose of the constitution is to set those limits, but some have been convinced that the limits don't apply if you are really really afraid.
And we are that...at least some are...cause of the "evil doers"and the terrorist that hate us for our freedom...

[KharmaTrain]

86. Your Bank Records...

...can and are subpoenaed if warranted. For example if you are being investigated for tax fraud or drug dealing. Again...the government needs a warrant to seize these records, but they have and do.

In the case of verizon and other carriers...as stated above, the information the government can access, with a warrant, is the metadata...information that not only does your phone company routinely keep on file but also have been known to sell to third parties. The government has nothing on looking in on your private life compared to the corporate world...where anytime you make a purchase with a credit card or one of those "value cards" your information is sold and mined and sold and so on.

Your privacy, and mine, ends at our front doors when we enter the public realm. This now extends to the electronic data that leaves our homes as well. So how would you suggest the government go about tracking real threats to our public safety?

[zeemike]

91. But the corporations do not have the power

To charge you with a crime and through you in jail for the rest of your life...at least not yet.
It is about the abuse of power and the forth amendment is about that and applies to the government and the law because they have this power.

[randome]

96. What we truly need to know about the NSA...

...is how they keep the data confidential. My guess is that doing anything with the data requires at least 3 levels of sign-offs. That's just a guess on my part but we need the reassurance that safeguards are in place and we need to know what those safeguards are.

Judging from the vast numbers of people caught up in NSA malfeasance (0), the data is probably guarded under lock and key, in a digital fashion.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[zeemike]

98. No what we need is adherence to the forth amendment.

But I guess that constitution thing is so old fashion in this modern world....we just need to love big brother and not worry.

[KharmaTrain]

99. They Sure Can Screw Over Your LIfe...

...just get a wrong mark on your credit record! You might not end up in a gulag but it sure can feel like it when that information is used to foreclose on your home or prevent you from getting a job.

I'm very aware of the violations of the fourth amendment and am a strong advocate for the review and repeal of most, if not all, of the Patriot act that is used as the justification for most of the NSA warrants. I want to go further...and I think it's high time we did. I strong favor establishing a modern day Church committee to thoroughly investigate how intelligence is gathered and how its used and also to push for a comsumer privacy act where meta data can't be mined and sold without my authorization.

I do believe there are times that government surveillance is warranted...the John Ghotti case is one example...but under court order. The question is where does public safety trump personal privacy...

[zeemike]

101. Well that is why I said not yet.

But as we merge the corporation with the state that could change...the state could outsource criminal justice to the corporation like they did with NSA...and then the banksters could charge you with a crime as well as take your house...and make you pay for your own trial and incarceration....like in the movie Brazil.

[KharmaTrain]

109. The State...

...I am a stockholder...a voter...and have a say in. I also have more faith in the criminal justice system and the overall judicial system as the ultimate protector of my rights. Yes, sometimes that requires private court orders that protect an ongoing investigation, but I trust the judicial system to be a safeguard against the ongoing corporate encroachment into our lives.

I deal with the world that is rather than the one that could be...and have always operated under the belief that anything I say on a phone, type on a puter or anytime I make a transaction it's being monitored. Again...the best answer to fixing these invasions are through working within the political process, not opting out. Doing so only enables those who want to push for even more invasions.

BTW...if you lose a civil case you are responsible for paying for your own trial...been the case for centuries...

[zeemike]

134. Yep, the world that is.

And the world that is has been sold off to the corporations...the functions of governemnt....whether it is schools or the military...and it is only a matter of time before the Judicial system goes that way too....that is how you drown government in the bathtub

[HiPointDem]

180. +1. anything that's on a computer is theirs. and since they're corraling us into putting

everything on computers...

[questionseverything]

146. the evidence is that the pres said it is being stored ,,geesh

It gets run through the system, split into two parts, and stored until data-mining finds an "articulable suspicion", and another agency is alerted and seeks a FISA warrant. The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told, but the content (acquired by the universal collection 2015 program) -- which must be minimized under 702 if not obtained with a proper FISA warrant -- is retained in a compartmentalized state. The content is isolated electronically (encrypted) from the metadata - that's how Bill Binney explained the process. The President also admits that's how the process works, here:

STEP 1: "2015" sweeps up the content and metadata into a database:

"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.

STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys. NSA managers can deencrypt and put it back together again if the profiilng and datamining software shows there's an "articulable suspicion." FBI obtains a FISA warrant.

"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.

Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out

STEP 3: NSA sends the reassembled data over to CIA or FBI:

A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.

[randome]

153. He did not say that the contents of all calls are being stored.

If anything is being captured, it is foreign data (that we know of). There are laws, rules and regulations concerning what data is captured. Until someone shows me evidence that none of this is being adhered to, I will not take anyone's word for it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[gholtron]

58. I've been saying that over and over

But you can't teach it to stupid people. The NSA did not bugged anyone's house or place of dwelling. The Internet is open and free. No one owns it. If they came in where you live and placed a hidden microphone in your house then that's a violation of the 4th ammendment. If they place spyware in your computer to see what you type then that's a violation of the 4th ammendment. If they raid a mailbox to get letters of what you wrote then that's a violation of the 4th ammendment. You don't own the network or the equipment that stores your phone number or emails or the wires they travel on or the air or space your conversation is carried through. So tell me how you are being searched?

[randome]

70. You remember the 'truism' that it takes more muscles to frown than to smile?

It's false. It takes more muscles to smile.

I wonder if the same thing can be said for how some approach this subject. Does it take fewer 'muscles' (i.e. firing neurons) to latch onto fear than it does to rationally analyze something and make a determination as to whether it deserves fear or not?

Because it seems like a substantial number of DUers are instantly willing to believe what Snowden says without taking the time to ask basic questions such as 'Where is the evidence?' Basic journalistic questions, too, such as 'Where', 'Why', 'How often'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[intaglio]

85. What it really is is that some people find it "icky"

and hence the knee-jerk responses

[gholtron]

93. By the way,

I was not directing my response specifically to you but to those that think that the government has violated their rights.

[randome]

95. I get you. And I wasn't trying to 'teach' you anything, either.

Just throwing food for thought into the open.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[On the Road]

173. I Appreciate Your Bringing Legal Terminology into the Discussion

There has been so much froth over the Snowden charges that it's almost impossible to get a picture of what is actually happening and what the legal basis for it is.

I have one question about your argument though:

You don't own the network or the equipment that stores your phone number or emails or the wires they travel on or the air or space your conversation is carried through.

Even though you may not own the network facilities, you still retain privacy rights to the contents of the call itself even. NSA cannot access the content without a warrant.

There seems to be a belief that NSA has listened to the actual calls (live or recorded). Those claims have been difficult to separate from foreign surveillance, warranted wiretapping, or unfounded suspicion.

[secondvariety]

78. So

that means it's the government's property? Interesting.

[randome]

81. No, it means the 4th amendment is not being violated.

Any more than it is when a newborn is issued a birth certificate and a social security number.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

115. If the phone records

aren't the governments property, why are they allowed to possess them? Maybe the records weren't originally their property, but they certainly appear to be now. It's not like the NSA is ever going to give them back.

[randome]

116. It's the digital age. Data is never 'given back', it's copied and then deleted.

And there is a limit to how long the government can keep the metadata. It's five years, I believe. Easy enough to run a batch job every evening to delete every record more than 5 years old.

If the NSA did not keep a copy of this data, when they had a warrant it would need to be issued to every telecom in the country, which means a much greater opportunity for interception, hacking and even telecom employee malfeasance. And the process would take much longer to get a result.

Keeping the data in one place greatly simplifies the process and if this 'one place' is sufficiently safeguarded (i.e. a black box type of storage) then I have no problem whatsoever with the NSA doing this.

It would truly benefit all of us if we knew what the procedures and safeguards are for accessing this black box.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

122. So,

instead of going to the courts and asking for a warrant to keep the data of a suspect, the NSA (or whomever) gets a warrant allowing them to collect and keep the metadata records of EVERYONE in the hope that a subversive MIGHT be caught by connecting a couple of phone numbers out of hundreds of millions.

Am I the only one who finds this to be an idiotic way to fight terrorism? Since I'm foolish to expect not to be snooped on and to save time and money, why not have every single phone call automatically routed through NSA. They won't find any terrorists, but we can furlough the FISA judges and save a few bucks.

[randome]

129. Why would it be idiotic?

I believe the purpose is to find connections a criminal has after a crime is committed. That's how they found the Boston bombing suspect's connections.

It's not a foolproof way of stopping anything, just a way to look for connections after the fact. If America wanted to stop all crime before it was committed, that would require massive analysis of all personal data. And we have no evidence that supports this is being done.

But we draw the line between security and freedom every day.

The metadata is just a tool for law enforcement. A minor one at that. It isn't some major catch-all.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

140. But, Clapper

said the metadata mining has stopped "dozens" of attacks. Just have to take his word for it because it's all hush-hush don't you know.

I thought the Boston bombers were caught using CCTV cameras and old fashioned police work.

Until the NSA and the rest of the spook world offers honest collaborated proof that a terrorist plot has been foiled or anyone besides some wanna be sullen teenager has been apprehended, it's still an idiotic, lazy, needle in a haystack approach to law enforcement.

[randome]

154. Did Clapper say that specifically about the metadata?

If he did, then my guess is that finding the associates of actual criminals resulted in stopping those associates from further crimes.

And I didn't say the Boston Bombers were caught by anyone. Obviously they weren't. I said some sort of investigative work went into looking at their contacts in the days before their crime but this work occurred after the crime. I don't know if that investigative work came from the NSA or someone else.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

161. My guess

is the NSA hasn't found squat through data mining, but won't admit it. Apparently, someone plotting a terrorist act has nothing to fear, but the lost pizza delivery guy calling for directions can expect an interrogation after the fact.

[randome]

162. You have no reason to think they are abusing the law.

Any more than you have reason to think the FBI is going through your garbage every night.

We need more transparency and less secrecy for the NSA but that doesn't mean assuming the worst in every situation, either.

I assume nothing without evidence unless it's something that has no laws or regulations at all. In this case, there is the usual bureaucratic maze of laws and regulations governing how the NSA conducts its activities.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

165. The law.

That's the problem-the NSA isn't breaking the law because the FISA court and only the FISA court says it isn't. Anyone else privy to what's on the warrants? Anyone else giving the ok to collect data information on every single American who uses a phone? I would love to see a show of hands of members of Congress who are in favor of mass data mining of Americans.

Actually, the idea of the FBI going through America's garbage and storing found documents makes more sense. Just as sleazy, but it would be more effective. Maybe the Post Office can digitally scan and store every letter (but no peeking) because the FISA court said it was ok.

[randome]

168. There is Congressional oversight but I don't know how detailed that goes.

And of course at least half of Congress doesn't bother to attend the security briefings and then they claim with a straight face that they were never told any details.

But this puts all 3 branches of government involved in the decision-making. And the FISA court is composed of eleven judges, although only one is required to sign off on a warrant. I am guessing (only that) that the other judges eventually review warrants.

Government attorneys can also be involved. That's a lot of people. On paper. How it actually functions is anyone's guess.

Congress can step in at any time and make the entire operation more transparent but in their cowardly fashion they would prefer not to know too much else they might need to make difficult decisions.

The system needs a better balance between secrecy and openness. It's too bad Snowden ruined his life, gave away secrets to foreign countries and risked the lives of undercover agents to make this simple point.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[secondvariety]

171. How it functions is anyone's guess.

Spot on and that's the problem. I would hope the FISA judges are composed of the best and the brightest, but they're appointed by the Chief Justice, so who knows. And shame on us for electing cowards too afraid to ask the questions. Who watches the watchmen-no one?

I imagine the purpose of snooping on the entire country is to catch swarthy men with funny names, but that could change as the NSA, CIA, FBI et al expands the definition of terrorism. We're seeing the term "terrorist" used with the Keystone pipeline protesters. Today it's Middle Eastern people- in the near future it could be me, you, our families and friends depending how the government interprets our action and political beliefs.

Sinclair Lewis had it right.

[JaneyVee]

19. I don't see how metadata collection violates the 4th Amendment in any way.

That would be like saying the video of my car and license plate that the gas station camera is recording violates my 4th Amendment rights. Sure, going to the gas station may be a voluntary act, but so is communicating by cellphone and email. Our cellphone and email providers also have and store a list of our metadata as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Good for you. I hope you like your National Security State.

I mean what could possibly go wrong with the government knowing everyone you've ever called, where you and they were when the calls were made, exactly when the calls were made, and as we are now learning, the ability to fetch the content of those calls as well.

yes indeed we are being monitored all over the place. By video cameras, by transponder records, by cell phone records, by internet communication logs, by every swipe of a card. What could go wrong with that?

But it is keeping us safe right? Is that why you support it?

[JaneyVee]

26. My point was about the legalities of it pertaining to the 4th amendment.

[randome]

35. But you'll trust Verizon to know all that. They don't have laws preventing misuse.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Progressive dog]

43. The point is very simple, the Congress and the President do not agree

that the NSA "spying" as presently done, violates the 4th amendment. The only SCOTUS ruling on this seems to side with the other 2 branches of government.
If you wish to change this, using it as a way to attack the President as a criminal is not an intelligent way to get results.
If you wish to change this, allying yourself with Libertarian nuts like Rand Paul and his followers is a very poor way to get results.
If you expect to change this, don't expect that every repeat of the Snowden claims will make them more credible.

[Fire Walk With Me]

34. Two things, and funny you should mention license plates.

Man astonished to find he'd been photographed 112 times by police license plate reader tech
http://cironline.org/reports/license-plate-readers-let-police-collect-millions-records-drivers-4883

When the city of San Leandro, Calif., purchased a license-plate reader for its police department in 2008, computer security consultant Michael Katz-Lacabe asked the city for a record of every time the scanners had photographed his car.

The results shocked him.

The paperback-size device, installed on the outside of police cars, can log thousands of license plates in an eight-hour patrol shift. Katz-Lacabe said it had photographed his two cars on 112 occasions, including one image from 2009 that shows him and his daughters stepping out of his Toyota Prius in their driveway.

That photograph, Katz-Lacabe said, made him “frightened and concerned about the magnitude of police surveillance and data collection.” The single patrol car in San Leandro equipped with a plate reader had logged his car once a week on average, photographing his license plate and documenting the time and location.



Indefinite Surveillance: Say Hello to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014

On May 22, 2013 the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, one of several Armed Services Committees, met to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014. The main subject of the hearing was Sec. 1061, otherwise known as Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records. This enhancement provision of NDAA 2014 would effectively create a new intelligence agency, one with the authority to analyze information gained under the Patriot Act, FISA, and known spying programs such as PRISM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

[pipoman]

62. Do people really

not get that the fucking gas station isn't the fucking government? That civil rights/liberties can only be violated by government? That communicating information to a private entity during the coarse of doing business with that entity has absolutely no relationship to a government collecting that information? That stating there is some similarity means there is no privacy at all? By that ridiculous logic the information stored by my doctor or my bank would be fine too...after all, I have given them my info, therefore I must not care who has that info. That the gas station and cell phone company isn't also collecting my phone data, my location data, my financial data, my email data, my internet data, and whothefuckknows what other data...My phone company has a fiduciary responsibility to me and a terms of service which is enforceable civilly and even criminally. Jeeezuz the amount of ignorance surrounding historical government access to information always required both transparency through release of public information, petitioning of a court with a presiding judge who's oath is soundly based on upholding the constitution of the US who requires a very specific objective on a very specific individual or group of individuals, and for the retrieval of very specific items. No those who see no sideways shit in this whole story are more likely political hacks trying to protect their political interests, are indifferent about the weight of the US government, or are just ignorant of the ability of the government to destroy their life individually or collectively..

[randome]

67. When did the government not have that ability to destroy individual lives?

It has been that way throughout all of history. This is why we have laws, rules and regulations -to prevent abuse.

Now if someone wants to show us that the laws, rules and regulations are being misused or abused, let's see the evidence.

Because so far there is nothing from Snowden but his unsupported claims.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pipoman]

112. Snowden is a flea on a dogs tail...the same tail that is wagging the dog..

this is about a series of laws, policies, and interpretations which when combined result in massive undermining of the historical intent of our representative republic..it is an awakening and expose' of these laws, policies and interpretations which have been put in place by people who have lost sight of why they are where they are. If these laws, policies, and interpretations are a recipe...a person reads a recipe, but really don't know what the result of the recipe is until they cook it..most people didn't know the ramifications of these policies, laws, and interpretations until they see a clear example which is contrary to their understanding of what they were told they would do/allow..

The evidence are courts established to allow for operation of government in indefinite secrecy..among other things. The ACLU's case ill be interesting and hopefully they are victorious.

No, pretty sure we wouldn't have all of these apologists running around the DU if this came to light under a rethug president..

[intaglio]

100. Well you seem to be ignorant of some lies you have issued

That civil rights/liberties can only be violated by government

A direct lie as those using illegal aliens for slave labour are also breaching civil rights/liberties. As Google has found when its Streetview showed unblurred faces.

That communicating information to a private entity during the coarse of doing business with that entity has absolutely no relationship to a government collecting that information

So any transactions with with overseas entities that may want to harm your country cannot be examined?

That stating there is some similarity means there is no privacy at all

There is privacy but not of published information. Dialing a phone number or addressing a letter or addressing an e-mail automatically publishes that information.

By that ridiculous logic the information stored by my doctor or my bank would be fine too...after all, I have given them my info, therefore I must not care who has that info

That is a lie where you are depending upon us not seeing that published information is different from private. If a doctor gives you a prescription for morphine, then presenting that prescription will trigger an enquiry by the pharmacist as to your medical condition and will also probably trigger an enquiry from the FDA.

That the gas station and cell phone company isn't also collecting my phone data, my location data, my financial data, my email data, my internet data, and whothefuckknows what other data

You persist in conflating published information (your number plate, your phone number, your e-mail address, your addressees, the people you call) with private (your financial data) and with data that you have chosen to reveal (your location).

My phone company has a fiduciary responsibility to me and a terms of service which is enforceable civilly and even criminally

This is true but it that fiduciary responsibility cannot extend to keeping the number you call a secret from other networks or, given modern digital routing, the number you are calling from a secret or your location. Smith v Maryland again because you persist in confusing published information with private.

Jeeezuz the amount of ignorance surrounding historical government access to information always required both transparency through release of public information, petitioning of a court with a presiding judge who's oath is soundly based on upholding the constitution of the US who requires a very specific objective on a very specific individual or group of individuals, and for the retrieval of very specific items

Apart from the fact this is word salad (yes that is an ad hom - but a justified one) you continue to display ignorance about the difference between published and private information. Published information can provide evidence for a justified search and seizure, exactly as telephoning Kim Il Jong would provide reason to record and examine your phone call.

No those who see no sideways shit in this whole story are more likely political hacks trying to protect their political interests, are indifferent about the weight of the US government, or are just ignorant of the ability of the government to destroy their life individually or collectively

and i thought mine was an ad hom ...

pipoman please think about what you write and use paragraphs as it aids comprehension of what you are trying to say.

[pipoman]

175. well..

A direct lie as those using illegal aliens for slave labour are also breaching civil rights/liberties. As Google has found when its Streetview showed unblurred faces.

No " using illegal aliens for slave labour(sic)" isn't a civil rights violation in any but the most 'johnny come lately' use of language, civil right and liberties refer to violations of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The Constitution/Bill of Rights are limitations on government, not the people. It is a violation of criminal statute and/or an "act of Congress"..an act, like the civil rights act for instance..if an employer doesn't wish to hire a Buddhist because he's a Buddhist (insert any race, creed, color...etc.) that person would be charged for violation of an act of congress not a first amendment violation. If a cop kicks a Buddhists ass because he is a Buddhist it would be a 1st amendment violation and probably a few others.

So any transactions with with overseas entities that may want to harm your country cannot be examined?

Sure, just get a warrant and listen away..by all means, be pretty liberal in the issuance of warrants..but guess what? Why do you suppose we need a FISA court? Imagine how much cheaper it would be to just place a few extra judges on the federal bench to handle the volume? Could it be because there isn't a federal judge on the bench who would sign a warrant to encompass every person who owns a cell phone..that is a bit too liberal for any judge I expect..so we need a new court to issue these because the existing federal court is bound by SCOTUS precedent..criteria for warrants has a volume of case law behind it, this new court doesn't need to be burdened by all that..oh, and how about we operate this court secretly..we don't need the pesky public finding out we are issuing warrants with no recourse.

There is privacy but not of published information. Dialing a phone number or addressing a letter or addressing an e-mail automatically publishes that information.

It publishes it, does it? Where prytell does it publish it? Where do I go to see this information made public (definition of publish)? Utter nonsense..why, if this information is published, would the .gov need a warrant to get it?

That is a lie where you are depending upon us not seeing that published information is different from private. If a doctor gives you a prescription for morphine, then presenting that prescription will trigger an enquiry by the pharmacist as to your medical condition and will also probably trigger an enquiry from the FDA.

no, the lie is that the information is "published"...tell me again why if it is published the feds need a warrant from a (relatively) new secret court?

You persist in conflating published information (your number plate, your phone number, your e-mail address, your addressees, the people you call) with private (your financial data) and with data that you have chosen to reveal (your location).

see the above 2 answers.

Apart from the fact this is word salad (yes that is an ad hom - but a justified one) you continue to display ignorance about the difference between published and private information. Published information can provide evidence for a justified search and seizure, exactly as telephoning Kim Il Jong would provide reason to record and examine your phone call.

Since you admitted you don't understand in the first sentence, the rest might be...word..salad?

pipoman please think about what you write and use paragraphs as it aids comprehension of what you are trying to say.

LOL..perhaps a dictionary when you write, eh?

[intaglio]

177. What a charming person you are

Illegal Aliens cannot have their civil liberties violated - I suggest you post that at some more right wing site, you'll fit right in.

Google is not violating civil rights by showing faces? What if they are (accidentally) photographing the interior of houses?

What of bus companies not letting African Americans sit wherever they wished on the bus?

Getting a warrant to listen away is getting a blanket warrant. Warrants require probable cause which has to be shown by knowing that the possible offender dialed certain numbers overseas. Any more bright ideas?

It is publication because it puts into the public sphere a number to which you want to connect. Once you are connected then the contents of the call are private. By default you are asking your phone company to utilise whatever networks they need to connect you and this requires them to make the phone number you are calling, as well as your own phone number, available to those other networks. You will deny this is publication because you live in your own private universe.

Metadata on an e-mail is published for the same reason, you cannot have secret metadata otherwise the internet does not work.

The "feds" obtain a warrant not to look at metadata but to look at the content; which is protected, private communication. To do this they show probable cause in that the e-mail or phone call is addressed to persons who may wish to harm the USA. It does seem that FISC is pretty much a rubber stamp court but that is a separate issue from the collection of metadata.

As to spelling, Merriam Webster may be the be all and end all of education as far as you are concerned but I prefer British useage. There is a reason for this.

[pipoman]

178. LOL

all examples of various law and act violations..really, this is like American Government 101. No, it's only a "blanket warrant" if it is issued on anyone which it appears the NSA warrant on Verizon was/is..those usually aren't issued by courts required to uphold the constitution and act in accordance with established interpretations.

Where is this "public sphere" you speak of? I'm interested in seeing the metadata on your email and cell calls..where is this place?

Oh and as for your opening..wasn't it you who called me a liar in the post I responded to?..hmm..yep, that was you..who's the "charming person" in this exchange again?

you seem to be ignorant of some lies you have issued

Is that charming?

A direct lie

How about that one?

That is a lie

or this one?

this is word salad

Now that one is sure charming, eh?

you continue to display ignorance

What was it again you were crying about? My not being charming in the face of ad hom after ad hom, wasn't that it?

[intaglio]

181. I gave examples of lies that you told

I am not sorry if you are offended by being so exposed.

I gave examples of your ignorance, I am not sorry if that offends you, I am sorry that you have not taken the chance to learn.

I listed a particular sentence as being little more than word salad, well perhaps you ought to be offended by your own incompetence with language.

As to publication, that word does not mean what you think it means. You do not have to go to the nearest printing company or scribe and have your words copied before being bound between hard covers and offered for sale. It can mean that but it also means making available in the public sphere and that is the sense in which meta is published.

To repeat myself, yet again:

1) Like an address on an envelope or package is open and available to allow the agent that you choose to deliver the contents to the destination you select, metadata is open and available;

2) Metadata is sent with the text of an e-mail;

3) This meta is open and available to allow a carrier to get that message to the destination you choose;

4) Because the internet is not a series of tubes that carrier will not be your service provider for much of its journey;

5) Your e-mail will be broken down into smaller packages and each package will have the publicly available metadata;

6) Many lines and servers will handle parts of your e-mail and each part of your e-mail will have this meta attached;

7) When the text you have sent gets to the target the metadata allows the e-mail to be put back together;

8) Whilst in transit the meta actually delineates the part of the message that is privileged and which the servers cannot examine.

[pipoman]

186. Do you really not see the parody

in your repeated ad homs after wailing about charm..oh and you're welcome for your civics lesson..

[intaglio]

187. I've admitted to a justified ad hom

but pointing out that the methods you use to argue are flawed is not such a case.

I will hold to my stated belief that you are knowingly issuing lies - this is not an ad hominem attack on your argument but a comment on your method of argumentation. I will continue to state that you proceeded to use as part of your argument a convoluted and virtually incomprehensible sentence - this is not an ad hominem attack but a comment on your method of argument.

I will hold to my stated belief in your willful ignorance - this may be ad hominem attack but justified by your continued refusal to actually try and refute the points I have raised. A repeated cry of "la-la-la I can't hear you," is not worthy of consideration as a a defense of your position.

May I also point out that, ironically, your constant statements that I am making an ad hominem attack on you are, in and of themselves, an ad hominem attack ... but I am not moaning about it

[OilemFirchen]

142. Sometimes the gummint keeps secrets to protect your privacy.

I don't know if that's relevant to your screed, because my synapses stopped firing about half way through.

Thought it might pique your interest, though.

[railsback]

111. How true

And every store you go into is violating your 4th Amendment rights with their surveillance cameras. Every state that utilizes traffic stop cameras is violating your rights. Hell, man, every person that makes eye contact with me without my permission is VIOLATING MY FREAKIN' RIGHTS!

[intaglio]

36. First of your problems

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

This phrase does not at present cover meta. Meta is published information, just as the envelope on a letter is published, and as such is not subject to the restriction you propose. Placing such a restriction on meta would fatally damage the ability of the internet to function just as it would damage the Postal Service and private delivery companies if you place a restriction on an envelope or the wrapping of a package being examined.

What you might say is that such restriction should only apply to Government, but the 4th does not apply only to government and extending it's reach would harm private individuals and businesses.

The next problem is that meta can then be used to justify "searches and seizures" (reading/listening and storage) of the contents of the phone call or e-mail. An exact parallel is that examination of an envelope can justify the search and seizure of the envelope's contents. Extreme examples show this:

1) a letter to be sent by airmail to Saif al-Adel at an address in Iran;
2) a package, addressed to the President with a return address of Michael Musmusculus at The Retreat, Orlando, Florida 32821.

Do you really propose that legislation halt judicial authorisations to search and seize these documents?

I do not say that the law should not be strengthened but moaning about the unconstitutionality or illegality of the current actions hides the real problem - a need for modern laws and rulings

[MADem]

14. I find your arguments the most compelling in this discussion! nt

[Pholus]

40. And, like most major violations of the spirit of this nation, the "fig leaf"

will merely insure that the inevitable abuses and violations will be accountability free moments.

Just like always.

At least half of our Senators apparently realize this given yesterday's letter to the NSA.

[intaglio]

46. Very much agree

At the risk of being too prideful, my post at #36 seems to apply

[Pholus]

48. No need to worry about pride, you're being very thoughtful about this.

Thanks!

[rhett o rick]

64. Just because there is a law doesnt mean it doesnt violate the Constitution. I suggest you read the

4th amendment and stop taking the Corp-Media's word.

[intaglio]

74. I suggest you take the Supreme Court's word

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Just because you are offended by this it does not mean it is currently illegal or unconstitutional.

I would also point out that as it is "Corp-Media" stirring the pot against the President that you take your own advice.

[rhett o rick]

88. That ruling only applied to "pen registers". The warrant we've seen

included all data on all Americans. The FISA law violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. The warrant we've seen violates the Constitution and the FISA law.

The Corp-Media sides with the authoritarian conservatives and are vilifying Snowden and certainly not Clapper and Mueller.

The Corp-Media attacked Pres Clinton for lying to Congress about a BJ. The Corp-Media is looking the other way as Clapper lies about surveilling millions of Americans.

I side with Pres Carter, Ms. Plame, Mr. Wilson, etc and stand against the lying Republicans Mueller and Clapper and the authoritarian loving Corp-Media.

[intaglio]

102. Pen registers and the information encoded in the the dialing of the number

i.e. digital information. That is why Smith v Maryland applies and that is why so many seem to cite Thurston Marshall's dissent as proving their point - which it doesn't

[OnyxCollie]

103. Here's a more pertinent SCOTUS action.

Supreme Court Lets Stand Telecom Immunity In Wiretap Case

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_WARRANTLESS_WIRETAPPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-09-09-58-20

'Cause there's nothing different that the government can do now with metadata that they couldn't do in 1979, right?

[intaglio]

105. Thanks for that

nice dog btw

[xchrom]

7. du rec.

[randome]

8. So the technology 'can' do this? Is the NSA using it?

Are they using it for only foreign calls?

Is anyone going to ask basic questions this time around?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cpwm17]

12. If they build it

they will use it.

[randome]

16. Technology is often not 'built' in the way physical things are built.

Sometimes it's all code. That kind of technology -purely based in code- already exists and can do much more than store data.

But, again, unless someone shows evidence that the NSA is actually using the technology or is storing purely domestic communications, this will be yet another Greenwald fizzle.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

18. When I was a little kid, we were told there'd be jet packs for everyone.

Hasn't happened yet, and they've built 'em, too.

[cpwm17]

23. Jet packs are a very impracticle technology for widespread use

It has many downsides. There really isn't an 'it' there.

That was a good excuse to show that cool video – thanks.

[MADem]

25. We were promised them, though. PROMISED!

We were also supposed to fly through the air in vehicles like the JETSONS had...AND where, pray tell, is my damn house robot? I'm getting too old to mow the lawn, and I'm no damn good at housework, either--I want my house robot that I was also promised!

[zeemike]

83. Talk about a red hearing....sheesh...

[randome]

87. No, this is a red herring. I don't see the resemblance at all.

Now a red herring with a jetpack? That would be a red herring worthy of the name.



[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

114. Well, it wasn't a Communist who told me this, and my hearing was quite good at the time...! nt

[tclambert]

15. So three teenage girls overflow their system?

[Demit]

22. Ha! It is to be fervently wished.

C'mon, teenaged girls! Before you age out and become docile & obedient subjects. We need you to make more phone calls!

[Thinkingabout]

27. Now this report by Greenwald shows he does not have any concept of what he is

Talking about. How many Americans, how many cell phones and he comes up with a number of a billion. Has he ever thought how many people it would require to listen to a billion calls a day? Goodness, this is just how dumb this has become, we need some reality and get rid of this paranoia.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Greenwald says, ""It doesn't mean that they're listening to every call, it means they're storing

every call."

Really. That's what he said. It's right in the OP.

[Thinkingabout]

49. Do we have only a billion people in the US who has a cell phone? How many cell phone customers do

you think only places one phone call a day? This is where he does not have any idea of what he is talking about. This is just information he is dumping on those who wants to believe and paranoid thinkers are running amok.

[Pholus]

51. Ummm, the US population is 313.9 million. A factor of 3 smaller than a "billion"

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

And industry estimates are 900 billion cell phone calls per year or 2.4 billion calls per day.

http://www.deadzones.com/2011/05/how-many-cell-phone-calls-are-made-day.html

You're hardly facing a crisis if you're estimate is within a factor of two.

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. The 2014 NDAA creates a new complex dedicated to the analysis of stored data and metadata.

Indefinite Surveillance: Say Hello to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

On May 22, 2013 the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, one of several Armed Services Committees, met to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014. The main subject of the hearing was Sec. 1061, otherwise known as Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records. This enhancement provision of NDAA 2014 would effectively create a new intelligence agency, one with the authority to analyze information gained under the Patriot Act, FISA, and known spying programs such as PRISM.

(But that's only if you're a terrorist, which increasingly is a word describing all Americans.)

[Pholus]

47. A billion would be three calls per day per cell phone user.

And you're missing the complete text of what he said -- you don't HAVE to listen. You record and store.

It makes reassurances like "We don't listen to your phone calls" relatively phoney. Of course not for the reasons you mention. You instead collect, store and look later.

Bush's TIA had one core technology goal called EARS -- Effective, Affordable, Reusable Speech-to-Text

Why listen when you can index electronically and search for patterns.

Definitely, you're hearing grudging praise for what has come out from the professional Stasi at least:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/26/195045/memories-of-stasi-color-germans.html#.Uc7ZsXwtwXG

Hell, even the old Stasi Colonel seems to get it more than many here do:

"It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used,” he said. “This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”

[Thinkingabout]

53. How long do you expect a call to last, it does not add up. Longer calls means more storage is taken

[Pholus]

57. You should probably just examine a calculation yourself.

This is from the guy who runs the internet archive. Numbers are easily double checked in Google.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuqlWHQKlooOdGJrSzhBVnh0WGlzWHpCZFNVcURkX0E#gid=0

His commentary on the calculation which concludes that it would cost 27 million in capital and 2 million in electricity to store all voice data from cell phones for one year:

http://blog.archive.org/2013/06/15/cost-to-store-all-us-phonecalls-made-in-a-year-in-cloud-storage-so-it-could-be-datamined/

Bandwidth wise, the entire internet is only 10x harder to store.

[ProSense]

28. Greenwald

...pretending to break news, and is still behind the times.

Size of NSA's database of phone-call records isn't all that impressive
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2006-05-16-nsa-privacy_x.htm?csp=34

NSA whistleblower: Agency collects records on 3 billion calls per day across all major U.S. phone companies
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/nsa_whistleblower_agency_colle.html

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Would you give the government permission to put a camera in every room in your house

as long as the feed and recordings were anonymized and accessible only by warrant to connect identifying information to them?

Because that's the equivalent of what's going on here.

I would like to hear more about this and particularly how long the information is kept.

[Catherina]

30. Here's the video for any good souls who missed it

"I want to say very, very clearly...particularly to the dingbat factory... that's constantly attacking Glenn Greenwald... I stand with Gleen Greenwald." - Jeremy Scahill

[DCBob]

33. I think he is confused.

It is absurd to assume they are storing the contents of every single call made. Im in IT and have worked in telecom and this just doesn't make sense... its simply unmanageable. Storing the metadata is doable but not all the content.

[FarCenter]

45. It is technically possible, but not very probable

Cell phone voice coding is around 1 KB/s. So at 300 seconds per call that works out to 300 TB/day for a billion calls.

The data rate for 10 M phones talking would be 8 Kb/s * 10^7 phones = 80 Gb/s.

The phone companies make a lot of money off voice services, since they are quite low bit rate.

But I haven't seen Greewald release a document backing up his speculation.

[DCBob]

50. It could be they are storing selectively.

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

based on some rules.

[FarCenter]

54. CALEA mandates that they have that capability.

They can intercept and record a very small percentage of calls from each mobile switching office.

[Trekologer]

148. Between tower and handset is about 8 Kb/s

But between the tower and the rests of the PSTN cloud, it is 64 Kb/s u-law PCM. So you'd be looking at 8x the storage needed. Plus the bandwidth to copy the content, in real time. Sure, the content could be transcoded down to a lower bitrate but that would require DSP capacity, which is a precious commodity in a telecom network.

So while it might be technically possible to store that much data, capturing the transporting it isn't probable.

[Pholus]

55. The guy who does the "Internet Archive" did a calculation

that makes it seem relatively reasonable. You might appreciate the numbers in the spreadsheet he attaches.

http://blog.archive.org/2013/06/15/cost-to-store-all-us-phonecalls-made-in-a-year-in-cloud-storage-so-it-could-be-datamined/

[Coyotl]

37. Once again, he could have read about Bush doing this and MORE here on DU many years ago!

Deja DU: Nov-09-07

Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2245762

The fact that they can and DO listen to whatever they want legally by routing it outside the USA should be the real controversy!

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. But...but greenwald is a something or other! This means everything he says doesn't matter!

Blah blah blah head in the sand blah blah blah I can't hear you there is no surveillance state under a democratic president who didn't lie to us ever at all

[Robb]

39. Relevantly, A-Ha was releasing new albums well into 2009 or so.

[denem]

41. No, actually 3 days of the entire Internet, per day

and 30 days metadata as tapped in the UK - GCHQ
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/how-does-gchq-internet-surveillance-work

[cantbeserious]

60. Prudence Dictates That One Must Make The Assumption That Everything Will Be Recorded

One must also make the assumption that the executive branch of government is supportive, which includes Obama.

[Pholus]

71. I figure the Terrorists already do...

So why can't we even talk about what the Government considers the legal bounds of their self-granted powers?

[cantbeserious]

75. Any Smart Malcontent Would Surely Avoid All Forms Of Electronic Communication

eom

[Pholus]

118. The NSA "trap" then is the illusion of freedom or being lost in the noise....

And we are supposed to trust them to not abuse the privilege and compile lifelong dossiers that would have no end of uses if you get branded a Terrorist later or placed on a Terrorism Watch List.

Like the Quakers,
Like Occupy,
Like Greenpeace,
Like Peta,
Like those people complaining about their water quality....

[cantbeserious]

121. Agree - The Surveillance Is For Us - Not The Terrorists

eom

[Pholus]

125. I think my point was, we are all potential Terrorists now.

It just takes ticking off the wrong LEO who can paint you as a terrorist. Perhaps you complain about your water, for example.

In that instant you go from:

"We are not listening to your phone calls."

to

"We have been following everything you do and say for the last 10 years."

And somehow, this is consistent with the 4th amendment. MAGIC!

[Vinnie From Indy]

73. K&R

I will not be distracted by the personal attacks on Greenwald and Snowden.

[SidDithers]

80. A billion?...

Sid

[randome]

82. So many it staggers the imagination.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pholus]

119. Not spoken like Carl.

He at least understood that "billions" are tractable numbers.

You don't have to work hard in computing these days until you get to billions of billions these days.

[flamingdem]

124. a billion's got nuthin' on a Sexdecillion

billion is amateur at this point, just like GG

[Pholus]

126. I breathlessly await your next contribution.

If you strive a bit, you might approach a "your mama" joke.

[flamingdem]

128. I listened to the video posted here last night

and it was a pure promo sales job. Nothing of substance there. I don't really see what he's done that's so great and he's associated with the Cato Institute that's funded by the Koch Brothers.

[Pholus]

133. That's fair enough.

I feel the same way "pure promo sales" job I hear from Government.

It sucks that I have to read each and every statement like a contract from a shyster.

[flamingdem]

123. lol - no not a billion a Sexdecillion !11(one)!

I love how easily Greenwald can mesmerize people with aphorisms and bs

[Cali_Democrat]

137. LOL

[HiddenAgenda63]

94. Hasn't Echelon already been intercepting / storing over 3 billion / day for decades?

[railsback]

108. I have a car

and I can take that sucker and ram it straight into a wall doing 55 mph… if I wanted.

[randome]

110. Prove it!

And ramming it into the wall while obeying the speed limit? How lame.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[railsback]

113. "And ramming it into the wall while obeying the speed limit? How lame."

LoL!

ok, 56 mph.

[Apophis]

127. So which cell phone companies are complying with the NSA spying on Americans?

I'm thinking if it's my company, I'm going to dump it.

[randome]

132. I'm thinking it's all of them.

And even if you find one that isn't complying, when they do comply, they're not going to tell you about it.

They also don't tell you when they sell your data to someone else.

So if I were you, I'd simply give up on cell phones altogether.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DesMoinesDem]

130. And the authoritarians break out their goto talking point: We already knew that!

Of course this contradicts their previous talking point: It's only metadata! No one is recording your calls!

Smearing whistle blowers and journalists and defending the NSA is hard work, but somebody's got to do it.

[bobduca]

139. "hard work, but someody's got to do it"

they'll defend it right up until the next republican presidency, whenever that is.

[Cali_Democrat]

131. So they have the ability to do this

Thanks for the information, Greenwald.

This is his new big scoop? Oh lawd.

Why doesn't Glenn just release everything he has instead of slowly releasing and editorializing. Why not let the people see everything and analyze it for themselves?

This guy is becoming an attention whore.

[WillyT]

138. K & R !!!

[madrchsod]

145. that would be storing....

365 billion 9 digit numbers cell phone numbers 24 hours 365 days a year. i`ll let the tech heads figure out the size of the buildings and the amount of electricity it would take to run just cell phone numbers. throw in email,landlines, and comments on social media...dam.

[Major Hogwash]

149. A lot of it has to do with all the calls we make to our Congressmen.

You know, like when someone comes to the DU and says, "Call your Congressmen right now!!"

They've got to store those calls somewhere.

[99th_Monkey]

150. That last sentence really clarifies things a lot

"...they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time, and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon millions upon millions of our phone and email records."

We are not being "listened in on" in real time, but the content IS being stored JUST IN CASE it's needed later, they CAN & DO go back and listen/look at content, on a somewhat selective basis, based on suspicions raised by the meta-data.

This one simple fact it seems, keeps getting lost and obscured by some who refuse to accept that this is true.

[Douglas Carpenter]

156. knr

[railsback]

157. I can drink 10 beers before feeling intoxicated!

[randome]

160. It's a fact!

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[railsback]

167. LoL!

Greenwald strikes an uncanny resemblance to that girl.

[nashville_brook]

159. k and r