It's NOT just Metadata

[LondonReign2]

The “it’s only metadata” argument has been refuted – by the NSA.

And, hey, court orders? Don't need'em

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant in the briefing said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

The NSA told us this earlier:

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

[JaneyVee]

1. Yes it is just metadata.

[LondonReign2]

2. LOL

"No it isn't"???? Awesome response

[JaneyVee]

8. Care to retract your statement since this article was debunked?

[LondonReign2]

11. No, though thanks to Joe Philly for the addition

which I hadn't seen. However, see post #9 below which reiterates -- it's not just metadata

[JaneyVee]

12. Yes, the NSA is able to get warrants for content. Last year they received around

1700 such warrants to gather content.

[randome]

3. Isn't this the Nadler comment he walked back later, saying he misunderstood?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

5. Yup.

[JoePhilly]

4. Did you miss this paragraph in that article?

James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant." Owens said he couldn't comment on what assurances from the Obama administration Nadler was referring to, and said Nadler was unavailable for an interview. (CNET had contacted Nadler for comment on Friday.)

And your second excerpt is about meta data, not content.

[LondonReign2]

7. Thanks for that part

I hadn't seen that.

The second excerpt refers to the lack of the NSA feeling they need warrants

[JoePhilly]

10. They have warrants to query the meta data.

What they don't have to do is get a separate warrant for each query, so long as that query is not focused on specific individuals.

So let's say you wanted to know the average length of a phone call in the US. There is a warrant that covers that. So you do a query. Then you decide to look at the average call length in PA. That's a new query, but its still broad, so you don't need a new warrant. But you do have to record the fact that you did this query. Then you want to look at the average call duration in Philly. Another new query, still broad enough to not require an additional warrant. Again, you do have to record the fact that you did this query.

As long as the queries are broad queries, no new warrant is required.

But now lets say you want to look at the average call duration for number nnn-nnn-nnnn. Now you need a new, and specific warrant for that number, because that query is focused on a specific individual.

[snappyturtle]

15. I agree with most of what you have said. However, why

is all this meta collection being done? I think it's because the gov't will store it forever....more than our service providers do. THat's good if the gov't wants old meta which is, as you say, an index. The index can lead to content access if 'needed'.

I think the warrant system is a joke. Look at who is rubber stamping the warrants, in private, no daylight. So, who knows what they do...really.


edit: looks like I'm replying to both you and #6...sorry.

[JoePhilly]

16. np ... agree on the storage ...

There was an article a couple weeks ago by Richard Clarke. Part of what he discusses is who and how the data should be stored.

The communications companies store it because they use it to run their business. They look at traffic patterns and such so that they can plan and extend, upgrade, the networks. They also use it for billing purposes.

At some point the issue arose that when the government goes to these companies, with a warrant, to investigate YOU, the telco becomes aware of that investigation of YOU. Generally, the police don't 3rd parties to be overly involved in investigations as that creates other legal issues all around.

So the change was made to start and copy that data and put it in a location such that the telcos aren't actually involved in the investigation. But that means the government has access to it, potentially directly. Which creates another set of issues.

Clarke proposes an alternative in which the telecos set up a separate copy location, and the government pays for it. The idea would be that the government would have to show the teleco a warrant for queries into the data, but not the specifics of the query would not be specified publicly. This would ensure that there was a "public" record of each query, and that it would provide a potential trail from which one could investigate they queries. Which might be more transparent, and add a layer of distance between the government and the data.

The usefulness of the data goes beyond looking backward. You can use meta data to answer specific questions and plan future actions.

As for the warrant system. Its important to recognize that the FISA court has been in place for about 33 years. And the method of selecting the judges has remained the same throughout that time. It was created by a law proposed by Ted Kennedy, and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.

The authority of that court comes from the congress that (a) created it, and that (b) continues to write laws that influence its use. During the time of its existence, congress has used its oversight authority via a number of committees, committees which apparently have become reluctant to do much actual oversight.

It is good that people are starting to learn about something that's been in existence for a rather long time.

[snappyturtle]

17. I certainly understand why the telcoms collect the meta data.

But, that doesn't explain why the gov't does. imho

Let's not lose sight of the fact that FISA, by virtue of its name, shouldn't be doing what it is doing. Scooping up all this data of citizens who have no contacts outside of the U.S. simply does not make sense to my aging mind.

I'm 65 yrs.old. I well remember the creation of FISA....but it certainly seems its capabilities have been somehow(?) extended beyond its original purpose and may be the reason for reluctant over sight.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

[backscatter712]

6. Very true, though I'd argue that metadata analysis is even worse than actual eavesdropping.

Metadata's far more machine-readable in that it's in computer-formats ideal for indexing, sorting & searching.

Computers have to actually work hard to parse English sentences and do voice recognition.

But a few email headers and call metadata from a large group of people, and you can reconstruct social networks, have more information on them than Facebook, and I'd wager that they can infer enough to make eavesdropping moot.

Metadata's a big fucking deal IMO.

There's a reason why hospitals are supposed to protect their metadata about you - they can't just share your information with anyone. Look what insurance companies do with your metadata about your medical treatments - they don't even have to know the exact procedures you went through - they just need to know a fraction of that information to say "NO ORGAN TRANSPLANT FOR YOU!"

[snappyturtle]

9. Listen to the podcast link below. YES, content is being used.

Russell Tice explains how meta is an index to retreiving content...and they do it. If you don't want to believe this man...fine.


http://www.peterbcollins.com/2013/06/19/boiling-frogs-blockbuster-nsa-whistleblower-russell-tice-reveals-that-obama-many-top-officials-were-targets-of-nsa-surveillance/

[randome]

13. Tice last worked for the NSA in 2005.

Every year he makes new claims with no evidence to back them up with. The Inspector General found nothing to substantiate his claims.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

14. You didn't listen to the podcast. SO what if he last worked for

NSA in 2005...the reason we are seeing Binney,Tice et. al. stepping forward AGAIN is that they are saying what they were alarming us about years ago, Snowden now has the evidence they didn't have.

I am interested in the encroachments on our civil rights. If you're a poo-pooer to all of it...fine. Your reply told me nothing I didn't know.

[jeff47]

18. The problem is he is making new claims.

He is saying the NSA now does ______.

I am interested in the encroachments on our civil rights.

No, you're interested in claims made about encroachments on our civil rights. Just making the claims does not make them true. Be it Tice's claims about the NSA, or Issa's claims about the IRS.

[snappyturtle]

19. You didn't listen to the podcast either. nt

[jeff47]

20. That's ok, you aren't reading the posts. (nt)

[Th1onein]

21. "Retrieving" is the important word there.

Because in order to RETRIEVE something, you first have to have STORED it.

So, yes, they aren't "collecting" our content (I'm using "collecting" just as the head of NSA uses it); they are only storing it, until they need to "collect" it when they "target" any one of us.