NSA found to be collecting details on all phone calls in the United States

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

 

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

...

 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

This has been suspected for a long time, but never proved. The Supreme Court had previously ruled against plaintiffs who argued they had been subject to warrantless wiretapping on the grounds that they could not prove any such wiretapping exists; hopefully, this will change that.

 

What also disturbs me is that the request was made by the FBI but the data is to be delivered to the NSA. Does the FBI believe there is some legitimate law enforcement purpose in collecting this much data? What else do they think they can collect?

 

[iNow]

I believe we've already moved into an era where they feel they can collect ANYTHING that is available online (after all, any server admin can grab any packet they want), and where all rules and enforcement must be shifted toward what they are allowed to do with that data legally once it's already in their possession.

 

The collection part is toothpaste I don't think we can ever put back into the tube. It's how we brush with it now that it's out that becomes the new point of discussion, IMO.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Washington Post's front-page article this morning says:

An expert in this aspect of the law said Wednesday night that the order appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006. The expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said that the order is reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other company.

 

The expert referred to such orders as "rubber stamps" sought by the telephone companies to protect themselves after the disclosure in 2005 that widespread warrantless wiretaps could leave them liable for damages.

 

What I'd like to know is what else is being collected.

 

...oh, and why can't the NSA get the CIA to assassinate these guys that keep calling my cell phone about cruises that I've won?

[Phi for All]

Very disappointing for an administration that preaches change. I think iNow's toothpaste analogy is appropriate, but I'm not really sure there's a good way to brush with this kind of toothpaste. Which is more insidious, a terrorist attack that might kill hundreds, or the crushing bondage of knowing that your rights are being compromised yet again by the government who's supposed to represent you, and the millions it affects?

 

I'm no longer convinced that good people have nothing to fear from tactics like this. This is a net that's sure to grab more dolphins than barracudas. We've allowed a wall to be built separating us from our representative government, and each time this kind of thing happens, effective democracy and those it hopes to represent are pushed farther apart.

 

...oh, and why can't the NSA get the CIA to assassinate these guys that keep calling my cell phone about cruises that I've won?

Because it's the NSA making the calls. The cruise is to Guantanamo.

[EdEarl]

...oh, and why can't the NSA get the CIA to assassinate these guys that keep calling my cell phone about cruises that I've won?

 

The governments have tons of information available on the internet via facebook, twiter, forums, shopping, and other sources, which depreciates the intelligence value of telephone information.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What makes me sad is that we could save far more lives for far less money by using massive cell-phone surveillance to mail tickets to people who text and drive.

[swansont]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

This has been suspected for a long time, but never proved. The Supreme Court had previously ruled against plaintiffs who argued they had been subject to warrantless wiretapping on the grounds that they could not prove any such wiretapping exists; hopefully, this will change that.

 

These aren't wiretaps. They aren't listening in on conversations, they are collecting phone numbers, call lengths, and other data. Not that this is acceptable, but let's make sure we're discussion the correct scenario.

 

What also disturbs me is that the request was made by the FBI but the data is to be delivered to the NSA. Does the FBI believe there is some legitimate law enforcement purpose in collecting this much data? What else do they think they can collect?

 

I'm also disturbed that this is apparently legal to do, according to the Patriot act, and that the FISA court approved it.

[krash661]

lol,

now i know why i do not have a cell phone.

[overtone]

These aren't wiretaps. They aren't listening in on conversations, they

are collecting phone numbers, call lengths, and other data.

The "other data" can easily include keyword search, derived conversation subjects, paraphrase of conversation structure, etc. All of that can be used in an automated setup that grants warrants upon digital request with certain pre-approved criteria, in milliseconds, never reviewed by a judge, and Classified - unavailable to anyone (even a judge) without appropriate security clearance.

I'm no longer convinced that good people have nothing to fear from tactics like this.

The notion that "good people" have nothing to fear from government surveillance of their lives is one of those mysterious idiocies whose source and promulgation are more interesting than any actual debate about their content.

 

Consider the situation we are in when we attempt to enforce the financial laws and corporate regulations on Wall Street firms in the wake of Elliot Spitzer's disgrace, for example; the question of how the information against him was first obtained has never been answered, and the lesson of his downfall is clear: no one can take on the big Wall Street firms in the public interest unless their own life and every aspect of their doings is free of personal vulnerabilities.

 

Do you want to live in a world in which your Congressman's, lawyer's, doctor's, judge's, employer's, business partner's, building inspector's, zoning commissioner's, and local sheriff's personal lives are on file with the Federal secret police and available to various State agencies and whatever private interests have corrupted them?

I'm also disturbed that this is apparently legal to do, according to the Patriot act, and that the FISA court approved it.

The relevant articles of the Patriot Act were written in the first place as preemptions of any FISA court or other Constitutional constraints - the FISA court was created, or drastically remodeled if you regard the bureaucratic fiction as worthy of deference, years later (after Cheney's boys and the Neo-libs got caught), specifically to put a stamp of Constitutionality on these practices and the Patriot Act as a whole. That's the only reason for the FISA court as currently constituted.

 

The nature of the Patriot Act has been obvious from its first proposal, in which the largest expansion and most significant restructuring of US government since WWII, a conglomeration of rightwing authoritarian wish list items and governance modifications obviously compiled long before 9/11 (unless anyone actually believes the thing was conceived and written in a month during the immediate aftermath) was driven through Congress in a few weeks as if it were an emergency measure.

 

If you still haven't twigged to the real nature of the Tea Party, consider this: 37 attempts to repeal Romneycare in a few months, not one attempt to repeal the Patriot Act in ten years.

 

now i know why i do not have a cell phone

All phone calls through central exchanges can be monitored this way, as well as emails etc. Back in the Bush time the tapping gear was set up in the switching hubs or wired to them - I never heard that it had ever been removed or disconnected. Edited June 6, 2013 by overtone

[krash661]

humanity has populated so much, that this will be an necessity.

 

the bottom line is,

government wants to know everything that anyone is doing.

nothing anyone can do about it.

just accept it and move on.

 

if you are doing nothing wrong,

then there's nothing to worry about.

 

simple.

Edited June 6, 2013 by krash661

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

you are doing nothing wrong,then there's nothing to worry about.

 

simple.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (allegedly)

 

The point of privacy is not to hide things. It's about power. A government with limitless surveillance abilities has the ability to make numerous decisions about you without your knowledge, and because the surveillance is secret, there is nothing you can do. The potential for abuse is enormous.

[swansont]

The "other data" can easily include keyword search, derived conversation subjects, paraphrase of conversation structure, etc. All of that can be used in an automated setup that grants warrants upon digital request with certain pre-approved criteria, in milliseconds, never reviewed by a judge, and Classified - unavailable to anyone (even a judge) without appropriate security clearance.

 

Well, no. The order is for telephony metadata, and "does not include the substantive content of any conversation"

 

Further, if my phone company is already recording my land-line conversations, then that's a huge problem because AFAIK it's illegal, regardless of whether they turn it over to the feds. (though I don't think cell conversations are protected under a reasonable expectation of privacy)

 

 

 

 

if you are doing nothing wrong,

then there's nothing to worry about.

 

simple.

 

IOW, everybody has something to worry about. Everybody has secrets of some sort. As Cap'n said, this is about power. In the US at least, the people have not granted the power for limitless surveillance to the government.

[John Cuthber]

I always think that the people who say , "if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have secrets" should be made to walk round naked and live in a glass walled house for a while until they learn that the desire for privacy isn't because you are doing anything wrong.

 

 

There is also the question of whose "wrong" are we talking about here?

If the government says "it is right to tap everyone's phone" and I say "no it's not" then, according to that government, I'm wrong- so they can use that to persecute me.

 

The Communist party in the USSR was good at that sort of logic.

They declared that communism was "obviously correct" so anyone who opposed it was mentally ill and would be sent to "mental hospitals" where they would be "cured" by doctors who, in turn, knew that opposing the system would get them transferred from being a doctor to being a "patient".

 

It worked very well, and it looks like the US are planning to do the same thing.

 

On a related note:

http://rt.com/usa/us-police-harrassment-crime-308/

Edited June 6, 2013 by John Cuthber

[krash661]

I always think that the people who say , "if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have secrets" should be made to walk round naked and live in a glass walled house for a while until they learn that the desire for privacy isn't because you are doing anything wrong.

i understand all that,

but what some do not realize is, what is being talked about is and has been occurring for decades, public is just now finding out.

so what's the difference, that it's known by society ?

 

it's as simple as,

if you do not like it, do not use a cell phone.

simple.

 

but also, i will say, this is not just occurring with cell phones.

think about anything that needs a satellite or such

 

edit-

also, i will agree with that i should not have said the

" if you are doing nothing wrong,

then there's nothing to worry about "

 

i'm not even sure why i said that.

 

edit 2-

 

i'm sorry i misread the topic tittle.

it's calls in general.

when i heard about it yesterday, they were talking just cell phones.

so i apologize.

Edited June 6, 2013 by krash661

[Phi for All]

The Communist party in the USSR was good at that sort of logic.

They declared that communism was "obviously correct" so anyone who opposed it was mentally ill and would be sent to "mental hospitals" where they would be "cured" by doctors who, in turn, knew that opposing the system would get them transferred from being a doctor to being a "patient".

 

It worked very well, and it looks like the US are planning to do the same thing.

 

I would object but I'm reminded of all the shallow outrage that's generated by our politicians whenever socialism or communism are mentioned. They adamantly state that Communism will never happen here, and indeed the public seems confident they won't allow it to. Perfect way to set the stage for a fait accompli we'll never see coming.

[EdEarl]

Current intelligence gathering is primitive, and future technology will make wire tapping seem innocuous.

 

Consider the weak signal astronomers select from background noise, and consider that technology applied to sound and voice, with microphones scattered everywhere on public property. Of course, scattered with those microphones will be cameras. Given video, audio and sonar signaling technology this surveillance network will be nearly invisible and redefine privacy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Now The Guardian and the Washington Post report on PRISM, which lets the NSA collect data, including emails, search histories, chat logs, and video calls:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

 

In theory, analysts are only supposed to trawl for data involving foreign nationals, by carefully selecting search terms which should turn up foreigners more often than not. But not much happens if they miss their targets. No FISA warrants are required.

[StringJunky]

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (allegedly)

 

The point of privacy is not to hide things. It's about power. A government with limitless surveillance abilities has the ability to make numerous decisions about you without your knowledge, and because the surveillance is secret, there is nothing you can do. The potential for abuse is enormous.

The surveillance is not secret because you know all your internet/telephone communications are being routinely sieved for target material and stored...one should act in the light of this. If one really wants privacy, post a letter made from trees not electrons.

Edited June 6, 2013 by StringJunky

[john5746]

Well, on the plus side, there won't be another break in incident like watergate, since it can be done via a few queries now.

 

I'm actually concerned we will have an over reaction to this, well politically anyway. Just saw Ron Paul bragging on himself. The paulite zombies will grow.

[John Cuthber]

I would object but I'm reminded of all the shallow outrage that's generated by our politicians whenever socialism or communism are mentioned. They adamantly state that Communism will never happen here, and indeed the public seems confident they won't allow it to. Perfect way to set the stage for a fait accompli we'll never see coming.

I doubt that communism will take over in the States.

But a dictatorship doesn't have to be Left wing. A state controlled by the super rich would be just as oppressive and, I think, far more likely given where you are starting from.

[swansont]

If one really wants privacy, post a letter made from trees not electrons.

 

But that begs the question of why one has an expectation of privacy with a paper communication but not an electronic one (wrt the government). "Because it's easy" is not a very satisfying answer, IMO.

[john5746]

If I send and receive mail and packages from Chechnya, wonder if the government knows that?

[proximity1]

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (allegedly)

 

The point of privacy is not to hide things. It's about power. A government with limitless surveillance abilities has the ability to make numerous decisions about you without your knowledge, and because the surveillance is secret, there is nothing you can do. The potential for abuse is enormous.

 

Note:

204 users are online (in the past 15 minutes)

 

 

14 members, 190 guests, 0 anonymous users

(See full list)

 

proximity1, Google, Bing, Spoonyday, AbereLercari, Paurpatatus, timo, overtone, uncool, Arete, illusyday, daniton, EdEarl, krash661, khaled, Fuzzwood

 

 

I pleased you're concerned about privacy. So, then, I ask, since "Google" and "Bing" are routinely found among the list shown above, can you prevent these from practicing data-mining here ?--which is very much part of what you are concerned about here. If not, why is that?

Edited June 7, 2013 by proximity1

[overtone]

 

Well, no. The order is for telephony metadata, and "does not include the substantive content of any conversation"

So they don't call keyword monitoring or general topic paraphrasing "substantive" - your lawyer against theirs, and they don't have to produce the data they kept even in response to a subpeona.

 

Further, if my phone company is already recording my land-line
conversations, then that's a huge problem because AFAIK it's illegal,
regardless of whether they turn it over to the feds.

AFAIK the same caveats supposedly applied to the W era program in the central switching of every major phone company except one, and which was never shut down to my knowledge - they were not recording "substantive content", and merely monitoring for keywords and general topics and the like, so you have nothing to worry about.

(though I don't think cell conversations are protected under a reasonable expectation of privacy)

That will come as news to many Americans - I would like to see that argued in public.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Note:

 

I pleased you're concerned about privacy. So, then, I ask, since "Google" and "Bing" are routinely found among the list shown above, can you prevent these from practicing data-mining here ?--which is very much part of what you are concerned about here. If not, why is that?

I certainly could, if I so desired, by using robots.txt. But this is a discussion forum for the general public, and you can be pseudonymous if you so desire. (Google can't crawl to find your IP address or location.)

 

Of course, Google's mass accumulation of low-level details grants them the power to discover many much more interesting things about each Internet user. That's why proposals like Do Not Track have been pushed.

 

So yes, I am worried by private surveillance as much as I am by public surveillance. Google's "Don't be evil" motto is not a legal oversight instrument.

 

But that begs the question of why one has an expectation of privacy with a paper communication but not an electronic one (wrt the government). "Because it's easy" is not a very satisfying answer, IMO.

I suspect the only answer is that postal mail was invented long before we had the expectation that the federal government could detect and stop any terrorist attack before it occurs. Now, if the FBI and NSA miss a plot -- even one which is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively small and unsuccessful -- they're blasted by Americans for "intelligence failures." The only way for a bureaucrat to cover his ass is to put everything under surveillance, and today "everything" means "everything electronic," because the postal mail no longer matters.