What did Edward Snowden get wrong? Everything

[Just Saying]

Let me break this to you gently. The government is not interested in your conversations with your aunt, unless, of course, she is a key terrorist leader. More than 100 billion emails were sent every day last year — 100 billion, every day. In that vast mass of data lurk a few bits that are of urgent interest and vast terabytes of tedium that are not. Unfortunately, the metadata (the phone numbers, length of contact, and so forth, but not the content of the conversations) that sketch the contours of a call to your family member may fall into the same enormous bucket of information that includes information on the next terrorist threat. As Jeremy Bash, the former chief of staff of the CIA, memorably put it, "If you're looking for a needle in the haystack, you need a haystack."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0811-liepman-snowden-and-classified-informat-20130811,0,2610260.story

LA Times opinion piece from former CIA and deputy director of National Counterterrorism Center. A good read with some interesting points.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

1. lol - the Privacy Pirates require haystacks (our content) to do their jobs!

So, now they are trying to justify the massive harvesting, storing, and analyzing of everyone's data and phone calls by saying they need access to everyone's data to do their job?

Well, their job seems to be more difficult than gods, since he is only listening in to messages directed to her.

But they want to be even bigger than GOD, and listen in on EVERYTHING, only to be good at what they do, being better than god.

The hubris here is breathtaking.

One can only imagine the resources and cash required to be god, gotta be "astronomical" you would think.

:shakes-head:

[George II]

67. Incorrect.........

They're not "harvesting, storing, and analyzing everyone's data and phone calls", nor are they "listening" in on everything.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

69. Thanks for setting the record straight

[el_bryanto]

2. Who has access to the haystack?

You are talking about official purposes; but what if they decide this or that blogger is a bit of a problem, so let's give him or her something else to focus on - say by releasing some embarrassing information on him or her?

Bryant

[JoePhilly]

6. Imagine what they'd do with that blogger's medical records.

If we fear the government so much ... we probably should not be advocating for any system in which the government would have access to our medical records.

They could release "embarrassing information" found there.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

8. Please do not conflate HHS with the NSA

The two have completely different missions, and HHS have many regulations around the privacy of your data.

Huge difference.

[JoePhilly]

11. Same evil government would control both. No difference.

Data is data. The government would have access to all of the data.

Folks can't run around suggesting we live in a totalitarian police state, while also claiming they want that same totalitarian government to control health care.

Totalitarian governments don't distinguish.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

15. A well regulated gov of laws, is nothing to fear

Yet, an out of control, nest of totalitarians who willfully ignore regulations, laws, and the constitution, are not to be trusted, but stopped.

[JoePhilly]

21. So a totalitarian government segments those things?

The NSA is driven from the executive branch.

The laws to regulate it came from the Legislative branch.

And, the judges who control and limit its use are from the Judicial branch.

In case you can't see it ... that's all three branches of our government, not a tiny "nest" as you suggest.

The same executive branch would run the health care system ... Same legislators create the laws ... same judicial system would over see it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

26. Like I said a gov that follows the rule of law is nothing to Fear

However, once you get a hint of a totalitarian mindset, who are willing to ignore/break the law, then you have problems.

I think that concept should be easy to understand, and that is where we are at today with recent evidence presented.

So, first step is to resolve that issue by following the law (see 4th amendment), then the issue you raise, goes away.

[JoePhilly]

57. Ok, so no single payer until when, exactly?

Do we wait for you to post indicating that the 4th is now safe?

What specific sign are we looking for?

Not conceptually, actual.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

60. That's a whole nother problem to do with our gov being owned by the monied elite

As we plainly saw during Obama's first term.

And you are the ONLY ONE arguing to not allow government programs that support we the people.

I am a FDR democrat, all the way baby!

So, please get off of this nonsense.

Thank you

[George II]

68. "an out of control, nest of totalitarians who willfully ignore regulations, laws, and.............

....the constitution, are not to be trusted, but stopped."

Sounds like you're talking about Edward Snowden.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

70. I'm sure it does to some

But they are a tiny minority on this issue.

For all you law and order type, riddle me this, which law breaking are you most concerned with; the breaking of we the peoples law or the totalitarians law?

[TxGrandpa]

29. Regulations are only as good as the people enforcing them.

And having access to the data.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

54. Exactly

That is the huge problem we now have.

[MineralMan]

7. Has that happened? Will it happen?

The resources at the NSA and other such agencies are not large enough to even think about such actions. They're looking at an incredibly small subset of information, and don't have the resources to handle all of that.

Very serious triage in in place with this stuff. It's just a matter of numbers and time to commit human resources. The human resources are limited, so the annoying blogger is not on the list of things that they have resources to commit to.

Is unlimited surveillance a philosophical problem? Yes, it is. Is it a real, present problem. No.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. According to documented TOP SECRET evidence, AND numerous

Insiders first-hand accounts they do.

And just because you can not get your head around the problem/solution paradigm does not mean they don't have the capability.

But for the sake of argument, let's say they don't have the capability today (though they do) that is what they are aiming for.

Do you support the privacy PIRATES aims?
(Harvest, store, analyze, everything)

[MineralMan]

14. Show me, don't tell me.

Links.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. It's in all the newspapers, use google, but here's a LINK to a well organized collection of document

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications

But please don't stop there, use google to learn more.

You're welcome

[liberal N proud]

3. K&R

[COLGATE4]

5. +1 nt

[RevStPatrick]

4. Without reading the whole piece... I have to agree that...

"...the government is not interested in your conversations with your aunt..."

But that's not the point.

I think the apologists keep making silly arguments about my aunt being "...a key terrorist leader...." in order cover up the real crimes that are going on here. The real crime being that these spy agencies have outsourced the spying to profit-making corporations, that are owned by some of the same people who are running our government, and they are no doubt using this power to spy on their competitors. It's privatization at its second most nefarious (the most nefarious being privatized prisons), and they want us to think that it has something to do with "terrorism."

It doesn't.

[Just Saying]

16. I tend to agree with you about privatization.

At the very least I'm glad this episode has us discussing the problems with outsourcing sensitive jobs like intelligence. I'm not on board with "no doubt" that companies are spying on competitors but it's possible.

There's no reason for name-calling and you can make your points without it. I think the aunt comment is meant to contradict those who believe the government is reading all our emails and in on all our calls. Why shouldn't he address the hyperbole? He's explaining when and why they would listen in and how ridiculous it is to think they have the time or desire to listen to your private calls.

[RC]

19. +1000

NSA has the capability of hoovering up the Internet. Granted, they can only keep the information 30, 60, 90 days, till they have to dump it to make room for more, but that is plenty of time to comb through it for the tidbits they are interested in. Those they keep. Ar you running for office? Do you run a company? Are you organizing a protest rally? Did you Google pressure cooker bombs? These and much more will get you and keep you in the data base for later checking out.This Aunt thingy is just distraction by the apologist that think they have nothing to hide and "Good Guys" will always occupy the White House. News flash! We don't really have a "Good Guy" in the White House now. Obama is for all this Hoovering.

[KoKo]

9. Check out the writer of article: Andrew Liepman

Andrew Liepman, a senior analyst at Rand Corp., was a career CIA officer and is a former deputy director of the National Counterterrorism /b]


This Article was posted before and there's a lively discussion about it here:

Center.http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3440531

[Just Saying]

17. Yes I wrote this in my OP.

Sorry I looked for and missed the first posting of this.

[Whisp]

10. I can see why people who are into kiddie porn or terrorists

not liking this much. They might be nervous about watching what they say and do, poor nervous babies.

It's been a few weeks now since this story about the NSA broke but I still don't feel threatened. I'm trying to but it's just not happening. I know that if any hacker that was any good could find out all kinds on me and pile it into a nice little folder. I knew this for many years and so I can't bring up a hair on fire emotion about it now.

What I would like to see is this much attention and talk about surveillance of black people that has been going on for too many years. How they are more likely to be stopped and arrested, how they are over represented in prisons. Now that is a fucking big problem to get your hair on fire about. I wonder if the black community is as charged up about the Snowden affair, I bet they know what being surveilled and messed with is all about and are wondering why it's so damn special in this Snowden case.

[Pholus]

32. Yawn, one part "if you have nothing to hide" added to "won't someone think of the children"

and a touch of "everyone must be abused equally just to be fair."

In other words, a big pile of cold and stale securocrat leftovers.

I always wonder why the perpetually apathetic seem to think it is somehow OKAY that "surveillance of black people that has been going on for too many years." That's had my "hair on fire" since the first time I witnessed it going on. You obviously aren't too dim to see where it ends -- "more likely to be stopped and arrested, how they are over represented in prisons."

Yet that doesn't stop you from working to perpetuate that -- you sit there in some kind of corn-fed stupor and issue statements that seem to imply that if anything we all deserve the unfair treatment.

Oh well, it's a free country. Or so the marketing pitch goes. Style over substance.

[Whisp]

33. touched a nerve, did I?

[Pholus]

42. No, but you just proved that you're a bottom feeder, rhetorically speaking.

The comebacks to your insinuations that somehow disagreeing with you implies I'm a terrorist, a kiddie porn lover or whatever are actually not worth writing at this point.

But go on with them! You're letting people see the real you. And on a discussion board that is a good thing.

Edit: I did change this after the last reply. Should have looked for the new post.

[Whisp]

48. I don't know you from Adam's last dump

So take your martydom elsewhere, I wasn't accusing you of anything but it's interesting how you are reacting.

[Pholus]

49. Touched a nerve, did I?

[Whisp]

55. phffft. You are too sensitive for politics forums looks like. n/t

[Pholus]

56. And you are too lowbrow. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Next up: just drug dealers, kiddy porn and terrorists.

Then the list will expand, as it did with Rico, to include all sorts of crimes including non violent political protests.

The admission that of course the mass domestic surveillance programs will be used for non national security purposes defeats any argument that there isn't a huge problem.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

53. It's not all about you

And just think, a hacker isn't able to arrest you, and mistakes happen.

And you are aware of other abuses of power in the system, yet seemed unconcerned about this huge one, which may also be abused to target and harm minorities further.

Now think a little beyond that and imagine what mischief could be had in the political, and business competitive Inteligence front.

Think about it...

[Jamaal510]

94. Personally,

I could give a flying fart about Snowden. What I care about (in addition to what you mentioned about the rights of Blacks being trampled) are the economy, jobs, and health care--things that actually directly affect average Americans.

[truebluegreen]

13. "...opinion piece from former CIA and deputy director

of National Counterterrorism Center." I'm sure this guy doesn't have any kind of an agenda. "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Ptui.

[Scuba]

18. I called Tech Support the other day ....

... and the guy told me he was in Bombay. Guess I'm doubled down for terrorism.

[reformist2]

22. I'm sure the NSA has a SPAM filter, which reduces e-mail by 90%.

[RC]

24. Filter your spam, yes.

Filter your birthday greeting to your aunt, not so much.

[Pholus]

23. Strangely, no mention about passing the information to the DEA in there...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

Mission creep. The topic so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in our courts and this guy certainly didn't have the balls to bring it up either. Something so upright and good, law enforcement agents are taught to lie about their investigations through "parallel construction" of an evidence trail.

[djean111]

25. I think we are only a short time away from being told that yes, they store audio, too.

And they don't need to "listen" to it, they can sift for key words and generate transcripts.

We are ALL living under one big fucking Miranda Warning now.

[Just Saying]

28. I'm not an expert on technology

But I wonder what the logistics are for recording every call made in a country with hundreds of millions of people. It seems staggering and I wonder if we even have the capabilities. It also sounds like a huge waste of time and resources.

[tinrobot]

36. Oh yes, the government never wastes time and resources.

Not sure if the capabilities are there yet, but if they could do it, they certainly would.

[Pholus]

39. The problem is doable...

Here's the size of the problem. I will use the numbers from the guy who runs the "Internet Archive" who has a bit of knowledge about storing lots of data. He estimates starts by estimating 315 million US Citizens at 300 minutes per month each.

http://blog.archive.org/2013/06/15/cost-to-store-all-us-phonecalls-made-in-a-year-in-cloud-storage-so-it-could-be-datamined/

In raw data, he arrives at 272 petabytes of talk data per year in the US at a very generous compression rate. He even says it is reasonable to store a year of this data "in the cloud" for about 30 million dollars or so in a server room less than 10% the size of the Utah Data Center.

What could you do with that 272 petabytes to make it usable? All Snowden's stuff implies keyword based searches. DARPA has been VERY interested in speech to text since way back in 2002 when it was part of Bush's TIA so it is probably reasonable that this is how they work. Let's presume they add a keyword option to analyst searches with the option to go back to review the original audio.

I have no idea about how text-to-speech works, but you have to process the audio stream. Just for convenience I'll claim that it is as computationally hard as turning an avi file into an mp3 file. It can't be much harder, my idiot cell phone can do a tolerable job in a tiny portable processor in real time.

How big a computer would you need to process 272 petabytes of data in a year. Tom's Hardware benchmarks computers in part by converting a 178 MB wav file into an mp3. A mid-range modern processor does it in about a minute and a half. A single one of these computers can convert all 272 petabytes in 2.5 billion minutes. There are half a million minutes in a year, so 5000 processors could do the job in one year.

That's about half the size of one of the "top 500" clusters in existence. Surely the NSA can afford ONE of the 500 most powerful computers in the world, right? And a hell of a bunch of people each individually smarter than me to code for it and manage it.

But can they handle that much data?

The NSA has just admitted in their white paper that they "touch" (read as hoover up) 1.6% of 1826 Petabytes per day or 29 petabytes per DAY when it comes to email. Phone calls would seem to be easier than that, coming to just a bit less than 745 Terabytes per day. It's easier to do phone than the internet stuff.

Just remember, to find the needle in the haystack, you need a haystack. What was General Alexander's nickname again? Oh yeah, "Collect it all." Collection is easy, analysis is hard. That's why this system has no high profile successes -- they're still learning to use it.

[rhett o rick]

27. Good grief. What he is saying is trust your government. They will only do good.

He says they have a tool that could be used for good or evil but our government will only use it for good. This is the argument that the masses have no business questioning the Elite. Trust in them and they will take good care of you.

I believe the government is already abusing their "good power". I believe they are using these programs ("haystack&quot to keep tabs and possibly affect peaceful dissidents. For those of you that claim to be anti-Republican, notice that those in control of the spy programs are strongly conservative. Do you trust ideologically strong conservatives to run spy programs in secret, without oversight? I dont.

These powers could be used to influence politicians. Now wouldnt that be useful to the Koch Bros., Bush Family, The Carlyle Group, etc?

[KurtNYC]

34. I think it is obvious now that our governement is FULL of blackmailable people

Somehow they can work in Congress or some state government position for years until one day they are exposed and their careers end.

Larry Craig,
Spitzer,
Weiner,
every client of Jeff Gannon/Guckert
on and on and on.

Many people are so hung on thinking that this is about spying on the powerless, "your email to Aunt Sally" and they are missing the big picture. It is not about us little people.

This is how they start wars now:

In early 2003, as the U.S. and British governments were seeking international acquiescence to their aggressive war on Iraq, an unexpected cog thrown into the propaganda machine was the disclosure that the National Security Agency was spying on UN Security Council members in search of blackmail material.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/21/bushs-foiled-nsa-blackmail-scheme/

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Yes - this is a more realistic issue.

Basically what J. Edgar Hoover, who has a fucking building named after him, used this type of info for. You don't pile resources into listening to "Aunt Sally" unless she is related to someone who is in a position to alter outcomes somewhere.

[unblock]

30. even just with meta-data, they can, say, see who a political candidate is talking to.

purely for purposes of trashing that candidate. I mean, just imagine what nixon could have done with this.

whether or not they are currently abusing this beyond what they've already admitted to is only part of the problem.

the fact is that there is HUGE potential for horrendous abuses here, and cloaking it in secrecy, with a process that makes a mockery of our constitutional protections, is completely unacceptable.

[marions ghost]

61. What you said--

"the fact is that there is HUGE potential for horrendous abuses here, and cloaking it in secrecy, with a process that makes a mockery of our constitutional protections, is completely unacceptable."

Correct, and it should be obvious to any intelligent person. The not-so-bright can be excused from true complicity. But anyone who is halfway intelligent and lets this go on .......................................................................................................................................................

is complicit.

[G_j]

31. and be good and don't join Greenpeace or OWS

or other activist organizations, and you should be ok. Get it?

[NuclearDem]

35. Hell, you don't even have to join the movement

One of my favorite podcasts was under surveillance for a while just for covering OWS.

[Recursion]

40. What does it mean for a podcast to be under surveillance? (nt)

[NuclearDem]

46. Probably keeping tabs on the hosts and the show's audience

http://www.privacysos.org/node/791

Apparently it's a major contributor to the violent anarchist bloc of Occupy, according to the firm hired to do the monitoring.

[Recursion]

47. Huh? Who hired them, and how do you know that? (nt)

[George II]

37. Excellent read, and it took guts to post it here....hope you ducked when you hit "Post my reply!"!!

[blackspade]

38. The opinion piece again misses the point.

The government has no 'right' the haystack to begin with.
Scooping up everything without a warrant based on just cause is a violation of the Constitution.
The rest of the discussions and opinions on this topic are irrelevant

[Recursion]

41. Nope

Scooping up everything without a warrant based on just cause is a violation of the Constitution.
The rest of the discussions and opinions on this topic are irrelevant

It may be in violation of statute, but the information they're getting has no Constitutional protection because it's a business record between you and a third party.

[blackspade]

50. And why is that not protected?

So business records are no longer private?
So I can just walk into a business and demand all of their records to go through when and if I feel like it?
This is exactly what these NSA programs are doing without specific warrants based on just cause.

[Recursion]

51. I don't have an expectation of privacy in information I give to a third party in the course of

communicating with you.

When I connect a phone call, I tell Verizon (or whomever) "I wish to connect to this phone number". That information was willingly given to a third party (Verizon) and I don't have any Constitutional expectation of privacy in it (see Smith v. Maryland). At various times I have had some statutory expectation of privacy, but that's been pretty steadily eroded since it was first enacted in 1986.

So I can just walk into a business and demand all of their records to go through when and if I feel like it?

No, but you're also not the Government. And the important legal issue here is that the data of whom you called doesn't belong to you; it belongs to Verizon.

This is exactly what these NSA programs are doing without specific warrants based on just cause.

Well, I'm not sure what the doctrine of "just cause" is, but IIRC the NSA's requirement is preponderance of the evidence. And even that has limited it to 300 uses in the past 5 years.

[blackspade]

59. Interesting.

What is the basis for the info belonging exclusively to Verizon?
Isn't the info part of my contract with them?

Specifically:

Information Shared Outside the Verizon Family of Companies:
Except as explained in this Privacy Policy, in privacy policies for specific services, or in agreements with our customers, Verizon does not sell, license or share information that individually identifies our customers, people using our networks, or website visitors with others outside the Verizon family of companies for non-Verizon purposes without the consent of the person whose information will be shared.
We may disclose information that individually identifies our customers or identifies customer devices in certain circumstances, such as:

to comply with valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law;
in cases involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person or other emergencies;
to protect our rights or property, or the safety of our customers or employees;
to protect against fraudulent, malicious, abusive, unauthorized or unlawful use of or subscription to our products and services and to protect our network, services, devices and users from such use;
to advance or defend against complaints or legal claims in court, administrative proceedings and elsewhere;
to credit bureaus or collection agencies for reporting purposes or to obtain payment for Verizon-billed products and services;
to a third-party that you have authorized to verify your account information;
to outside auditors and regulators; or
with your consent.

So according to Verizon's policies the data that is transmitted over their network is not to be shared, per their terms and conditions, with the government without "valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law." And that is the gist of the problem. The NSA program is demanding and storing data from telecom companies based on authorizations that violate the Constitution based in the info released over the last couple of weeks.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

71. What about to your doctor, banker, lawyer, etc.

What about the content of your comm?

I think you'd have a different opinion on those, but let's say for some reason you could care less about all that, too...

Others, have a few concerns, thank you for being considerate and not call those who do names, or worse.

Thanks

[Recursion]

73. OK, to take up your analogy, you call a cab to get to the doctor

You think the police can't ask the cabbie where he took you?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

74. Let's taken one at a time

I asked you first, remember?

[Recursion]

75. I did. If you tell a third party you're talking to your doctor, banker, or lawyer

then you don't have any expectation of privacy about that fact.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

77. Oh, so once the doc digitizes your med records the

Privacy becomes null-n-void?

Gotcha

I think we have a few LAWS on the books that say otherwise.

Though there are some who say the internet is fair game for gov pirates, for some reason... oh, yeah... I remember, the internet is inherently not private.

[Recursion]

85. No. You're still missing the concept

It's not difficult. To continue your analogy, if the doctor paid someone to digitize your records, that fact is not private.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

86. You are, fuck the analogies then

We got documented fucking evidence they're spying on everyone.

You got nothing but denial like climate deniers.

Got nothing further to "discuss" with sophists.

Cya

[frylock]

43. former CIA, works for right-wing think tank..

well his opinion certainly isn't biased. nope.

[Recursion]

52. So it *is* good to shoot the messenger, now?

I'm confused.

[frylock]

58. "I'm confused."

clearly.

[Downtown Hound]

65. Yes, you are confused

Shooting the messenger implies that whoever posted this did so out of obligation to somebody else and had no free will in doing so. The individual posting this apologist drivel seems to have done so with the intent of saying, "Hey don't worry. Everything's cool. You can trust your government."

[Just Saying]

76. You don't know me well enough to determine my intent.

Psychic Friends Fail.

[Downtown Hound]

78. So you posted an aritcle stating that everything was hunky dory with NSA spying because...what?

Please enlighten me.

[Just Saying]

79. Not that I owe you an explanation

But I thought it was an interesting contrast to the Greenwald-hair-on-fire-1984 bullshit that's become the norm here.



Have a nice day, Carnac!

[Downtown Hound]

80. Gee, wasn't I just waaaaay off?

[Just Saying]

81. Actually you were.

I don't think everything is okay or that we should just trust the government.

You were wrong to make assumptions. Seems to happen a lot around here.

But don't stress about it, we all make mistakes.

[Downtown Hound]

83. Not really. You posted some NSA apologist drivel

to according to you, counter the impression that America was becoming more like 1984. Well, when the government can monitor all of your communications without your consent, hate to break it to you, America is becoming more like 1984. So if you really don't think everything is okay with that, then refrain from posting such apologist garbage in the future. Because now is the time to oppose such fascist measures, not try and make them out to be not so bad. M'kay?

[Just Saying]

88. I'll post whatever I like and then watch

Posters like you trip all over yourselves with hyperbole and personal attacks.

And laugh my ass off.

M'kay.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

84. That's how it comes off...

Just Saying

[backscatter712]

45. GOLDSTEIN!!!

[woo me with science]

62. What utter trash.

Here's a much better article for you:

Prometheus Among the Cannibals: A Letter to Edward Snowden http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/18-6

[Downtown Hound]

63. Okay, let me spell it out for you

I don't care if the government is not interested in my conversation with my aunt. That they have the ability to listen in on it if they wanted to IS NOT OKAY WITH ME. DO YOU GET IT?

Somebody breaking into my house may not be interested in watching me have sex with my girlfriend either. That doesn't mean I'm going to just allow him to come on in. There's a reason I'm doing it in the privacy of my bedroom and not out in the street for everybody to see. My privacy is mine. My emails are MINE. I don't care if they're personally interested in me or not. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO GATHER AND STORE MY INFORMATION WITHOUT MY APPROVAL.

Do you understand now?

[Cryptoad]

64. Democrats have always been

the bearers of Truth..... but the new Snowden hero worshipers seem to have lost sight of the Truth along the way........ Like the Tea Party they believe that speculative conjecture is the Truth! Very strange. indeed!

[Scurrilous]

66. K & R

[kentuck]

72. The haystack is composed of "keywords"...

In effect, all emails and phone calls are "listened to" but only those with the "keywords" are selected for further review. No doubt, from the number of arrests, any word pertaining to drugs is selected for further examination. It is not just about "terrorism".

[Just Saying]

82. They are doing this for emails.

But there's nothing to indicate they can do it with phone calls. They are gathering data about calls, locations etc but not content.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

87. Oh

So they are inviting you to the team meetings, now?

[Just Saying]

89. More assumptions?

I don't need a team since I think for myself.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

90. Exactly

That's all you got

[Just Saying]

91. I know you think you're witty and clever

But not so much.

You haven't really said anything in either of your posts to me. Do you have valid information that the NSA is listening to 300 million people's phone calls?

I'll wait while you consult with your posse.

[wtmusic]

92. Bullshit.

Everything is collected. Everything is prioritized. More "it's only the metadata" nonsense - that's so, like, June.

What a load of crap.