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

neohippie

(1,263 posts)
57. But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 05:04 PM
Jun 2013

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:

Recommendations

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

Maybe not more intrusive, but certainly potentially more revealing Duer 157099 Jun 2013 #1
If they had the actual conversations, they would also have the metadata. randome Jun 2013 #2
They don't need to waste time, space or money on conversations. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #7
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
One more time. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #40
Winner! BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #32
To decide intents and how to react. nineteen50 Jun 2013 #54
DING DING! BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #62
Sorting through the conversations would be too time and labor JDPriestly Jun 2013 #46
People should be more worried about their spouses or children finding out about their phone calls kelliekat44 Jun 2013 #3
Is that a confession of some sort? randome Jun 2013 #5
Absolutely. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #4
some very astute DU'er posted this probably impacts our 1st Amendment Rights > Privacy. KittyWampus Jun 2013 #6
"the possibilities are endless"... marions ghost Jun 2013 #11
And if they are keeping all of the phone call and other raw content, metadata serves as an "index" cascadiance Jun 2013 #8
The public doesnt understand--she is right about that! marions ghost Jun 2013 #9
The goal posts are moving! The goal posts at moving! BenzoDia Jun 2013 #10
How can they know who *you* call if no names are linked to the numbers they have? baldguy Jun 2013 #12
Reverse directory Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #14
But they don't do that unless the number is communicating with someone they have a warrant to watch. baldguy Jun 2013 #17
He said they weren't listening to phone calls. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #25
So, basically you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about. baldguy Jun 2013 #29
What are you talking about? Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #37
Who says they don't have that info? backscatter712 Jun 2013 #16
Just pointing out a method used for decades. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #18
They certainly do. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #26
you're right. interesting how fb has been pushing for members to add their phone numbers desertduck Jun 2013 #68
Glenn Greenwald says. baldguy Jun 2013 #20
I said the contents are not as useful as the data. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #28
But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years neohippie Jun 2013 #57
Read the article *you* linked to. Who is actually storing "all that stuff"? baldguy Jun 2013 #58
K&R. If you think letting the NSA have your metadata is OK... backscatter712 Jun 2013 #15
Traitors? That's not bombastic, not at all... demwing Jun 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author backscatter712 Jun 2013 #59
So knowing who I spoke to is more intrusive than what was said Progressive dog Jun 2013 #19
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
Read the OP and the article it is linked to. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #34
The explanation is funny, kind of less is more, Progressive dog Jun 2013 #43
Ummm.... Maedhros Jun 2013 #38
Explaning it? no she didn't Progressive dog Jun 2013 #39
*PLONK* backscatter712 Jun 2013 #41
my feelings are hurt but I'll live with it Progressive dog Jun 2013 #44
This is an explanation: Maedhros Jun 2013 #64
That is not an explanation of metadata being more intrusive Progressive dog Jun 2013 #66
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2013 #21
There's a helluva lot of room for guilt by assosiation. "Have you ever been a member...?" Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #23
Joe McCarthy would've loved MetaData. Uncle Joe Jun 2013 #31
Exactly! They're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama bin Laden. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #48
I think the location tracking thing is one of the biggest issues to me. Xithras Jun 2013 #30
location technotwit Jun 2013 #47
Bullshit! But I understand why the goalposts must be moved. MjolnirTime Jun 2013 #33
Then you argue with Jane Mayer Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #35
Yes, ProSense Jun 2013 #45
Ironic, isn't it. For example, here you are on DU, generating income from metadata, presenting ads jtuck004 Jun 2013 #49
You can mock it all you want. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #50
OK, ProSense Jun 2013 #55
You are ignoring experts in mathematics, probability, and many other fields. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #67
k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Jun 2013 #36
K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #42
Huh? The metadata is a subset Recursion Jun 2013 #51
Can one imagine if Politicalboi Jun 2013 #52
K&R. lob1 Jun 2013 #53
But that only leads to guilt by association. moondust Jun 2013 #60
Very true. The feds want us to fear guilt by association. n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #61
Now you got it! reusrename Jun 2013 #63
that was the point treestar Jun 2013 #65
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIV...»Reply #57