General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo the meta data collected doesnt even have personal info
No names no addresses no conversations....The paper is interesting reading. You should look for yourself before the talking heads get going on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html?_r=0
"One important method that the Government has developed to accomplish this task is
analysis of metadata associated with telephone calls within, to, or from the United States. The
term “metadata” as used here refers to data collected under the program that is about telephone
calls but does not include the content of those calls"
, although a large amount of metadata is consolidated and preserved by the
Government, the vast majority of that information is never seen by any person. Only
information responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for counterterrorism purposes is
extracted and reviewed by analysts. Although the number of unique identifiers has varied
substantially over the years, in 2012, fewer than 300 met the “reasonable, articulable suspicion”
standard and were used as seeds to query the data after meeting the standard.
If the FBI investigates a telephone number or other identifier tipped to it through this
program, the FBI must rely on publicly available information, other available intelligence, or
other legal processes in order to identify the subscribers of any of the numbers that are retrieved.
For example, the FBI could submit a grand jury subpoena to a telephone company to obtain
subscriber information for a telephone number. If, through further investigation, the FBI were
able to develop probable cause to believe that a number in the United States was being used by
an agent of a foreign terrorist organization, the FBI could apply to the FISC for an order under
Title I of FISA to authorize interception of the contents of future communications to and from
that telephone number.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Reverse number lookups are trivial. Law enforcement has had the "Grey Pages" for decades, now they do the lookups by computer. Do you seriously think the NSA wouldn't have that information?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Are you suggesting they are doing reverse lookups on every individual in the united states? Did you read the document?
One would think with so much apparent passion for this issue you would read the document.
I get the feeling though you are just looking for reasons to complain.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They pull in all those millions of phone call logs & other metadata, and spend countless millions and billions storing them and indexing them in their databases in Fort Meade and Utah, and then they tell us they don't use them. You actually believe that?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)They spell out pretty clearly exactly how they use it.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But of course, our three-letter-agencies would never lie to us...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)He will get us all eventually.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)"Are you suggesting they are doing reverse lookups on every individual in the united states?"
I do not believe you believe your own argument (I am being charitable in that, BTW) but in case you do...
If, hypothetically, the police GPS tracked every car in America 24/7/365 and stored the data associated by license plate number would the fact that they had to look up the registration data on any car they took an interest in mean that they were not tracking every car in America?
The, "They only use the information when they want to go after someone" argument is moronic.
Of course they only take an interest in records that interest them. Nobody doubts it.
And those creeps who plant cameras in people's showers tend to watch them when someone is taking a shower, and no watch them when the shower is empty.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)is it just paranoia that the government is out to get you?
Do you have any evidence at all that any of these programs have been used to target any Americans unjustly?
Not that the potential is there for it to happen. That it has happened.
"If, hypothetically, the police GPS tracked every car in America 24/7/365 and stored the data associated by license plate number would the fact that they had to look up the registration data on any car they took an interest in mean that they were not tracking every car in America"
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me as long as there are protocols in place as to what allows the searches I have no issue with that at all.
"Of course they only take an interest in records that interest them. Nobody doubts it."
And if warrants are required to look at that data and restricts them to only that data what's the problem?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If you would not have a problem with the GPS hypothetical with warrants added then we just disagree on some deep philosophical level.
Which is okay.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)but needed a warrant to find out who owned it?
Really?
OK.
I mean... you know that's how cell phones work right now already, right?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The police are entitled to run a registration check on any license plate they see. Knowing who owns a car is not controversial information.
The point of universal GSP tracking would be that all cars had a GPS tracker and a giant computer would record where all cars were all the time. If police took an interest in Joe Smith they could look up everywhere his car had been. (past tense)
Getting a warrant to look at records mass-collected of the past is a good analog for these NSA phone data questions.
Some folks, like me, do not think the government should be able to know everything, even in a good cause.
If you have a reason to follow someone around, then do that thing.
But to pre-follow everyone because technology makes the impossible possible is not acceptable to me, even with a warrant being required to look into the mega-vault of all information on everything dutifully collected by robots.
The government is not supposed to be able to know everything. A government able to know everything cannot be trusted.
And just because technology makes something possible doesn't mean government (a human creation made to serve humans) is automatically entitled to whatever increased powers expanding technology offers.
In my view, which I realize is not universal.
dickthegrouch
(3,169 posts)Then they'd have the capability of sending a bill for every speeding infraction, as well as knowing roughly where you were at every instant.
All these "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" platitudes mean nothing once someone else declares you to be doing something wrong (whether they are "correct" or not). Then the nightmare starts.
The other possibility is being dragged deliberately by a malefactor into a situation you knew nothing about and wouldn't have participated in willingly. Getting someone to believe you had nothing to do with it is extremely difficult if you have something else that's questionable in your metadata history.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That's their nature.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)be taller than the Empire State building and would have to be submerged in a vat of liquid nitrogen the size of Mount Everest.
Signed,
Authoritarian stooge from 1965.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I might add a couple things.
First, it's helpful to note that the smartphone you put in your pocket today has more computing power than a 1980's era Cray supercomputer.
Second, well, the NSA's got billions of dollars of today's supercomputers at their beck and call - I think they've got enough horsepower to handle this problem.
Third: a reverse-number-lookup directory's a fairly simple database - I'd say that a modern desktop PC could easily manage it, though you might need to buy more hard drives.
Certainly, the hardware in a server-room that's common in small-to-medium-sized businesses could easily handle this task for thousands of users.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)A database with fields for name, address and phone number can look up a phone number from and address, or a name from a phone number, or... well jeepers, almost any field entry from any other related field entry.
Terrifying stuff.
I think we are only 10 or 20 years away from computers that fill in the city name when you type in the zip code.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)How many streets houses do your codes generally cover ? In the UK mine only covers 3 adjacent houses. If for example I'm ordering something I just give the code and in response I'm just asked for the house number. The first two alphas define the town here anyway and then the next two numerics which section within the town .
Archaic
(273 posts)As a sysadmin, who runs a few modest datacenters (under 30 cabinets each), I cringe when people talk about what isn't possible now.
I can do it, with a few million a year, and less than a dozen people. And most of that money is wasted on Oracle licensing.
What the NSA has at its fingertips is incredible.
People don't think this size or scale of data is possible, yet they understand the IRS has a database that size. So does the Social Security Admin, and I'm pretty sure the VA does too.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)GIS, for the non-computer-geeks reading, can be described as the underlying technology of applications like Google Maps. It's essentially a map-drawing engine running on top of a database. And that database is a fairly standard SQL database, which can be a mickey-mouse database like an MS Access database, or it can be a big enterprise database running Oracle on the rack-mounted beasts in the server room.
And the really big GIS databases make the Social Security database look like a toy.
I do wonder what the NSA does with GIS - using some of those Utah supercomputers...
Archaic
(273 posts)And we had instructions to buy scalable storage since we didn't know how much data we'd get, how fast, and for how long we'd keep it.
1awake
(1,494 posts)Don't know what's possible really believe (want to believe?) these lies that it's not possible... it is easily possible and has been done by other agencies.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)they just hate that, the totalitarians that is.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
I can get 3 -4 million results from a simple google search on many subjects.
and that's with a wimpy laptop.
CC
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 03:03 AM - Edit history (1)
I think you were joking, but since someone will surely make that objection I just wanted to 'correct the record'
But the general point about Google is sound... in a world where folks expect a gazillion records to be searched in 1.3 seconds there should be no sense that associating phone numbers with names is much of a barrier.
Another example is DNS. We do something like a reverse look-up every time we access a web address, since the actual address is just numbers and dots, like 207 .241 .148 .80/ (I put spaces in so it wouldn't be a link)
Egnever
(21,506 posts)sure it can be done but why would it?
You would presumably have a reason for it. That's the point of anonomyzing the meta data. They could certainly tie personal info to it easily that's the point. They arent, unless they get a warrant for it based on a connection to international terrorism.
It is like you are saying they really want to get all this data on you but have gone out of their way to make it harder for them to do so. It is a silly argument.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
http://www.about.com/#!/editors-picks/
that's where your link takes me to -
what's is your point?
Make it short - if you've followed me at all for the ten years I've been here,
you should know I do not engage in long debates.
I don't do that, and rarely use the "ignore" thing
Use what I call "brain ignore"
just do not respond.
last call . . .
CC
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I was just saying that all web addresses are just four numbers separated by dots, and used a real example, but (ironically) it didn't occur to me that it would show in the post as a live link. (Making the point, but more effectively than I had planned)
Beyond that there's no major point in what I was saying other than that we use the internet for things at least as challenging to a computer than associating names with phone numbers. You cited Google searches, which are a fine example.
I was noting (just being exact) that the actual search is done on a computer elsewhere and then presented to your browser, and the computer doing the search isn't as small as a lap-top. But it doesn't change your real pont, that a Google search is no less challenging a computer feat than a program looking up the names to go with phone numbers.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
No need to apologize - I realize I misunderstood the intention of your post.
3:00 AM here - and more than a few beers under my belt.
It happens.
CC
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am pretty sure they were agreeing with you.
just explaining that it isnt really the laptop doing the work of the search.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
I was just trying to indicate how much was available through a normal computer.
so there's gotta be a lot more capabilities with supercomputers methinks.
gonna check back and see if I owe someone an apology.
CC
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
Cha
(296,821 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Who's Watching You Now?
http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/harris.wmv
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks for the link.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)but there is content metadata, and of course the content.
Now, the gov may try to continue to lie about their unprecedented piracy programs, but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle, pandora's box has been opened, so as much as they would like to try and ignore it by talking about something else, the more folks are going to continue to dig into it.
Too late, game over for the totalitarians.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If our privacy hinges on the government's inability to figure out the name that goes with a cell phone number, we're doomed. Not just because we'd have no privacy, but because that would mean the government is terminally incompetent.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)the point is, that's not what they are doing. Unless they have a warrant tying that id to terrorism. Otherwise its just a bunch of anonymous data.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)To me, anonymous means the names are irretrievably lost. For example, how you voted in a secret ballot election is anonymous. If someone can retroactively find out how you voted, it's not anonymous.
Also, I don't think they need a warrant to look at the data, and certainly not to connect a phone number to a name. They need "reasonable, articulable suspicion" to look at a person's data (or the data of someone within three hops of someone). This is not probable cause, and does not require a judge's approval.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and would completely defeat the purpose.
If the names are irretrievably lost what info would you get from it?
They dont need a warrant to look at the data because it is not personal data,
call, or the names, addresses, or financial information of any party to a call. The Government
also does not collect cell phone locational information pursuant to these orders.
They do have rules though on what can be looked at. I am not opposed to strengthening those rules. I am all for it but I am also not particularly worried about them either.
The warrants start kicking in when they start wanting to tie the data to actual people.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)You don't get the warrant after you collect the data, you get the warrant first.
The police can not break into your house, search it, come up empty-handed and then say, well we didn't need a warrant because we didn't find what we were looking for. Hell no, they have to get the warrant describing the particulars of who, what, where, and why they are searching before they can lift a finger.
blackspade
(10,056 posts), although a large amount of metadata is consolidated and preserved by the
Government, the vast majority of that information is never seen by any person. Only
information responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for counterterrorism purposes is
extracted and reviewed by analysts. Although the number of unique identifiers has varied
substantially over the years, in 2012, fewer than 300 met the “reasonable, articulable suspicion”
standard and were used as seeds to query the data after meeting the standard.
The issue is the fact that the metadata is collect and stored at all. Whether the majority of it is ever looked at is irrelevant as is the statement that "fewer than 300 met the “reasonable, articulable suspicion” standard and were used as seeds to query the data," or that content is not included.
The fact that it is gathered at all without a specific warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
In conjunction with other programs that do collect content, the collection of metadata goes from unconstitutional to grossly unconstitutional.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Which is why it doesn't violate the fourth amendment. To tie it to real persons they have to get warrants.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Whether there is personal identifiers is irrelevant.
It is still personal data and protected under the 4th Amendment.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I dont think the court will see it your way but I wont be upset if they do.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)associate an more precise identifying information to an e-mail, and the attorney did not deny that the government can do that but said he would answer in writing.
To me, that means that the government can identify your home address and computer address from the metadata from the US but may not always bother to do it. My records, for example, would probably not interest the government. But another person's, perhaps one of my neighbors' would. And, yes, I am thinking of a specific neighbor who has said he thinks he might be among the chosen.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it is what they are doing with the information once they identify the targets.
The paper describes under what conditions they are allowed to do that.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Therefore they just have NO IDEA AT ALL what I talked about.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The only thing that keeps them from keeping everyone's names and numbers together in their databases is their word of honor that they swear to in that white paper.
And history tells us how much we should trust the word of the NSA...
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Think how many phone calls you make. Think how big a file recording the times and phone numbers of all your phone calls would be. We're talking kilobytes here. This is Mickey Mouse stuff. Even multiplying that by 300 million people, you still don't get a big number, as far as data storage goes.
No. They're obviously storing a lot more than just phone numbers. And if there was any doubt, the yottabyte (1 trillion terabyte) facility they're currently building gives their game away...
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)a self-writing database with each entry pointing to associated entries. The intelligence agencies and government seem intent on trying to convince us of a partial truth to block our further inquiry.
It's rather like being told the partial truth that the New York library maintains a catalog listing of its holdings and that there is no real content written by authors of books/magazies etc in that catalog...
and that we should accept without any critical consideration...the notion that a library would keep such an elaborate accession system without the books, papers, maps, art, etc also being collected, and curated so that they can be displayed and/or circulated to patrons using that system.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Not that I'd disagree, but the NSA has claimed to maintain extensive lists of U.S. telephone numbers and email addresses to make sure they don't inadvertently involve US citizens.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/guardian-leak-nsa-fisa-court-rules/66456/
Then again, they were dodging a DIFFERENT allegation of wrongdoing that time. I guess it's probably easy to get the excuses crossed when you have to use enough of them.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They have their scandal to protect.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Because less than two weeks ago, her Op-Ed in the Washington Post said this.
Only 22 highly vetted NSA analysts can approve a query of this database — and only when they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number is connected to terrorism.
If the NSA analyst believes that circumstances justify the need to know the actual content of the call to probe further into what may be an active terrorist plot, the numbers are sent to the FBI, which requests a warrant from the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Ultimately, this court determines if “probable cause” is sufficient to grant the warrant to collect the content of the call.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/senate-intelligence-committee-chair-reform-nsa-programs/2013/07/30/9b66d9f2-f93a-11e2-8e84-c56731a202fb_story.html?hpid=z3
Now, if you think that excludes Federal Law Enforcement from getting the information, then I believe you are engaged in wishful thinking. We already know that the NSA shares captured data with the DEA providing that they lie about how the investigation got started. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023407784
I sincerely hope you are more able to apply critical thinking to other issues, because I'm concerned that you will have your life savings stolen by a con artist who asks to be appointed court jester. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tongafrenchpolynesia/1358692/Kings-court-jester-scandalises-Tonga.html
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)along with many others.
It isn't necessary that she was unaware of the information that was or should have been passed to her.
It isn't necessary that the NSA is violating constitutional protections.
What REALLY matters is that ALL the players have lost credibility...with the left and the right.
Progressives and teahadists are uniting around being pissed-off that constitutional rights have been abrogated by apparatchiks of the intelligence industry.
This is a bad state of affairs for TPTB.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Sounds a bit silly, doesn't it?