Revealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant

[Th1onein]

115. You are missing the point, Monkey, along with a lot of other people.

All this shit--warrants, 51% confidence intervals, all of it--it's shit. It means NOTHING. Let me tell you why:

The database. They are all talking about getting info from a database. And no one is asking about the database.

The telecoms don't save our info for very long on their databases. They are not required to by law. I know this because, a couple of days ago, I saw a report where the NSA was talking about changing how they store data, and instead, just let the telecoms keep it for them. They said that they would have to get Congress to pass legislation that would require the telecoms to keep the data longer, because they need it available to them for at least five years.

What does that tell you? Someone's got a database from which they can access our communications, and it ain't the telecoms!

Obviously, the NSA has the database. And, from that database, they "collect" any information that they need to "collect" on any of us. Clapper made that very clear with his metaphor that "collect," to him, meant that he took the book off of the shelf and actually read it. What everyone is missing is that there is a library, with a bunch of books in it. There are your communications, all of them. And when the NSA wants to "collect" them, they pull your book off of the shelf and read it. THAT'S Clapper's definition of "collecting."

But they've already got all of the info. And they are storing it in their "library." They only "collect" it when they need to "target" you.

Now, suppose that you have a big mouth, and that people listen to you. Suppose you challenge the status quo in some way? It's time to "collect" your communications because now you're a "target." Suppose you say something that can be construed to be a threat to someone somewhere, somehow? It doesn't have to be a real threat; it might even be a joke. But, now, they've got something to use against you, to put you away. And they don't have to give you any of the communications that might have exculpatory evidence in them, that might show that your "threat" wasn't a threat at all. After all, they have control over what they "collect," and they're the only ones who can dig that far back in the database.

We are here, arguing over what the law says, what rules and policies they have in place, but we are missing the forest because of the trees.