Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all]neohippie
(1,263 posts)57. But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years
I think you are not paying attention completely...
This article with an interview with a counterterrorism official says that the meta-data is collected in a blanket fashion and that all calls are also stored, but that they can only go back and listen the calls when a FISA warrant has been issued but there is no warrant for the blanket collection of all our calls, texts, emails, chats, etc...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston
On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored:
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all]
Are_grits_groceries
Jun 2013
OP
If meta-data was benign and meaningless they wouldn't be collecting it.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2013
#13
No, I'm saying if they had the actual contents, they would also have the metadata.
randome
Jun 2013
#24
People should be more worried about their spouses or children finding out about their phone calls
kelliekat44
Jun 2013
#3
some very astute DU'er posted this probably impacts our 1st Amendment Rights > Privacy.
KittyWampus
Jun 2013
#6
And if they are keeping all of the phone call and other raw content, metadata serves as an "index"
cascadiance
Jun 2013
#8
How can they know who *you* call if no names are linked to the numbers they have?
baldguy
Jun 2013
#12
But they don't do that unless the number is communicating with someone they have a warrant to watch.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#17
So, basically you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#29
you're right. interesting how fb has been pushing for members to add their phone numbers
desertduck
Jun 2013
#68
But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years
neohippie
Jun 2013
#57
You'd be surprised what spooks can learn about you from traffic analysis. n/t
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#22
The claim is that metadata is more intrusive than actually eavesdropping
Progressive dog
Jun 2013
#27
There's a helluva lot of room for guilt by assosiation. "Have you ever been a member...?"
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#23
Exactly! They're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama bin Laden.
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#48
Ironic, isn't it. For example, here you are on DU, generating income from metadata, presenting ads
jtuck004
Jun 2013
#49
You are ignoring experts in mathematics, probability, and many other fields.
Are_grits_groceries
Jun 2013
#67