Ahhh! It's a "pre-collection database" they're using...TO STORE ALL RECORDS OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS.

[Th1onein]

From here: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/11/18887491-fbi-sharply-increases-use-of-patriot-act-provision-to-collect-us-citizens-records?lite

“That they were using this (provision of the Patriot Act) to do mass collection of data is definitely the biggest surprise,” said Robert Chesney, a top national security lawyer at the University of Texas Law School. “Most people who followed this closely were not aware they were doing this. We’ve gone from producing records for a particular investigation to the production of all records for a massive pre-collection database. It’s incredibly sweeping.”

[delrem]

1. Some DUers say this is what they voted for.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

9. Some DUers support this collection, because Obama does it. When Bush did it, it was wrong

But our man is doing it, so it's acceptable.

So much for our Constitution. It's just a "God damned piece of paper" anyway.

[randome]

2. 212 requests for metadata means storing all records of our communications?

This is just rehashing the same paranoid bullshit as before.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[disidoro01]

4. I don't know if you

understand what the requests mean.
"For example, a top-secret FISC order disclosed last week by the Guardian showed that the FBI had used a single Section 215 request to direct Verizon to turn over “all call detail records or telephony metadata’’ of its customers for a three month period, literally millions of records."

As you can see, 1 request equals millions of records. Thats kind of a big deal don't you think?

[randome]

5. Yes, it's metadata, encrypted phone numbers and date/timestamps.

Not 'all records of our communications'.

And they are third-party records, not 'our' communications. They belong to Verizon the same way a copy of every receipt you were ever given belongs to the seller.

The courts have ruled on this a long time ago.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[disidoro01]

6. I understand what your post

was and I replied with the quote to show that 212 requests quite possibly mean that every provider in the country has provided information on every customer they have. Why is this acceptable? What possible need for all this information and why FISA?
Our courts are fully capable of sealing records so why not have them involved when any american is involved, whether they make or receive the call or email?
I assure you the courts have never ruled on this NSA garbage. What court would say that sweeping up informaion on every single american and storing it without even applying the 4th amendment is ok? Every single person with an email address or phone number is at the mercy of this with no ability to contest. Customers contractually and legally own their numbers and addresses in conjunction with the provider, there is a contract in place spelling out obligations and rights of both parties.
Beyond the unnecessary intrusion, this could be much more transparent and could be done in a more focused manner.

[randome]

7. I have no problem with more transparency, more protections.

But this is metadata, it's encrypted, it's only numbers and date/timestamps. And it's stored the same way the telecoms store it, only in a central location. We don't get all hot and bothered that the telecoms have this data, this has been going on for years and now we're upset about it?

And the 'Ahhh!' part of the OP is not exactly trying to bring any information to light, it's just more 'hair on fire' stuff.

The courts have ruled on this. For a long time and consistently. Third party records do not belong to us.

If that needs to change, I have no problem with that either. The only problem I have is those who want to automatically assume nefarious motives when there is no evidence to support this meager data collection being misused.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[disidoro01]

10. I agree and understand

that it is metadata. What i don't like is that every single person is subject to this by the government and it is being stored in a central location. The courts have ruled on third party, I disagree that they have ruled that the government can take all of this information, effectively information on every single american, and store it in a central location to be filtered by contractors without allowing any means of redress. How does a FISA court have jurisdiction on any american on american soil. I just don't understand why this is ok.
Why can't I go to court and ask what the probably cause is for the government to extract this information?
"if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is not our rule of law.

[randome]

12. What do you think happens when police try to gather evidence for a case?

They go to businesses, get warrants to look through the data and build the case. How is what the NSA doing any different? They have to have a warrant to look through the data. Having it centrally located just makes that process a hell of a lot easier.

And they can't look through the data unless a foreign point of communication is involved, which is where FISA comes in.

A database search for a specific number is a hell of a lot more accurate than pawing through files in a filing cabinet, where the wrong file might get pulled.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BrainDrain]

14. Two things.....

First is...the deal about it being encrypted is a false fig leaf. The data may be encrypted, but do you SERIOUSLY think that the gov't would request data it can't or won't UN-encrypt?

Second, and I have made this point over and over, the CHARTER, the founding charter of the NSA states in LAW, that they cannot spy or collect or otherwise use their abilities on US citizens. Period.

I call BULLSHIT on ANYONE trying to rationalize the use of the NSA by anyone to mass spy on US citizens.

[randome]

15. Of course it's unencrypted when they pull data from it.

The point about it being stored encrypted is that it's protected from anyone else (hackers) getting possession of it and using it.

I don't know about the NSA Charter but I believe that's why information is handed off to the FBI for authorized wiretaps, etc. The NSA isn't 'spying' on you or anyone else inside America.

Granted, they could be lying to us but until there is evidence they are, why all this anger directed at them? Because of Snowden?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[uponit7771]

20. No proof for the first point and if the FBI was doing what the NSA was doing with MD would it be ok?

tia

[disidoro01]

34. the police

get a warrant to gain access and take possession of data, they do not go to businesses then get a warrant after they have taken possession. The NSA takes possession and then decides once the information is in their possession what they are going to do. A world of difference.

I don't know this part, can FISA grant a warrant for both parties information? The domestic and foreign?

[randome]

42. I believe anything to do with domestic callers is handed over to the FBI...

...so I doubt FISA actually issues the warrant. I'm not certain of that.

I see your point but issuing a warrant to have every telecom in America search their records for a phone number would be maddeningly time-consuming. Having the data in one place -and encrypted- is more efficient and more likely safer, too, since there are fewer points of miscommunication, hacker interception, etc.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HooptieWagon]

29. The Obama Admin redefined "foreign surveillence"...

...to mean foreign surveillence had to be 51% of surveillence. So now the NSA can do up to 49% domestic surveillence. And domestic surveillence done "unwittingly" doesn't count towards the 49%. And of course, a vast increase in foreign surveillence permits them a corresponding increase in domestic surveillence. Given the seceecy, lying, redefining of terms, lack of oversight by Congress, and rubber-stamping of FISA warrants (only one rejected out of thousands issued since 2009)....this represents a very troubling path for the govt to take. A path that will likely unite bi-partisan opposition. If Democrats don't distance themselves fully from this, there could be an election bloodbath. A vast surveillence network spying on Americans is not a platform voters are going to support.

[HiPointDem]

33. once the respondent tells you that 1 request = millions of records, you change the subject.

because you don't want to deal with the real issues, just blow smoke to protect the administration.

great strategy to put jeb bush into office next go-round.

[randome]

43. "All records of our conversations" sounds like the OP thinks the NSA is wiretapping everything.

So what if 1 request equals 1 million metadata records? It wouldn't make any difference if it was 14 records, would it? It's still not 'all records of our conversations'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HiPointDem]

44. thus 215 requests = roughly 215 million people, which likely covers nearly all households in the US.

since there are only about 313 million people, 132 million housing units, and 114 million households.

[NoMoreWarNow]

8. Yes-- this has been known for years, and it is outrageous.

[formercia]

11. So, if in the Future, they need to discredit someone

It's just a matter of making a request for a dossier, and every thing they ever did or said, even in jest is available.

J edgar would cum in his pants.

[Recursion]

13. No

Sigh. No, that's not what this means. Can we at least stick with the facts described in the OP?

[Catherina]

23. +1000000 n/t

[snooper2]

26. I really hope they are teaching the fundamentals of technology in schools these days

[FSogol]

16. Pre-collection means they are storing the calls and emails you haven't even made yet!

[Javaman]

17. Minority Report. nt

[FSogol]

18. "I'm sorry for whatever I'm going to do and I swear I didn't do any of that stuff I did."

[Th1onein]

19. Not quite true.

They have redefined "collection" to mean pulling something from a database that they already have. To the common man, "collection" is the act of putting together the database. The end result is that you have a database with everything in it. To Clapper and the NSA, "collecting" means sourcing the database that they already have, for information, on a "target."

I read, last night, they were talking about letting the telecoms store the data themselves. (This is supposed to mollify us, I guess.) But they said that one problem with that is that there is no law on the books right now to require the telecoms to store the data themselves. Now, if that doesn't tell you that they're storing data on Americans, en masse, I don't know what else to tell you to convince you.

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

[FSogol]

21. LOL. Assignment: Write a 2 paragraph response to an obvious joke.

I give you a C-. There is no bibliography or footnotes.

PS. If I have a large file room with all my company's files and my boss needs the files on the old Admin Bldg, can't I go collect the files? Your "discovery" that collect can be used different ways is amusing. Here's a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collect

[Th1onein]

24. Apparently, the joke wasn't "obvious" to me or I wouldn't have written a two paragraph response to

it, would I have?

As to your PS, let me take you through this logically:

1. The telecoms save your data for only a short period of time.
2. The NSA saves your data for years.
3. They are considering changing just who saves your data, so that the telecoms are saving it instead of the NSA.
4. This means that the NSA is saving your data; they are CURRENTLY STORING it, and are considering "changes" by passing legislation to require the telecoms to save it instead of them.

I don't know about you, but I've got a problem with that.

[FSogol]

25. I don't. You are misrepresenting metadata as data. Also, the FISA court

oversees requests to collect (!) the data from the database. And by years, it was reported that NSA only saves the metadata for 5 years. I know my phone company can pull up data from that same period. Heck, my bank can pull up 20 year old cancelled checks.

And talks of legislation to make changes? Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

As a liberal, I believe the government can be a force to help its citizens. If the NSA can analyze threats by searching metadata, go for it. I failed to see anything requiring the amount of hyperbole this has generated.

[Th1onein]

27. It's not metadata, first of all.

Second, I posted the link to the article I was referencing. If you would read it, you would see that the length of time that the telecom keeps your data is not long enough for the NSA, and THAT'S why they are considering passing legislation to require the telecom to keep it longer.

[FSogol]

28. Your link reads: the "NSA does not eavesdrop on actual calls. Instead, it collects the metadata

the whole quote reads: "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."

Now they are thinking off outsourcing it to phone companies that save the data anyway? And they are proposing legislation to change it? What exactly am I supposed to be outraged about?

[Th1onein]

30. Geez.

Look, we were talking about the length of time that the phone company saves the information. The article references that.

And, just because THIS article, which is quoting the NSA, says that they aren't saving all data doesn't mean that it is so. Of COURSE they would say that.

[FSogol]

31. LOL

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." - Graham Chapman

[LondonReign2]

36. The NSA doesn't believe they need the FISA court

they believe they have blanket authorization to search all records, so long as they log it afterwards. The claim that the FISA court has oversight that protects us appears to be completely untrue, not surprisingly.

2. The NSA doesn't need court approval each time it searches Americans' phone records.NSA Deputy Director John Inglis said that 22 NSA officials are authorized to approve requests to query an agency database that contains the cellphone metadata of American citizens. (Metadata includes the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls, the date and time the calls took place, and their duration.) Deputy AG Cole also said that all queries of this database must be documented and can be subject to audits. Cole also said that the the NSA does not have to get separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approval for each query; instead, the agency merely has to file a monthly report with the court on how many times the database was queried, and how many of those searches targeted the phone records of Americans.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/5-new-revelations-nsa-top-secret-surveillance-programs

[FSogol]

41. Again, you are conflating data and metadata by using the term records. They are not the same. n/t

[reorg]

45. you seem to have a problem with language

Metadata is a subset of the term data. If I sign a contract with a communications provider that says they're not going to share any of the data with third parties and only collect them for the purposes of billing, then I expect all "meta"data to be included in this agreement. Fortunately, the constitutional court in my country agrees with this interpretation and doesn't allow for such data to be collected and stored.

In the US, they apparently have found a legal loophole that says a so-called "pen register" does not receive constitutional protection under the right to privacy, and they treat all metadata of internet and phone conversations as if they were entries made in the notebook of a phone company in 1980. State agencies still need a court order to get them, but they don't need probable cause. They merely have to assert these data might be helpful in obtaining information related to ongoing criminal investigations or whatever.

Given the technological advances since 1980, the vast amount of data collected, what the NSA is actually doing with them and last but not least what officials and contractors MIGHT do with them, don't you think it's only appropriate and in order to reflect on the right to privacy again and how to protect it?

[FSogol]

46. Wrong: "Metadata is a subset of the term data"

Metadata is data about data. For example: number of calls, duration of calls, numbers called.
Data is the information contained in the call.

And I totally agree that courts and the legislators need to catch up to the technology, but I don't see this current dust up to be anything more than the start of the Rand Paul campaign.

BTW, which country or countries do not allow for metadata to be collected? How does the phone company bill without having that data?

[reorg]

47. I know what metadata means, it's still data

The country where the constitutional court found that storing these metadata is a serious violation of privacy rights is Germany.

Phone companies can and do store these data for the purpose of billing, as I said.

When the bill is paid, which usually happens every month, the data are no longer needed for that purpose. Some providers don't delete them immediately, but from cases of suspected copyright violations we know that others do.

For links, please see these posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3046797
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3047082


Why should Democrats leave this topic to the Republicans? Why not demonstrate competence and sensitivity to justified concerns? Some Democratic representatives seem quite capable and willing to do this.

[Catherina]

22. It's stunning. Even for many of the most cynical among us.

They've been hoovering intelligence on billions of private persons all over the world, regardless of national and international laws, for 12 years. So much hypocrisy laid bare.

[reformist2]

32. "pre-collection" without a warrant is pretty obviously unconstitutional.

Not only should the program end, the existing databases need to be erased.

[JackRiddler]

35. This Chesney, does his girlfriend dance?

Did he ever break his legs in the military?

Why does he hate Obama?

[LondonReign2]

37. You should see the boxes in his garage!

[JackRiddler]

38. Boxes, eh? Hmmmmm....

Boxes.

[LondonReign2]

40. Well, he'd show them to you...

..but he's pretty unfriendly with his neighbors

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I need to add Phillip K Dick to the list of prophets

With Orwell of course.

What we have here...is the Dept. of Pre-Crime.