NSA Considers Ending Collection Of Data On Americans' Phone Calls

[Purveyor]

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

The National Security Agency is reviewing whether to stop collecting a vast stockpile of records of Americans’ telephone calls — the most controversial component of its surveillance programs— by allowing telecommunications companies to retain the data until U.S. intelligence officials have a specific reason to review it for possible connections to terror plots, U.S. officials said Tuesday

The NSA’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander, disclosed the review during a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, saying the agency and the FBI are jointly re-examining “how we actually do this program.”

Asked by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., if the records of phone calls – known as metadata -- could be left in the hands of telecommunications firms and then reviewed only when there is a suspicion “of a foreign terrorist connection,” Alexander replied: “I do think that that’s something that we’ve agreed to look at and that we’ll do. It’s just going to take some time. We want to do it right.”

The NSA’s sweeping collection tens of millions of phone records was disclosed on June 5 by the Guardian newspaper after ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked to the paper a top secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court requiring Verizon to turn over information on all calls in its system to the NSA.

Under the program, NSA does not eavesdrop on actual phone calls. Instead, it collects the metadata —phone numbers, the time and length of each call – from telecommunications companies. The firms have been secretly turning over the data to the NSA under FISC court orders for years based on a provision of the Patriot Act that forbids the companies from disclosing the NSA’s collection to their customers, officials say.

MORE...

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19026469-nsa-considers-ending-collection-of-data-on-americans-phone-calls?lite

[dkf]

1. And they should stop scooping up data from the fiber optic cables.

[reformist2]

29. And they need to erase their existing databases.

[Pholus]

54. That is the critical bit. Thanks! nt

[Katashi_itto]

64. Obviously they have a better replacement to PRISM

Why even say "ooo we did a bad thing" unless you have a ready replacement system on tap?

[leveymg]

82. Under current law, NSA can retain any and all data collected for five years. That's why they

needed the vast Utah server farm.

[Luminous Animal]

2. And they should jettison reasonable suspicion and reinstate probable cause.

But even more needs to be done.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. yep

[forestpath]

4. Gee, I feel better already.

[Mojorabbit]

9. I know right! nt

[tblue]

26. They're just trying to shut us up.

Just like some posters here on DU want us to shut up and take it.

[truth2power]

37. Yeah, how would we know? Everything is super-secret....

I keep thinking of that folk-tale..."The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

This is what happens when you lie all the time. When you finally tell the truth, no one believes you.

[Android3.14]

42. "finally tell the truth"?

Somehow I don;t think they've reached that point yet.

[truth2power]

47. i didn't state that very well...

The boy who cried wolf finally did tell the truth, but it was too late.

No, I wouldn't believe anything that originated with some govt official these days.

[Downwinder]

5. What are the other components of their surveillance programs?

Are they so bad that we cannot be told? They might be more controversial.

[Xipe Totec]

6. I'll believe it when I read the fine print

Which, of course, will be classified.

[Monkie]

10. it will also depend on how long they expect the telecoms to keep this data?

that would be something that i expect the fine print needs checking for.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Waiter, bring another yottabyte of storage for my pals at The Company. nt

[MynameisBlarney]

35. Classified

and redacted.

[lbrtbell]

68. I agree

More likely, the program will just be renamed and started again.

[Autumn]

7. That would be nice but they won't

[Thinkingabout]

8. It would be desirable to have honest truthful personnel to understand how to follow the rules of

their employment and not have diarrhea of the mouth.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Horseshit!

These guys are not giving up these powers voluntarily.

Also, is Verizon and the rest going to have to build 100 acre server farms to store this data?

[Demo_Chris]

13. They'll have Halliburton handle it for them. nt

[reusrename]

48. Ding! Ding! Ding!

[magellan]

14. I'd like to like this

But I stopped trusting anything they say long ago.

[tblue]

23. I know! Let us spy on them for a change.

We'll take turns. If there's nothing to hide there's nothing to hide.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

15. ***WINK-WINK***

[Monkie]

17. i thought only last week this metadata was vital to national security?

did the terrorist win in the mean time?
or is it suddenly not so vital anymore

[gholtron]

38. Congrats. The conspiracy minded people

Helped the terrorists to win. Good job guys. Be safe.

[Monkie]

41. i hope that is sarcasm, i have nothing to fear from "terrorists", i fear crossing the road

i fear slipping in the bath, real threats to my safety and security.

[gholtron]

43. So 911 wss just a dream then

Since it didn't effect you.

[Monkie]

45. 9/11 was a terrible crime, and i dont want to sound harsh

but honestly, even though it was a terrible crime, and 3000 people died in a horrible way, and i watched every minute that it was broadcasts, i did not turn away, to be clear.
even though it was a terrible crime, i dont feel threatened by terrorists at all, because again, i am more likely to die crossing the road or slipping in the bath.
i would rather live with the extremely rare risk of dying from a bomb attack than lose my basic human rights.
i would rather live with that risk than be jointly responsible for breaking of all known international laws and be jointly responsible for many more deaths.

i want to die free.
its not complicated.

[gholtron]

46. So maybe you can teach us

On how you do it? Maybe the President and his security advisors should not look at threats and just tell the public don't worry about terror attacks. Just make sure you look both ways when crossing the streets.

Yes that's the ticket. Good advice.

[FiveGoodMen]

56. So very, very, VERY Goodbye!

[reflection]

57. I'm with you.

And I think most people are.

[EOTE]

66. You do know you're several times more likely to die from lightning than terrorism, right?

Do you spend your days living in fear of lightning? Or tripping and fatally falling into a ravine? Or contracting a fatal case of syphilis from making out with a toad? Because all of those things are more likely to happen than you dying from terrorism. But I'm sure the government appreciates your constant fear. It makes their job far easier.

[gholtron]

70. You are missing the point.

I realize that no matter what we put in place that it will not eliminate terrorism. I get that. However I don't want it to be so easy for us to get hit. I'm thinking about the country as a whole and not myself. I'm thinking about the grieving of survivors and the call to go back to war of what ever country these terrorist came from after we get hit. The public will demand that we get revenge. This has happened with Pearl Harbor, and after 911. My point is that people want some level of security. It's in the preamble of the Constitution. "To Insure Domestic Tranquility" . That's why we have alarm systems, dead bolt locks, guns etc. The President's job is to protect us without trampling over our rights. How do you do that in today's time with all this advance technologies? By taking the the stands of the previous person that I replied to would be foolish. I'm not calling him foolish, just the concept. We need to find a balance that will both support what the framers put in the preamble and what they wrote in the Constitution. But to totally do nothing but worring about crossing the street or getting hit by a bolt of lighting is not the solution. I welcome your rebuttal.

[EOTE]

71. So, you get it, you just think that tossing away our freedoms is totally worth the illusion of

protection we get. You are thousands of times more likely to die from second hand smoke, but yet these assholes don't find it necessary to take anywhere near the extreme measures to protect us from that. Why do you think that is? I think it's because they'll be far more likely in their quest for power to be successful by appealing to the likes of you.

[gholtron]

72. Did you not read what I wrote?

I said we need a balance. Point out where I said we should toss away our freedoms. I was debating on whether I should have reply to you.

[EOTE]

73. You used 9/11 as an excuse for succumbing to the surveillance state.

That is tossing away our freedoms. We shouldn't have to get rid of our civil liberties simply because the government is capable of scaring the shit out of a certain segment of the population.

[gholtron]

74. Ok I see your solution

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. What would be the point? You are living in a conspiracy world where you think that government is always looking for ways to control us. I know the government is not perfect but I'm glad that I don't live in that world you live in. Good luck to you.

[EOTE]

75. Yeah, this kooky, crazy conspiracy world.

That world where those crazy conspiracy theorists insist that Bush received PDB telling him that Osama was determined to strike the U.S. a month prior to 9/11. Those wacky conspiracy theorists who saw awful shit like the PATRIOT Act enacted to throw away our liberties even though there is NO suggestion that anything passed did anything to prevent any terrorist act and acts of terrorism have remained level ever since. Those silly kooks who tried to warn that the Bush administration was illegally spying on citizens under the guise of protection. Those silly conspiracy theorists should know how useless facts are. They should create their own reality like you, huh?

[Meaniepants]

79. people die

And people grieve . Perhaps if we stop meddling in others affairs and droning them we wouldn't get hit. Stop protecting oil companies .

[gholtron]

80. Tell that to the people of Bali

What did they ever do to be bombed.

[Meaniepants]

78. Too late

Everything that Osama said he was going to do has happened.

[rhett o rick]

16. Has anyone addressed the fact that the NSA isnt supposed to be monitoring Americans in the country?

That's the FBI's job.

[Jarla]

18. I think may be all one big interconnected system at this point

See http://ise.gov/

The ISE provides analysts, operators, and investigators with integrated and synthesized terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and homeland security information needed to enhance national security and help keep our people safe.

These analysts, operators, and investigators come from a variety of communities - law enforcement, public safety, homeland security, intelligence, defense, and foreign affairs – and may work for federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial governments. They also have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies. While they work in different disciplines and have varying roles and responsibilities, they all rely on timely and accurate information to achieve their mission responsibilities.

[backscatter712]

19. NSA thinks about obeying the Constitution.

Why would that even require an extended decision process?

That should be obvious.

"Collect and analyze all metadata of American's phone calls?" "Can't do that, that's illegal!" That should be the end of discussion if the NSA was operating within the bounds of law and ethics.

[gholtron]

39. Metadata is public record

http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/10/articles/public-records/washington-supreme-court-finds-metadata-is-a-public-record/

[Jarla]

20. So what about emails, text messages, IM messages, web search results, etc.?

There's been a lot of discussion about the surveillance (or not) of our phone calls, but I don't feel like we've heard much from officials about what they're doing (or not) with other types of electronic communication. What other types of data are they collecting? How much are they collecting? For how long are they storing it? Who has access to that data?

This focus upon the surveillance of phone calls, specifically, almost feels like it's a tactic to deflect discussion away from their surveillance of the Internet.

[Amonester]

21. I post from above the border (Canada) so...

I'm sure agent Mike snooped on a few... and I don't care.

I'd rather have them see my posts on the increasing wealth inequality in North America than just the already informed DUers here, for example...

I also call my Sister in Tampa from time to time, to talk family matters...

Like I care what they must be laughing about (us speaking French??)

[tblue]

22. Why? Half of DU wants them to continue.

They'll probably start a petition to keep it going. Come on, guys! Ask me to sign it!

[Hydra]

24. OMG, the NSA is thinking about following the law??

Is this man feeling all right?

...

I'm with the other posters- I don't think they liked the heat on this, so it will go back to the shadows and try to catapult it again later. Business as usual at Dark Ops Inc.

[Rex]

25. In other words, send it back to secret status.

Not much of a secret if we all know about it.

[DevonRex]

27. No point in doing that. The people who think NSA listens to their calls

to their mothers won't believe it anyway.

[JoePhilly]

49. The funny thing you see running through this thread is just

how utterly confused some seem to be about how the program works now, and how it would work under what's being considered.

The level of hyperbole, screaming, and miss characterization has been so over the top, that most of these folks can't follow the details of the change that's being discussed.

And given their confusion, its easier to simply say that they won't believe anything that is said about anything.

In the end you are correct. They are already sure that their calls are being listened to and nothing that happens will stop that.

But hey, maybe they'll use better phone etiquette going forward.

[DevonRex]

50. Oh yes.

Just as etiquette has improved around here.

[JoePhilly]

52. Bwahahaha ....

That's the truth ... this place has become hilarious!!

Earlier today, I had some one tell me that ... clearly I hate the uninsured and think they are losers because I don't think the ACA is a total and complete disaster. They called me "sick and twisted" because I was not furious.

And apparently, I'm an authoritarian, because I understand the difference between meta data and wire tapping.

And because I have not flipped out about the SS cuts that actually never happened, clearly I hate old people.

Apparently, from what I've been told in the last few days, I'm a real bastard.

I might have to put me on ignore!

[winter is coming]

28. They didn't stop doing it when it was illegal; why stop now? n/t

[Rex]

30. Exactly, I don't see any point in doing so

if it is legal...why even bring in up? So they weathered the storm, just to raise some doubt again. SIGH.

[GeorgeGist]

31. So can one safely assume ...

that the Utah yottabite center will be used for storing content?

[kentuck]

32. And they're going to stop work on that little building out in Utah...

that they were going to warehouse all the information? And they're going to pay everyone a personal visit and give you a little peppermint stick for being a good American?

[hobbit709]

33. Stop collecting or stop admitting they're collecting?

[Myrina]

34. You mean, they SAY they're considering it.

... pay no attention to those clicking noises in the background, the program's been disbanded. Trust us.

[DiamondDog]

36. They might say they're going to stop such actions, but they won't.

They are finishing up a data storage center in Utah that can hold yottabytes of data, and have started building its twin in Maryland. They aren't going to let these facilities stand idle. They will simply say one thing and do another, all the while tightening up their own security in order to prevent future leaks of embarrassing facts.

[kentuck]

40. Why??

Would they do that??

[Fearless]

44. Why should we believe they did

Even if they say they've done so?

[Politicalboi]

51. Like the protesters in Germany

Yes We Scan!

[HooptieWagon]

53. So...now they're redefining the word "ending"?

...or when NSA says they are ending surveillence it means they will outsource all of it to contractors? At this point, I assume they're lying whenever their lips are moving.

[Pholus]

55. So they thought of a new code-name to cover the activity I guess.

I can see how that game works now too....

NSA: We have terminated the program that collects the metadata.

Us: Does that mean we actually stopped collecting the numbers?

NSA: "Boundless Informant" no longer exists.

Us: So no numbers collected in a program OTHER than "Boundless Informant?"

NSA: National security, not allowed to comment on this.

I used to think spy evasion was really clever. Now it reminds me of trying to wheedle a confession out of my eight year old.

[AZ Progressive]

58. Did they end Total Information Awareness? No they didn't.

They just pretended to end it and wait till everyone forgot about it. NSA's definitely trying to shut the critics up.

[cstanleytech]

59. I personally believe that a database that gathers the phone numbers is ok

just provided its not the NSA or any other law enforcement branch running it nor should it be run by the military nor the the legislative or executive branch.
About the only one I would trust to maintain it as well as require an actual warrant to do a search would be the judicial branch.

[blkmusclmachine]

60. Suuuure. And to be replaced with ???

TRUST US.

We wouldn't lie to you,

again.


.


We're all Germans now


.

[cstanleytech]

62. I think there is little doubt there will always be such a database and

lets face it right now the phone companies themselves keep such records anyway so I have zero problem with there being one giant database that the government can search when it needs to I just dont think the NSA is the organization to put in charge of it and the only branch of government I would trust to oversee it is the judicial branch.
They are not nearly as under the thumb as the rest of the government is under the thumb of the legislative and executive branch and they can tell both of them to piss up a rope if it comes to a shoving match over wanting a search without a warrant.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Now, that's the best idea I've heard in a long time

I can't imagine it does any good, even if it didn't violate the Fourth Amendment. That's just way too much crap to saft through to find whatever it is that is sought.

It was dumb enough for somebody in the Bush Junta to dream up, it was dumb enough for the Frat Boy to sign off on it and it was dumb enough for the Big Dick to defend.

I thought it was too dumb for Our Man to defend, and I hat to say I was wrong about that.

[MotherPetrie]

63. "Considering." Weasel word.

[BillyRibs]

65. Just Great!

Closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out!

[kitt6]

67. You know it is bad when

you believe a Russian President over our own politicians.

[lastlib]

69. What's to "consider," fuckwads?

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Terminate it. Now! No more "discussion", "considering" or anything else! PULL.THE.PLUG.

[kestrel91316]

76. Hahahahaha!!! They will say they are stopping and they will continue. I'm not stupid.

[Meaniepants]

77. privte vs public

They also need to take it out of private sector hands and put it back in the public sector. As it stands now we can't file for freedom of information .

[marble falls]

81. "Considers". How nice of them.

[JDPriestly]

83. Schiff's suggestion would bring the US a little closer to the German

rules.

They may be justified in collecting information on a few people, but very few. This program sounds enormous. We just don't have that many terrorists or potential terrorists in the US or allied countries.