The New Yorker: Verizon and the NSA: The problem with metadata

AUGradinTX · June 11, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/how-long-do-wireless-carriers-keep-your-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/09/30/cellphone-carriers-keep-personal-data-up-to-7-years-report-says/

2) Who the "F" cares? It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information. Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

This lady agrees:

http://www.brennancenter.org/expert/elizabeth-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324798904578529763558353462.html

homersapien · June 11, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

AUGradinTX · June 11, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

homersapien · June 13, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_<

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\ I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

AUGradinTX · June 13, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative".

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\ I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

AU64 · June 13, 2013

Do you honestly think its some arduous process to reverse lookup a phone number?

One or tens of millions? Without the suspicious patterns to point you in a direction, which numbers would you choose?

The super-computers could automatically do millions in seconds and store it forever.

AU64 · June 13, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

All it takes is something from NSA or some other government agency to issue a directive that the records be kept indefinitely....or perhaps subpoenaing the entire file. JMO but don't count on this kind of "potentially valuable information" every being dumped. It's likely just a matter of it being transferred from the communications companies to some giant government computer.

homersapien · June 15, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative".

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\ I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

homersapien · June 15, 2013

Do you honestly think its some arduous process to reverse lookup a phone number?

One or tens of millions? Without the suspicious patterns to point you in a direction, which numbers would you choose?

The super-computers could automatically do millions in seconds and store it forever.

But someone has to tell the super computer what to look for. How does that work?

homersapien · June 15, 2013

Here's a cartoon that expresses one of my perspectives on this:

http://www.politico.com/wuerker/2013/06/may-2013/001075-015423.html

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/11/130611_cartoon2_605.jpg

AUGradinTX · June 20, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_</>

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\/> I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

First of all, my apologies.

Second, you are correct about me not fully understanding what they are doing with the data. I have read dozens of articles about it, as well as the actual court order from FISC. Nobody knows what they are doing with this data. The order prohibits anyone with knowledge of the order from speaking about it, including Verizon.

Regarding what you highlighted in blue, collection of data the way it is being done is a violation of both The Patriot Act and The Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act (section 215) requires the government to show BEFORE the seizure of this information that it is relevant to an authorized investigation related to protection from international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISC judge is not able to issue the order if this requirement is not met. There is no way the phone records for all Verizon customers are all relevant to any investigation. It just isn't possible. Me, for instance, there is no way the information being gathered about me is relevant to any investigation.

Our biggest problem now is that the opinions of the court are secret. If rulings are kept secret, there is no way to challenge them. The idea of this taking place in the US should be troubling to everyone. The NCLU has filed a lawsuit to make these opinions public.

autigeremt · June 20, 2013

Good luck with that reply!

homersapien · June 20, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_</>

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\/> I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

First of all, my apologies.

Second, you are correct about me not fully understanding what they are doing with the data. I have read dozens of articles about it, as well as the actual court order from FISC. Nobody knows what they are doing with this data. The order prohibits anyone with knowledge of the order from speaking about it, including Verizon.

Regarding what you highlighted in blue, collection of data the way it is being done is a violation of both The Patriot Act and The Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act (section 215) requires the government to show BEFORE the seizure of this information that it is relevant to an authorized investigation related to protection from international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISC judge is not able to issue the order if this requirement is not met. There is no way the phone records for all Verizon customers are all relevant to any investigation. It just isn't possible. Me, for instance, there is no way the information being gathered about me is relevant to any investigation.

Our biggest problem now is that the opinions of the court are secret. If rulings are kept secret, there is no way to challenge them. The idea of this taking place in the US should be troubling to everyone. The NCLU has filed a lawsuit to make these opinions public.

As I understand it, the collection of metadata is primarily for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive, anonymous data base that represents everyone who uses a cell phone. No particular number is singled out for analysis unless there is probable cause - such as that number being tied to the numbers of terrorists or terrorist suspects within the U.S. or other countries.

In other words, the process is really no different from the previous process in which a private company is presented a warrant to investigate a particular number in their private data base. One key difference is that by the NSA collecting the data themselves, it is available for as long as they need to keep it, which is typically longer than commercial companies might keep it. Undoubtedly, it is also much more efficient (faster) than having to go outside to get it. This might be critically important.

Regardless, the NSA claims that such a comprehensive data base is critical for their program to work. I don't know if that is true, but if I were in charge of "counter terrorism", I would see the advantages of streamlining the process if you have the capability to do it.

Secondly, the process has to remain secret in order to work at all. That seems obvious.

Now you can argue that a universal meta database is not necessary to do what they are doing. I personally wouldn't know, but I willing to concede it is, especially since I don't consider such a database to be particularly threatening to my personal security as long as the legal process is adhered to. It doesn't matter to me if my metadata exists with the NSA or with Verizon.

You can also argue that the legal process is not being followed (which you are basically doing by objecting to its secrecy). If that turns out to be true, then I am with you. The only real danger to our individual right to privacy depends on a following the legal process.

The FISA court consists of 11 federal judges who serve a limited term and cannot be reappointed. That would suggest to me that the potential of gross abuse of the system by the NSA without at least one of the current or former judges blowing the whistle is minimal. The rate of approval/rejections by the court means nothing without context, but it does merit investigation. That to me would be the role of the Congressional oversight committee.

Bottom line, as long as the process is followed, there is no reason to think the process unconstitutional. I think it represents a fair trade-off between national security and personal privacy.

But if the process is being violated, all bets are off.

AU64 · June 20, 2013

IMO Homer...the problem is that all of these co-conspirators are sworn to secrecy so how do you think you would ever know when the process is being violated? You are trusting tens of thousands of normal human beings to be scrupulous and discreet with what they learn. And no matter what you think of Snowden's actions, in my view he is exhibit A for the proposition that we don't know (and have no way of knowing) what various individuals are doing with what they learn...and therefore only a very naive person would trust that the process will be followed by everyone.

homersapien · June 20, 2013

IMO Homer...the problem is that all of these co-conspirators are sworn to secrecy so how do you think you would ever know when the process is being violated? You are trusting tens of thousands of normal human beings to be scrupulous and discreet with what they learn. And no matter what you think of Snowden's actions, in my view he is exhibit A for the proposition that we don't know (and have no way of knowing) what various individuals are doing with what they learn...and therefore only a very naive person would trust that the process will be followed by everyone.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but if I found myself in the position of either holding to my oath of secrecy or blowing the whistle on egregious violations of the law by the government, I would not hesitate to blow the whistle. I might start by blowing the whistle to congress or the executive branch, but I would go to the press if necessary.

I would consider my greater responsibility to be to the law itself, not to the people or organizations charged with upholding and operating within the law.

And I wouldn't flee to Hong Kong afterward.

AUGradinTX · June 20, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_</>

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\/> I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

First of all, my apologies.

Second, you are correct about me not fully understanding what they are doing with the data. I have read dozens of articles about it, as well as the actual court order from FISC. Nobody knows what they are doing with this data. The order prohibits anyone with knowledge of the order from speaking about it, including Verizon.

Regarding what you highlighted in blue, collection of data the way it is being done is a violation of both The Patriot Act and The Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act (section 215) requires the government to show BEFORE the seizure of this information that it is relevant to an authorized investigation related to protection from international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISC judge is not able to issue the order if this requirement is not met. There is no way the phone records for all Verizon customers are all relevant to any investigation. It just isn't possible. Me, for instance, there is no way the information being gathered about me is relevant to any investigation.

Our biggest problem now is that the opinions of the court are secret. If rulings are kept secret, there is no way to challenge them. The idea of this taking place in the US should be troubling to everyone. The NCLU has filed a lawsuit to make these opinions public.

As I understand it, the collection of metadata is primarily for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive, anonymous data base that represents everyone who uses a cell phone. No particular number is singled out for analysis unless there is probable cause - such as that number being tied to the numbers of terrorists or terrorist suspects within the U.S. or other countries.

The problem with this is The Patriot Act does not give authority to collect information about people before there is probable cause. The part I'm having the most trouble with, however, is that even if the system is only being used as they claim, there is still no reason to collect every Verizon customer's data. Knowing what numbers are calling what numbers is useless if you haven't already identified at least one person. But if you have already identified one person, you can get a warrant to track him. You don't need all the other data. The service provider would be able to provide years of phone records on that person which would tell you who he/she has been talking to.

In other words, the process is really no different from the previous process in which a private company is presented a warrant to investigate a particular number in their private data base. One key difference is that by the NSA collecting the data themselves, it is available for as long as they need to keep it, which is typically longer than commercial companies might keep it. Undoubtedly, it is also much more efficient (faster) than having to go outside to get it. This might be critically important.

I'm not really concerned that it may be a hassle for the government to follow the law.

Regardless, the NSA claims that such a comprehensive data base is critical for their program to work. I don't know if that is true, but if I were in charge of "counter terrorism", I would see the advantages of streamlining the process if you have the capability to do it.

They can say whatever they want about it. It's secret. There is nobody to pose a counter argument.

Secondly, the process has to remain secret in order to work at all. That seems obvious.

Why? Are terrorists going to start snail mailing each other instead of using the phone?

Now you can argue that a universal meta database is not necessary to do what they are doing. I personally wouldn't know, but I willing to concede it is, especially since I don't consider such a database to be particularly threatening to my personal security as long as the legal process is adhered to. It doesn't matter to me if my metadata exists with the NSA or with Verizon.

Addressed in first paragraph.

You can also argue that the legal process is not being followed (which you are basically doing by objecting to its secrecy). If that turns out to be true, then I am with you. The only real danger to our individual right to privacy depends on a following the legal process.

Agreed. The ability to challenge the government is paramount.

The FISA court consists of 11 federal judges who serve a limited term and cannot be reappointed. That would suggest to me that the potential of gross abuse of the system by the NSA without at least one of the current or former judges blowing the whistle is minimal. The rate of approval/rejections by the court means nothing without context, but it does merit investigation. That to me would be the role of the Congressional oversight committee.

The SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against the Foreign Iintelligence Surveillence Court's opinions. Do you agree with this? If so, you should petition to remove the word "Supreme" from the name.

Bottom line, as long as the process is followed, there is no reason to think the process unconstitutional. I think it represents a fair trade-off between national security and personal privacy.

I think I have illustrated how it is not being followed and further have illistrated how decisions made by a secret court that cannot be challenged is dangerous to this country.

But if the process is being violated, all bets are off.

homersapien · June 21, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_</>

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\/> I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

First of all, my apologies.

Second, you are correct about me not fully understanding what they are doing with the data. I have read dozens of articles about it, as well as the actual court order from FISC. Nobody knows what they are doing with this data. The order prohibits anyone with knowledge of the order from speaking about it, including Verizon.

Regarding what you highlighted in blue, collection of data the way it is being done is a violation of both The Patriot Act and The Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act (section 215) requires the government to show BEFORE the seizure of this information that it is relevant to an authorized investigation related to protection from international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISC judge is not able to issue the order if this requirement is not met. There is no way the phone records for all Verizon customers are all relevant to any investigation. It just isn't possible. Me, for instance, there is no way the information being gathered about me is relevant to any investigation.

Our biggest problem now is that the opinions of the court are secret. If rulings are kept secret, there is no way to challenge them. The idea of this taking place in the US should be troubling to everyone. The NCLU has filed a lawsuit to make these opinions public.

As I understand it, the collection of metadata is primarily for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive, anonymous data base that represents everyone who uses a cell phone. No particular number is singled out for analysis unless there is probable cause - such as that number being tied to the numbers of terrorists or terrorist suspects within the U.S. or other countries.

The problem with this is The Patriot Act does not give authority to collect information about people before there is probable cause. The part I'm having the most trouble with, however, is that even if the system is only being used as they claim, there is still no reason to collect every Verizon customer's data. Knowing what numbers are calling what numbers is useless if you haven't already identified at least one person. But if you have already identified one person, you can get a warrant to track him. You don't need all the other data. The service provider would be able to provide years of phone records on that person which would tell you who he/she has been talking to.

In other words, the process is really no different from the previous process in which a private company is presented a warrant to investigate a particular number in their private data base. One key difference is that by the NSA collecting the data themselves, it is available for as long as they need to keep it, which is typically longer than commercial companies might keep it. Undoubtedly, it is also much more efficient (faster) than having to go outside to get it. This might be critically important.

I'm not really concerned that it may be a hassle for the government to follow the law.

Regardless, the NSA claims that such a comprehensive data base is critical for their program to work. I don't know if that is true, but if I were in charge of "counter terrorism", I would see the advantages of streamlining the process if you have the capability to do it.

They can say whatever they want about it. It's secret. There is nobody to pose a counter argument.

Secondly, the process has to remain secret in order to work at all. That seems obvious.

Why? Are terrorists going to start snail mailing each other instead of using the phone?

Now you can argue that a universal meta database is not necessary to do what they are doing. I personally wouldn't know, but I willing to concede it is, especially since I don't consider such a database to be particularly threatening to my personal security as long as the legal process is adhered to. It doesn't matter to me if my metadata exists with the NSA or with Verizon.

Addressed in first paragraph.

You can also argue that the legal process is not being followed (which you are basically doing by objecting to its secrecy). If that turns out to be true, then I am with you. The only real danger to our individual right to privacy depends on a following the legal process.

Agreed. The ability to challenge the government is paramount.

The FISA court consists of 11 federal judges who serve a limited term and cannot be reappointed. That would suggest to me that the potential of gross abuse of the system by the NSA without at least one of the current or former judges blowing the whistle is minimal. The rate of approval/rejections by the court means nothing without context, but it does merit investigation. That to me would be the role of the Congressional oversight committee.

The SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against the Foreign Iintelligence Surveillence Court's opinions. Do you agree with this? If so, you should petition to remove the word "Supreme" from the name.

Bottom line, as long as the process is followed, there is no reason to think the process unconstitutional. I think it represents a fair trade-off between national security and personal privacy.

I think I have illustrated how it is not being followed and further have illistrated how decisions made by a secret court that cannot be challenged is dangerous to this country.

But if the process is being violated, all bets are off.

The problem with this is The Patriot Act does not give authority to collect information about people before there is probable cause. The part I'm having the most trouble with, however, is that even if the system is only being used as they claim, there is still no reason to collect every Verizon customer's data. Knowing what numbers are calling what numbers is useless if you haven't already identified at least one person. But if you have already identified one person, you can get a warrant to track him. You don't need all the other data. The service provider would be able to provide years of phone records on that person which would tell you who he/she has been talking to.

I am not that familiar with the specifics of the Patriot Act, but I would not consider collecting the anonymous metadata of everyone to be collecting "information about people" (a person) until it is analyzed. That data is already being collected by private companies which is available to the government.

And again, the analysts claim that a universal data-base is necessary to do what they are doing. This makes sense to me. Presumably, when they do this analysis, they want to also analyze each number that the "original target" number contacts. You cannot identify a network by simply following one number, especially a sophisticated one with "cut-outs".

So, if you are trying to establish contact patterns it would seem that you would need all the data to do it comprehensively, as any gaps could represent segments of the network you are trying to identify.

I'm not really concerned that it may be a hassle for the government to follow the law.

Surely you are concerned that the government has the capability of thwarting terrorist attacks? But you are begging the question. No one has shown the government has not followed the law. But I agree they should and I didn't imply they shouldn't.

The SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against the Foreign Iintelligence Surveillence Court's opinions. Do you agree with this? If so, you should petition to remove the word "Supreme" from the name.

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean they "cannot" hear arguments?

I think I have illustrated how it is not being followed and further have illistrated how decisions made by a secret court that cannot be challenged is dangerous to this country.

Well, other than the Feinstein statement you referenced in the Slate article, I haven't seen anything that shows the NSA has violated legal requirements or stated procedures.

Regarding secrecy, I don't see how the government can gather intelligence on threats without secrecy. And the FISA court is not a secret. We know they exist and we know who is on it. To expect the discussions and rulings of such an intelligence process be open to the public is not realistic. You might as well say the government shouldn't even try to conduct clandestine intelligence.

TitanTiger · June 21, 2013

I am not that familiar with the specifics of the Patriot Act, but I would not consider collecting the anonymous metadata of everyone to be collecting "information about people" (a person) until it is analyzed. That data is already being collected by private companies which is available to the government.

But again, you could make the same argument about collecting the fingerprints and DNA of every US citizen. Most would see this as a dangerous violation of privacy and ripe for abuse, even if it was "anonymous" and only could connect to an individual "when analyzed." But I don't know anyone worthy of serious consideration who thinks that's a good idea. The point is that our Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the right to collect data to hold until they secretly decide there's a pressing need to dig into it.

AUGradinTX · June 21, 2013

Holy shiz, some of you have lost it...

Even the crooks in DC think this is an abuse of power...

Thanks for that analysis!

Here's some analysis for you. Why would the NSA need to collect all this data in order to find out who a suspected terrorist is talking to? All they need to do is get a warrant and they can then get that information from the suspect's service provider. Why do they need this information about EVERYBODY???

My understanding is:

1) commercial records are not kept beyond 30 days

2) subpoenaing commercial records is too cumbersome and slow.

3) the process doesn't work effectively unless you have everything. (i.e: "can't find a needle in a haystack unless you have the entire haystack")

Can we stop the, "my understanding is" bulls**t? Please? You are already sitting at your computer. Take 30 seconds to look this stuff up. Ok? It will save us a whole lot of time if we aren't always disproving your "understanding" of things.

1) The duration in which your records are kept is determined by the carrier. It can be up to 7 years.

http://www.nbcnews.c...our-data-120367

http://www.foxnews.c...rs-report-says/

Well, excuse me. But I heard an interview in the last few days that many companies keep such records for only 30 days (which is within 7 years, btw). At any rate, that is one of the reasons that has been given for why the NSA collects data directly.

2) Who the "F" cares?

Apparently the intelligence community.

It's my information and the government is required by the constitution to get a warrant BEFORE gathering this information.

Actually I haven't heard any specific claims that what they are doing is illegal from a the standpoint of breaking existing legal statutes. But I am sure that there are people out there who challenge the constitutionality of those statutes. So I'll add your name to the list. We shall see.

Are you allowed to break the law when you think that law is too cumbersome and slow?

No

3) This is a lazy argument. When you know where the needle is (or who the suspected terrorist is), the haystack (all of our records) is of no importance. Having all this data doesn't work unless you already have identified suspects to start with. If you have identified them already, all you need to do next is get a warrant for their phone records and find out who they are talking to and how frequently. The other 99% of Americans need not be involved at all.

I am just repeating what I have heard analysis experts say when addressing this question (on PBS as I recall). (Thus "my understanding".) I don't claim to be an expert in the matter, but it seems to me that one would want to include the full universe of data if possible.

And the 99% of Americans (actually, a whole lot more) are not involved beyond having their numbers included anonymously in the data base.

Again, this is really no different than the way it's always been done. The key difference is the government is acquiring the database instead of serving a warrant on the various commercial companies data bases.

This lady agrees:

I am sure there are a lot of people who are overreacting (IMO) to this.

http://www.brennance...th-liza-goitein

http://online.wsj.co...3558353462.html

As i've stated many times before. Your problem is that you do little to zero research on the subjects you post about which makes you sound uninformed.

The greatest lesson I learned in my time at Auburn was to do my own research. You learn quick that a lot of people are full of s**t.

Of the big four service providers, the least amount of time these records are kept is 1 year (12 times longer than your "understanding"). The greatest amount of time these records are kept is 7 years (84 times longer than your "understanding").

Verizon: Keeps phone records of calls and cell towers used (location) for a year.

AT&T: Keeps call records for 5 to 7 years and have all cell tower records since 2008.

Sprint: Keeps call records and cell tower records between 1.5 and 2 years.

T-Mobile: keeps call records for 5 years. Cell tower info, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more."

OK. I was wrong. I was misinformed. (Or at least my claim was not "statistically representative". <_</>

I assumed most businesses kept data as long as it would be commercially relevant, which I thought was about 30 days. So if that turns out to be 4 months instead of 1 month (at least in the examples you provided), I was misinformed.

But I don't think that means I do "zero" research on my statements. :-\/> I think it indicates I do more research for some statements than others.

Regardless, how about explaining how the difference between 1 month and 4 months is such a huge "mistake of argument" when the sort of terrorist plots that are at issue may take years to develop?

The four months you are talking about is the "procedure" at ONE company and ONLY deals with the cell towers used during the call. That company is T-Mobile and they keep all other call records for five years. I guess you missed that. You also ignore the quote that says they actually keep cell tower data for "really a year of more."

OK, I have been thinking about this.

What really bothers me are the accusations and insinuations you have made about me. Because of your tone, (see lime green highlights) I am not sure if you are just trying to "kick me" because I made a mistake or if you really want to discuss the actual issue, which I feel is worth a debate.

But I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and just assume the poo-flinging was a temporary indulgence and you are actually willing to engage in a debate.

First, let me apologize again for putting out an unrealistic example of how long commercial companies keep meta data. As I have said before, I am relatively ignorant about these matters in general. (Frankly, I think you are too. Some of your comments make me think you don't really understand what they are doing with this data.)

Anyway, I swear I heard a "talking head" on PBS say that, but I may have misunderstood or I may have substituted a number from my dreams. In hindsight, 30 days does seem very low, (which is why it may have stuck in my mind.)

Regardless, the actual issue under discussion is whether or not it makes more sense for the gov't to capture such data directly (which is what I assume they are doing) or to simply get it from commercial sources that collect it for commercial reasons. In other words, lets discuss your original statement (highlighted in blue above).

Care to set aside our respective ignorance and engage that as the specific question?

You ask me a question or two. I'll respond, then ask you a question or two. But we each have to answer every question directly.

OK?

First of all, my apologies.

Second, you are correct about me not fully understanding what they are doing with the data. I have read dozens of articles about it, as well as the actual court order from FISC. Nobody knows what they are doing with this data. The order prohibits anyone with knowledge of the order from speaking about it, including Verizon.

Regarding what you highlighted in blue, collection of data the way it is being done is a violation of both The Patriot Act and The Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act (section 215) requires the government to show BEFORE the seizure of this information that it is relevant to an authorized investigation related to protection from international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISC judge is not able to issue the order if this requirement is not met. There is no way the phone records for all Verizon customers are all relevant to any investigation. It just isn't possible. Me, for instance, there is no way the information being gathered about me is relevant to any investigation.

Our biggest problem now is that the opinions of the court are secret. If rulings are kept secret, there is no way to challenge them. The idea of this taking place in the US should be troubling to everyone. The NCLU has filed a lawsuit to make these opinions public.

As I understand it, the collection of metadata is primarily for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive, anonymous data base that represents everyone who uses a cell phone. No particular number is singled out for analysis unless there is probable cause - such as that number being tied to the numbers of terrorists or terrorist suspects within the U.S. or other countries.

The problem with this is The Patriot Act does not give authority to collect information about people before there is probable cause. The part I'm having the most trouble with, however, is that even if the system is only being used as they claim, there is still no reason to collect every Verizon customer's data. Knowing what numbers are calling what numbers is useless if you haven't already identified at least one person. But if you have already identified one person, you can get a warrant to track him. You don't need all the other data. The service provider would be able to provide years of phone records on that person which would tell you who he/she has been talking to.

In other words, the process is really no different from the previous process in which a private company is presented a warrant to investigate a particular number in their private data base. One key difference is that by the NSA collecting the data themselves, it is available for as long as they need to keep it, which is typically longer than commercial companies might keep it. Undoubtedly, it is also much more efficient (faster) than having to go outside to get it. This might be critically important.

I'm not really concerned that it may be a hassle for the government to follow the law.

Regardless, the NSA claims that such a comprehensive data base is critical for their program to work. I don't know if that is true, but if I were in charge of "counter terrorism", I would see the advantages of streamlining the process if you have the capability to do it.

They can say whatever they want about it. It's secret. There is nobody to pose a counter argument.

Secondly, the process has to remain secret in order to work at all. That seems obvious.

Why? Are terrorists going to start snail mailing each other instead of using the phone?

Now you can argue that a universal meta database is not necessary to do what they are doing. I personally wouldn't know, but I willing to concede it is, especially since I don't consider such a database to be particularly threatening to my personal security as long as the legal process is adhered to. It doesn't matter to me if my metadata exists with the NSA or with Verizon.

Addressed in first paragraph.

You can also argue that the legal process is not being followed (which you are basically doing by objecting to its secrecy). If that turns out to be true, then I am with you. The only real danger to our individual right to privacy depends on a following the legal process.

Agreed. The ability to challenge the government is paramount.

The FISA court consists of 11 federal judges who serve a limited term and cannot be reappointed. That would suggest to me that the potential of gross abuse of the system by the NSA without at least one of the current or former judges blowing the whistle is minimal. The rate of approval/rejections by the court means nothing without context, but it does merit investigation. That to me would be the role of the Congressional oversight committee.

The SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against the Foreign Iintelligence Surveillence Court's opinions. Do you agree with this? If so, you should petition to remove the word "Supreme" from the name.

Bottom line, as long as the process is followed, there is no reason to think the process unconstitutional. I think it represents a fair trade-off between national security and personal privacy.

I think I have illustrated how it is not being followed and further have illistrated how decisions made by a secret court that cannot be challenged is dangerous to this country.

But if the process is being violated, all bets are off.

The problem with this is The Patriot Act does not give authority to collect information about people before there is probable cause. The part I'm having the most trouble with, however, is that even if the system is only being used as they claim, there is still no reason to collect every Verizon customer's data. Knowing what numbers are calling what numbers is useless if you haven't already identified at least one person. But if you have already identified one person, you can get a warrant to track him. You don't need all the other data. The service provider would be able to provide years of phone records on that person which would tell you who he/she has been talking to.

I am not that familiar with the specifics of the Patriot Act, but I would not consider collecting the anonymous metadata of everyone to be collecting "information about people" (a person) until it is analyzed. That data is already being collected by private companies which is available to the government.

Of course it is information about people. People are making those phone calls. The information gathered by companies was done so because you allowed it and if that information was available to the government, a secret court order would not have been necessary for them to gather it.

And again, the analysts claim that a universal data-base is necessary to do what they are doing. This makes sense to me. Presumably, when they do this analysis, they want to also analyze each number that the "original target" number contacts. You cannot identify a network by simply following one number, especially a sophisticated one with "cut-outs".

Each citizen of this country is individually guaranteed a right to privacy. A warrant should be issued seperately for each person's phone records that are collected. If the "original target" has been contacting one number frequently, the government can then get a warrant for that person's records. If the "original target" is believed to be a terrorist, a judge would not hesitate to sign a warrant for his top 5 contacts and so on.

So, if you are trying to establish contact patterns it would seem that you would need all the data to do it comprehensively, as any gaps could represent segments of the network you are trying to identify.

Absolutely. Having all the data would allow the government to more easlily establish contact patterns. Keeping with your line of thinking, maybe we should hand over all information about us to the government so we can more easily catch the bad guys.

I'm not really concerned that it may be a hassle for the government to follow the law.

Surely you are concerned that the government has the capability of thwarting terrorist attacks? But you are begging the question. No one has shown the government has not followed the law. But I agree they should and I didn't imply they shouldn't.

Absolutely I am. As Japan stated in an earlier post, stop millions of unidentified foreigners from entering the country every year. Aren't the vast majority of terrorists foreign? If they enter legally, make them leave when their visa expires. While they are here make them agree to submit THEIR phone records. Make them prove that they are in fact in the country for reasons related to their visas. What's more, stop f'in around with middle eastern countries!

As far as no one showing the government has not followed the law... Where does the authority to hold secret court hearings to gather information on american citizens come from? It's hard to show whether or not they are following the law when what they are doing is done in secrecy. Wouldn't you say?

Read section 215 of The Patriot Act. It clearly states that BEFORE information is gathered, it must be shown to be related to an ongoing authorized investigation related to international terrorism. Is this being adhered to?

The SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against the Foreign Iintelligence Surveillence Court's opinions. Do you agree with this? If so, you should petition to remove the word "Supreme" from the name.

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean they "cannot" hear arguments?

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Who is going to challenge the rulings of a secret court? How do you challenge a ruling you have no knowledge of? If nobody knows about it nobody can choose to argue against. Therefore the SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against FISC opinions.

I think I have illustrated how it is not being followed and further have illistrated how decisions made by a secret court that cannot be challenged is dangerous to this country.

Well, other than the Feinstein statement you referenced in the Slate article, I haven't seen anything that shows the NSA has violated legal requirements or stated procedures.

Regarding secrecy, I don't see how the government can gather intelligence on threats without secrecy. And the FISA court is not a secret. We know they exist and we know who is on it. To expect the discussions and rulings of such an intelligence process be open to the public is not realistic. You might as well say the government shouldn't even try to conduct clandestine intelligence.

We aren't talking about who they are, nor are we talking about making sensitive information public knowledge. We are talking about knowing the opinions of the court. As in on what grounds they gave certain authority.

The collection of metadata has been going on for 7 years and we just found out about it. How is that not secret?

japantiger · June 21, 2013

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Amendment IV to the US Constitution; this amendment adopted on December 15, 1791. I really don't see any ambiguity here.

If this isn't the seizure on my personal papers or effects without probable cause; I don't understand what it is...Let's put this act in a different context. A policeman approaches you (or an FBI agent, or, you take your pick) while you're minding your own business at a counter in McDonald's. You're just there waiting in line for your sausage, egg and cheese bagel and coffee for breakfast....he asks you for your phone number, who you've called for the last month and how many times. You ask "why?"...he says, "I'm just trying to protect you". How would you react? Do you think that any judge would find that reasonable?

You asked what was not "factual" about your post.

Recording the calls made by and to every phone number without assigning identity to the numbers is not violating the privacy of "personal" papers, etc. by definition.

If a known or suspected terrorist is contacting certain numbers in the US, that constitutes probable cause meriting further investigation, provide a legal warrant is sought to do so.

Regarding the McDonald's analogy it doesn't apply at least if the cop doesn't even ask your name. But even if he didn't, a judge would not grant him a warrant to proceed. (So you actually got that right. )

So if the McDonald's analogy would not be allowed by a judge; then you can't collect every American's cell phone info without probable cause either. You can't have it both ways. if you can't collect my info in person without probable cause, you can't collect it mechanically without probable cause...as to the middle point above, no one is arguing probable cause collection of a suspect's info...

homersapien · June 21, 2013

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Amendment IV to the US Constitution; this amendment adopted on December 15, 1791. I really don't see any ambiguity here.

If this isn't the seizure on my personal papers or effects without probable cause; I don't understand what it is...Let's put this act in a different context. A policeman approaches you (or an FBI agent, or, you take your pick) while you're minding your own business at a counter in McDonald's. You're just there waiting in line for your sausage, egg and cheese bagel and coffee for breakfast....he asks you for your phone number, who you've called for the last month and how many times. You ask "why?"...he says, "I'm just trying to protect you". How would you react? Do you think that any judge would find that reasonable?

You asked what was not "factual" about your post.

Recording the calls made by and to every phone number without assigning identity to the numbers is not violating the privacy of "personal" papers, etc. by definition.

If a known or suspected terrorist is contacting certain numbers in the US, that constitutes probable cause meriting further investigation, provide a legal warrant is sought to do so.

Regarding the McDonald's analogy it doesn't apply at least if the cop doesn't even ask your name. But even if he didn't, a judge would not grant him a warrant to proceed. (So you actually got that right. )

So if the McDonald's analogy would not be allowed by a judge; then you can't collect every American's cell phone info without probable cause either. You can't have it both ways. if you can't collect my info in person without probable cause, you can't collect it mechanically without probable cause...as to the middle point above, no one is arguing probable cause collection of a suspect's info...

The difference is between a policeman asking you face to face vs. an anonymous data base of numbers. I don't consider the latter as requiring a warrant. There is nothing about that data base that can even be related to an individual until it is analyzed (which requires a warrant).

(BTW, I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.)

homersapien · June 21, 2013

Of course it is information about people. People are making those phone calls. The information gathered by companies was done so because you allowed it and if that information was available to the government, a secret court order would not have been necessary for them to gather it.

No, it's just abstract information about numbers. Granted, people "own" or are tied to those numbers, but there is no information about actual individuals until it is analyzed or interpreted.

That may seem like an overly nuanced distinction, but no more than saying I "allowed" data about my number to be collected by the phone company. I had no choice in the matter.

Each citizen of this country is individually guaranteed a right to privacy. A warrant should be issued seperately for each person's phone records that are collected. If the "original target" has been contacting one number frequently, the government can then get a warrant for that person's records. If the "original target" is believed to be a terrorist, a judge would not hesitate to sign a warrant for his top 5 contacts and so on.

I don't know if that is a fair representation of the process. For all I know that may be the way they are doing it. It would explain why there is such a high approval rate for the warrants.

Or it may be they present an analysis to the judge showing a pattern of connections between numbers and then ask for a warrant to identify the people behind each the numbers in a recurring pattern.

Regardless, any number linked to a terrorists cell phone (for example) would be fair candidate for an approved warrant, even if it turns out to be a "wrong number". Again, that would account for the extremely high approval rate of requested warrants.

Absolutely. Having all the data would allow the government to more easlily establish contact patterns. Keeping with your line of thinking, maybe we should hand over all information about us to the government so we can more easily catch the bad guys.

No I do not want anyone, especially myself, to turn over "all information about themselves to the government". But that's not the same as the government collecting anonymous numerical data represented by so called meta data, which can be linked to me only with a warrant.

I understand your position that metadata is the same as individual information, I just don't agree with it.

Absolutely I am. (Concerned about the gov't ability to thwart terrorist attacks) Japan stated in an earlier post, stop millions of unidentified foreigners from entering the country every year. Aren't the vast majority of terrorists foreign? If they enter legally, make them leave when their visa expires. While they are here make them agree to submit THEIR phone records. Make them prove that they are in fact in the country for reasons related to their visas. What's more, stop f'in around with middle eastern countries!

Fine with me.

As far as no one showing the government has not followed the law... 1) Where does the authority to hold secret court hearings to gather information on american citizens come from? 2) It's hard to show whether or not they are following the law when what they are doing is done in secrecy. Wouldn't you say?

1) Presumably, from the law. (I doubt if this was a scheme created by a mix of judges, spooks and congressmen at a late night drinking session.)

2) Yes I would.

That's why the defined process has to be adequate in terms of checks and balances. But if it needs to be totally public, there is no point in doing it at all.

Read section 215 of The Patriot Act. It clearly states that BEFORE information is gathered, it must be shown to be related to an ongoing authorized investigation related to international terrorism. Is this being adhered to?

I don't know. But there is no reason to assume it is not. If so, the system of checks and balances is failing, and that's on Congress and the courts.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Who is going to challenge the rulings of a secret court? How do you challenge a ruling you have no knowledge of? If nobody knows about it nobody can choose to argue against. Therefore the SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against FISC opinions.

No it's not obvious that a ruling cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS. Obviously, there is no plaintiff or advocate in the process to appeal a warrant before it is executed (acted upon), but that's pretty much true of any warrant isn't it?

Now if you or I feel like we have been investigated or arrested as a result of an unlawful search we can always hire a lawyer and make that challenge, just like we can for any other warrant that is served on us. Presumably such an appeal can reach the SCOTUS.

We aren't talking about who they are, nor are we talking about making sensitive information public knowledge. We are talking about knowing the opinions of the court. As in on what grounds they gave certain authority.
The collection of metadata has been going on for 7 years and we just found out about it. How is that not secret?

Well, if we know the grounds for authorizing a particular warrant then it is not secret, is it?

As far as us knowing about the collection of metadata, I already knew they were using such data.

I didn't know much for sure about the details, for example, that the government was collecting it directly instead of getting it from the private companies, but from what I know about the NSA, that detail doesn't surprise me at all.

According to James Clapper:

He also stated that members of Congress had been fully briefed on the program and that it had been authorized by every branch of government.

The legal justification for the Verizon metadata collection program is section 215 of the Patriot Act, which amended a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) 50 U.S.C. § 1861 (2012), to allow the government to request a secret court order requiring third parties to provide their “business records” for foreign intelligence investigations. PRISM is authorized by section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, 50 U.S.C. 1881 (2012). These amendments allow the government to obtain sweeping records of user data provided that it has a “reasonable belief” that a target is located outside the U.S.

http://jolt.law.harv...data-collection

P.S.: I think the next time this thread gets too lengthy to follow it should be your turn to "trim it".

AUGradinTX · June 21, 2013

Of course it is information about people. People are making those phone calls. The information gathered by companies was done so because you allowed it and if that information was available to the government, a secret court order would not have been necessary for them to gather it.

No, it's just abstract information about numbers. Granted, people "own" or are tied to those numbers, but there is no information about actual individuals until it is analyzed or interpreted.

That may seem like an overly nuanced distinction, but no more than saying I "allowed" data about my number to be collected by the phone company. I had no choice in the matter.

We'll just have to disagree on that, then. That information, like you said, is tied to a person and from that information you can learn a great deal about someone.

I don't think there are any subtleties in this. Verizon is providing you with a service. You chose to accept their terms to use their service. You gave them your information knowingly. Therefore you did have a choice and that choice was to not use their service. At the same time, there was no way for you to know that your information was being released to the government as it was kept secret.

Each citizen of this country is individually guaranteed a right to privacy. A warrant should be issued seperately for each person's phone records that are collected. If the "original target" has been contacting one number frequently, the government can then get a warrant for that person's records. If the "original target" is believed to be a terrorist, a judge would not hesitate to sign a warrant for his top 5 contacts and so on.

I don't know if that is a fair representation of the process. For all I know that may be the way they are doing it. It would explain why there is such a high approval rate for the warrants.

Or it may be they present an analysis to the judge showing a pattern of connections between numbers and then ask for a warrant to identify the people behind each the numbers in a recurring pattern.

Regardless, any number linked to a terrorists cell phone (for example) would be fair candidate for an approved warrant, even if it turns out to be a "wrong number". Again, that would account for the extremely high approval rate of requested warrants.

If this was the way it is being done, there is no need for records for all Verizon customer's. I'm pretty sure a warrant wasn't issued for us all.

Absolutely. Having all the data would allow the government to more easlily establish contact patterns. Keeping with your line of thinking, maybe we should hand over all information about us to the government so we can more easily catch the bad guys.

No I do not want anyone, especially myself, to turn over "all information about themselves to the government". But that's not the same as the government collecting anonymous numerical data represented by so called meta data, which can be linked to me only with a warrant.

I understand your position that metadata is the same as individual information, I just don't agree with it.

But wouldn't that help catch more bad guys? Wasn't that your point when you argued that having all the data would make it easier to catch terrorists?

Absolutely I am. (Concerned about the gov't ability to thwart terrorist attacks) Japan stated in an earlier post, stop millions of unidentified foreigners from entering the country every year. Aren't the vast majority of terrorists foreign? If they enter legally, make them leave when their visa expires. While they are here make them agree to submit THEIR phone records. Make them prove that they are in fact in the country for reasons related to their visas. What's more, stop f'in around with middle eastern countries!

Fine with me.

Me too.

As far as no one showing the government has not followed the law... 1) Where does the authority to hold secret court hearings to gather information on american citizens come from? 2) It's hard to show whether or not they are following the law when what they are doing is done in secrecy. Wouldn't you say?

1) Presumably, from the law. (I doubt if this was a scheme created by a mix of judges, spooks and congressmen at a late night drinking session.)

So decisions related to information about citizens being made in secret is ok? Maybe it is law. It definitely cannot be challenged if nobody knows about it, though.

2) Yes I would.

That's why the defined process has to be adequate in terms of checks and balances. But if it needs to be totally public, there is no point in doing it at all.

I don't want it all public. I want the fact that it is being done as well as the opinions of the court who authorized it to be public. It has to be. Decisions like this being made behind closed doors without the peoples' knowledge will erode democracy.

Read section 215 of The Patriot Act. It clearly states that BEFORE information is gathered, it must be shown to be related to an ongoing authorized investigation related to international terrorism. Is this being adhered to?

I don't know. But there is no reason to assume it is not. If so, the system of checks and balances is failing, and that's on Congress and the courts.

Umm, there is every reason to believe it is not.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Who is going to challenge the rulings of a secret court? How do you challenge a ruling you have no knowledge of? If nobody knows about it nobody can choose to argue against. Therefore the SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against FISC opinions.

No it's not obvious that a ruling cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS. Obviously, there is no plaintiff or advocate in the process to appeal a warrant before it is executed (acted upon), but that's pretty much true of any warrant isn't it?

Hey! WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS BY ACCIDENT! They weren't going to tell us. IF WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, WE CAN'T PROCEED IN CHANGING IT. Is that clear enough?

Now if you or I feel like we have been investigated or arrested as a result of an unlawful search we can always hire a lawyer and make that challenge, just like we can for any other warrant that is served on us. Presumably such an appeal can reach the SCOTUS.

Since when do terrorists get lawyers around here?? There is a 16 year old boy that has been locked up for months in IN without speaking to his parents or a lawyer because they believe he made a bomb threat.

We aren't talking about who they are, nor are we talking about making sensitive information public knowledge. We are talking about knowing the opinions of the court. As in on what grounds they gave certain authority.
The collection of metadata has been going on for 7 years and we just found out about it. How is that not secret?

Well, if we know the grounds for authorizing a particular warrant then it is not secret, is it?

What's your point? I'm not sure this is related to what I have stated.

As far as us knowing about the collection of metadata, I already knew they were using such data.

I didn't know much for sure about the details, for example, that the government was collecting it directly instead of getting it from the private companies, but from what I know about the NSA, that detail doesn't surprise me at all.

According to James Clapper:

He also stated that members of Congress had been fully briefed on the program and that it had been authorized by every branch of government.

The legal justification for the Verizon metadata collection program is section 215 of the Patriot Act, which amended a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) 50 U.S.C. § 1861 (2012), to allow the government to request a secret court order requiring third parties to provide their “business records” for foreign intelligence investigations. PRISM is authorized by section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, 50 U.S.C. 1881 (2012). These amendments allow the government to obtain sweeping records of user data provided that it has a “reasonable belief” that a target is located outside the U.S.

http://jolt.law.harv...data-collection

P.S.: I think the next time this thread gets too lengthy to follow it should be your turn to "trim it".

Deal.

japantiger · June 21, 2013

Author Of The Patriot Act Says Patriot Act Was Written Specifically To Prevent NSA Data Mining

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the PATRIOT Act on the House floor in 2001, has declared that lawmakers' and the executive branch's excuses about recent revelations of NSA activity are "a bunch of bunk."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130612/18210323435/author-patriot-act-says-administrations-claims-about-nsa-are-bunch-bunk.shtml

Come on guys...the author speaking to the legislative intent of the Act (currently being tortured to justify this unwarranted confiscation of my information) shows that the act was never intended to justify this type of action; and was specifically drafted to prevent this abuse....you just can't justify this.

homersapien · June 22, 2013

Of course it is information about people. People are making those phone calls. The information gathered by companies was done so because you allowed it and if that information was available to the government, a secret court order would not have been necessary for them to gather it.

No, it's just abstract information about numbers. Granted, people "own" or are tied to those numbers, but there is no information about actual individuals until it is analyzed or interpreted.

That may seem like an overly nuanced distinction, but no more than saying I "allowed" data about my number to be collected by the phone company. I had no choice in the matter.

We'll just have to disagree on that, then. That information, like you said, is tied to a person and from that information you can learn a great deal about someone.

It's linked, but you need a warrant to determine that link. The fact we disagree on this pretty much closes the rest of the debate don't you think?

I don't think there are any subtleties in this. Verizon is providing you with a service. You chose to accept their terms to use their service. You gave them your information knowingly. Therefore you did have a choice and that choice was to not use their service. At the same time, there was no way for you to know that your information was being released to the government as it was kept secret.

Would they have provided me service if I had not accepted their terms? So my only real choice is to forgo the service altogether. That's hardly a real "choice" to provide them data.

Each citizen of this country is individually guaranteed a right to privacy. A warrant should be issued seperately for each person's phone records that are collected. If the "original target" has been contacting one number frequently, the government can then get a warrant for that person's records. If the "original target" is believed to be a terrorist, a judge would not hesitate to sign a warrant for his top 5 contacts and so on.

I don't know if that is a fair representation of the process. For all I know that may be the way they are doing it. It would explain why there is such a high approval rate for the warrants.

Or it may be they present an analysis to the judge showing a pattern of connections between numbers and then ask for a warrant to identify the people behind each the numbers in a recurring pattern.

Regardless, any number linked to a terrorists cell phone (for example) would be fair candidate for an approved warrant, even if it turns out to be a "wrong number". Again, that would account for the extremely high approval rate of requested warrants.

If this was the way it is being done, there is no need for records for all Verizon customer's. I'm pretty sure a warrant wasn't issued for us all.

I am not going to argue the technical need to have a full compliment of data for the analysis they are doing. Neither one of us knows for sure if that is true or not. But I can easily imagine why it would be. So you can keep assuming it's not. We'll just disagree on that also.

Absolutely. Having all the data would allow the government to more easlily establish contact patterns. Keeping with your line of thinking, maybe we should hand over all information about us to the government so we can more easily catch the bad guys.

No I do not want anyone, especially myself, to turn over "all information about themselves to the government". But that's not the same as the government collecting anonymous numerical data represented by so called meta data, which can be linked to me only with a warrant.

I understand your position that metadata is the same as individual information, I just don't agree with it.

But wouldn't that help catch more bad guys? Wasn't that your point when you argued that having all the data would make it easier to catch terrorists?

Sure, but IMO, that would be terrible compromise between security and privacy. It is not the same as metadata which is anonymous until analysed (with a warrant).

Absolutely I am. (Concerned about the gov't ability to thwart terrorist attacks) Japan stated in an earlier post, stop millions of unidentified foreigners from entering the country every year. Aren't the vast majority of terrorists foreign? If they enter legally, make them leave when their visa expires. While they are here make them agree to submit THEIR phone records. Make them prove that they are in fact in the country for reasons related to their visas. What's more, stop f'in around with middle eastern countries!

Fine with me.

Me too.

As far as no one showing the government has not followed the law... 1) Where does the authority to hold secret court hearings to gather information on american citizens come from? 2) It's hard to show whether or not they are following the law when what they are doing is done in secrecy. Wouldn't you say?

1) Presumably, from the law. (I doubt if this was a scheme created by a mix of judges, spooks and congressmen at a late night drinking session.)

So decisions related to information about citizens being made in secret is ok? Maybe it is law. It definitely cannot be challenged if nobody knows about it, though.

Well if you can explain how intelligence gathering and analysis on terrorist threats can be done in the open without compromising the effort, let's hear it.

There are checks and balances in place to guard against abuse. At least there should be. So it's not totally secret. Representatives of the judicial branch and the congressional branch know, or at least should know. This is nothing really new.

2) Yes I would.

That's why the defined process has to be adequate in terms of checks and balances. But if it needs to be totally public, there is no point in doing it at all.

I don't want it all public. I want the fact that it is being done as well as the opinions of the court who authorized it to be public. It has to be. Decisions like this being made behind closed doors without the peoples' knowledge will erode democracy.

But it is known. We are discussing it. It was revealed as part of the FISA revisions in 2008. In fact, everything that has come out in the Guardian article I has already assumed was happening. I have read articles and seen documentaries on the NSA that discussed their mission and how they go about it. Surely you were aware of the NSA and their capabilities before the Guardian article?

But it sounds as if you are actually OK with having a secret program as long as we know it exists. We can agree on that.

Read section 215 of The Patriot Act. It clearly states that BEFORE information is gathered, it must be shown to be related to an ongoing authorized investigation related to international terrorism. Is this being adhered to?

I don't know. But there is no reason to assume it is not. If so, the system of checks and balances is failing, and that's on Congress and the courts.

Umm, there is every reason to believe it is not.

Why? What are the reasons?

Why assume that carefully defined conditions and restrictions are being ignored? Why assume the government is more interested in spying citizens (for what purpose?) instead of identifying terrorist threats?

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Who is going to challenge the rulings of a secret court? How do you challenge a ruling you have no knowledge of? If nobody knows about it nobody can choose to argue against. Therefore the SCOTUS cannot hear arguments against FISC opinions.

No it's not obvious that a ruling cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS. Obviously, there is no plaintiff or advocate in the process to appeal a warrant before it is executed (acted upon), but that's pretty much true of any warrant isn't it?

Hey! WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS BY ACCIDENT! They weren't going to tell us. IF WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, WE CAN'T PROCEED IN CHANGING IT. Is that clear enough?

Again, we do know about it. What would you change? You said earlier that a secret program is OK as long as we know it exists.

And you were talking about the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS doesn't address issues (like warrants) per se', they address court cases. If you or anyone else feels feels you have been damaged by an unlawful activity of the government you can bring suit charging a unconstitutional search and it will eventually be judged by the SCOTUS. That has always been true.

Now if you or I feel like we have been investigated or arrested as a result of an unlawful search we can always hire a lawyer and make that challenge, just like we can for any other warrant that is served on us. Presumably such an appeal can reach the SCOTUS.

Since when do terrorists get lawyers around here?? There is a 16 year old boy that has been locked up for months in IN without speaking to his parents or a lawyer because they believe he made a bomb threat.

I am not going to argue that there have been no abuses concerning American citizens in the so called "war on terror" but I am not aware of any cases in which citizens have been arrested and stripped of their legal rights. If you do, please direct me.

We aren't talking about who they are, nor are we talking about making sensitive information public knowledge. We are talking about knowing the opinions of the court. As in on what grounds they gave certain authority.
The collection of metadata has been going on for 7 years and we just found out about it. How is that not secret?

Well, if we know the grounds for authorizing a particular warrant then it is not secret, is it?

What's your point? I'm not sure this is related to what I have stated.

I thought you were saying we need to know the basis for each (secret) warrant that is granted. That is clearly information that must remain confidential.

As far as us knowing about the collection of metadata, I already knew they were using such data.

I didn't know much for sure about the details, for example, that the government was collecting it directly instead of getting it from the private companies, but from what I know about the NSA, that detail doesn't surprise me at all.

According to James Clapper:

He also stated that members of Congress had been fully briefed on the program and that it had been authorized by every branch of government.

The legal justification for the Verizon metadata collection program is section 215 of the Patriot Act, which amended a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) 50 U.S.C. § 1861 (2012), to allow the government to request a secret court order requiring third parties to provide their “business records” for foreign intelligence investigations. PRISM is authorized by section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, 50 U.S.C. 1881 (2012). These amendments allow the government to obtain sweeping records of user data provided that it has a “reasonable belief” that a target is located outside the U.S.

http://jolt.law.harv...data-collection

P.S.: I think the next time this thread gets too lengthy to follow it should be your turn to "trim it".

Deal.

Sign In

The New Yorker: Verizon and the NSA: The problem with metadata

Recommended Posts

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AU64 10,122

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AU64 10,122

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

autigeremt 7,131

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AU64 10,122

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TitanTiger 21,064

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,104

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AUGradinTX 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,104

Link to comment

Share on other sites

homersapien 12,172

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Members Online