General Discussion

cui bono

(19,926 posts)

87. And you're refuting what the FBI agent says based on your ideas of what is possible digitally which

Sun May 12, 2013, 04:57 AM

May 2013

has been shown to be incorrect in posts above.

It's not like govt agencies never do anything illegal. It happens all the time. And do you really think that just because one has evidence of something that they could have most of the country up in arms? We all know that's not true.

I read years ago that Obama increased the illegal warrantless wiretapping. I thought it was common knowledge here, albeit with that loyal group always denying that he does anything wrong.

Not to mention, you feel the need to turn your disagreement with Greenwald into a smearfest with your sensationalist headline. I won't tell you what group of people you sound like when you do that, I'm not allowed to. After that display you have to work extra hard to get my attention as you've discredited yourself a lot with it. I don't understand the smear Greenwald campaign on DU. This site is so ridiculous sometimes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

More crackpot thinking from Glenn Greenwald [View all] struggle4progress May 2013 OP

Not a problem if you're NSA and have a yottabyte of storage capacity, you ninny leveymg May 2013 #1

You're overlooking the technical problems of constantly streaming 4 million conversations struggle4progress May 2013 #8

Google precesses 24 petabytes/day. That's one company. Apparently you can't grasp that reality. leveymg May 2013 #11

Google does process about a billion queries daily. But they all arrive at the company struggle4progress May 2013 #24

The scale of data is roughly the same: Google 24 petabytes/day; ATT network 19 petabytes/day leveymg May 2013 #26

Correction, Google does store web pages. check the "cache" link on most search results. bobduca May 2013 #91

Yeah, you're right. My mistake. But google doesn't save the whole history of that page: struggle4progress May 2013 #95

I think your point basically stands, but the numbers (while still large) are a bit off... Silent3 May 2013 #2

The OP is WAY, WAY off. At 60KB/minute storage for voice audio, 2.2 trillion min/yr requires leveymg May 2013 #7

It depends on the use you plan to make of the recording. It may be that by reducing quality struggle4progress May 2013 #12

Data compression is applied by the cell phones themselves... Silent3 May 2013 #18

One shouldn't confuse the radio channel signal with the conversation. When cell phone companies struggle4progress May 2013 #82

Nothing but very compressed data ever gets out of your phone into the air, however Silent3 May 2013 #90

This message was self-deleted by its author RudynJack May 2013 #3

Greenwald seems to be repeating a claim made by a former FBI counter-terrorism agent. Jim__ May 2013 #4

He indeed reports the claim, then he repeats it in manner indicating that he accepts it: struggle4progress May 2013 #14

I'll go ahead and Godwin this thread Fumesucker May 2013 #5

Google's servers process 24 petabytes per day. That would leave a lot of spare capacity to process leveymg May 2013 #10

It's largely text processing struggle4progress May 2013 #17

If you're recording conversations for intelligence analysis purposes, you want the best quality struggle4progress May 2013 #20

I wrote a voice recording app for the Commodore 128 back when it was the latest thing Fumesucker May 2013 #21

This is correct. n/t whatchamacallit May 2013 #50

don't jump on me but ... Ligyron May 2013 #6

If you've got 4 million conversations coming in at every minute, and you're gonna listen to struggle4progress May 2013 #16

That wasn't Greenwald's claim Fumesucker May 2013 #19

No, his claim was that all calls were recorded and stored. I'm simply doing the math here on what struggle4progress May 2013 #22

No one has ever claimed that all the calls are listened to by humans Fumesucker May 2013 #23

I was responding to a comment made in #6: please do read subthreads when commenting struggle4progress May 2013 #25

thanks for doing the math Ligyron May 2013 #33

What a stupid argument. woo me with science May 2013 #28

I didn't argue any such thing: I've actually pointed out that there are too many to listen to struggle4progress May 2013 #36

How naive. woo me with science May 2013 #37

It is of course true, and always has been true, that there are unprincipled people struggle4progress May 2013 #43

So where is the proof? All you offer is speculation and with it you are smearing a good name. cui bono May 2013 #56

GG's PoV seems to be that if a "former FBI agent" suggests the Administration struggle4progress May 2013 #86

You'll never find "most Americans" loudly and vocally oppose anything political. Most Americans cui bono May 2013 #88

Violating our rights is not okay, ever. n/t cui bono May 2013 #54

Of course it's not OK! Ligyron May 2013 #89

OK!!! cui bono May 2013 #92

You better pay attention to this. alarimer May 2013 #9

From what I've read, your statement is 100% correct. byeya May 2013 #13

Yup. woo me with science May 2013 #27

But I bet Glenn was behind that article!!!111 bobduca May 2013 #35

Well, Tim Clemente is getting lots of attention for making this claim, but actually struggle4progress May 2013 #40

OMG. And DU posters are making claims that it isn't true and there's still no reason to believe cui bono May 2013 #53

There are currently something like 14K FBI employees. The FBI has no statutory authority struggle4progress May 2013 #84

And you're refuting what the FBI agent says based on your ideas of what is possible digitally which cui bono May 2013 #87

We've been hearing about this for years. Not sure why the OP is freaking out about the reporting now cui bono May 2013 #58

His specialty. nt MineralMan May 2013 #15

he's giving Alex Jones a run for his money dlwickham May 2013 #29

The OP is baseless slander. leveymg May 2013 #30

But they don't have the legal authority. ucrdem May 2013 #38

Your theory requires the view that ISPs, landline companies, and wireless communication companies struggle4progress May 2013 #39

Installation of the intercept equipment by telcos has been mandatory under CALEA since 1994 leveymg May 2013 #44

Doesn't most or all of this pertain to Bush-era domestic surveillance ucrdem May 2013 #46

The 2008 Amendments to FISA legalized most of it. leveymg May 2013 #49

It legalized some FISA warrants, sure, ucrdem May 2013 #55

Do you know how a "driftnet" warrant of the type legalized by the '08 Amendment works? leveymg May 2013 #69

Apparently it's not so legal. ucrdem May 2013 #70

Torture isn't legal either Fumesucker May 2013 #71

So who has Obama tortured? ucrdem May 2013 #72

Are you trying to say that America has never tortured anyone? Fumesucker May 2013 #73

The EFF suit against Bush Admin officials is still alive, the ATT case was dismissed. leveymg May 2013 #74

Okay thanks. ucrdem May 2013 #76

The point is, TIA never stopped. It just grew into the current NSA program. leveymg May 2013 #80

Sounds like it never started. ucrdem May 2013 #85

Large core components of TIA were shifted to NSA and DNI, and never ended. leveymg May 2013 #93

It looks like TIA was D.O.A. by 2004 ucrdem May 2013 #94

Like ThinThread, the technologies TIA incubated migrated to other programs leveymg May 2013 #96

You haven't understood what CALEA does: struggle4progress May 2013 #75

You're reading the 1995 regulations, ninny. leveymg May 2013 #78

I did not locate any further FR notices establishing capacity requirements. Following links from one struggle4progress May 2013 #83

You need to pay attention Ichingcarpenter May 2013 #31

Doesn't corroroborate Greenwald's claim ucrdem May 2013 #41

Oh, the "national security" establishment is certainly out of control: it's been oversized struggle4progress May 2013 #42

Redundancy and waste are only two of the three threats: There is institutional jealousy and lust for byeya May 2013 #45

Institutional competitiveness can be a good thing for democracy: it means none of them struggle4progress May 2013 #48

I think having 2, or more, agencies with the same mission is a waste of money and Cabinent byeya May 2013 #57

The OP is the one giving Alex Jones a run for his money! n/t cui bono May 2013 #64

They tell us they are spying on us to "protect" us from tyranny. Of course, they miss the irony. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #32

Glenn Greenwald never loved Obama!! 111 bobduca May 2013 #34

And just in case that doesn't work, woo me with science May 2013 #47

Haters gonna hate whatchamacallit May 2013 #51

UNREC - Wow. The Glenn Greenwald smearing is truly disgusting. cui bono May 2013 #52

or ... AtomicKitten May 2013 #59

Nope. That's definitely not it. n/t cui bono May 2013 #60

Uh huh. n/t AtomicKitten May 2013 #61

Well, back up your speculation then. n/t cui bono May 2013 #62

okay AtomicKitten May 2013 #67

And that proves what, how? cui bono May 2013 #68

You hit it on the head. This post is propaganda that works with other similar smears on this board leveymg May 2013 #63

He's a racist libertarian. nt msanthrope May 2013 #66

I keep all of Glenn Greenwald's phone calls on mi iPod arely staircase May 2013 #65

Eventually, someone will take the government to court to find out. JDPriestly May 2013 #77

The old left activists I knew decades ago would never discuss any concrete plans over the phone struggle4progress May 2013 #79

I used to know a guy whose job it was to censor the Western press in Poland. JDPriestly May 2013 #81

I'm not a fan of Greenwald, but he might be right here. stevenleser May 2013 #97

The Stellar Wind program appears to have been an offshoot of Thin Thread. See #93, 96 above. leveymg May 2013 #99

Glenn Greenwald is a good person Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #98