General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNSA has a DATABASE of CONTENT
I posted this bit yesterday, hoping to lead everyone through the tangle of "rules" that are supposed to protect Americans' privacy, in terms of recent revelations about NSA surveillance:
"All this shit--warrants, 51% confidence intervals, all of it--it's shit. It means NOTHING. Let me tell you why:
The database. They are all talking about getting info from a database. And no one is asking about the database.
The telecoms don't save our info for very long on their databases. They are not required to by law. I know this because, a couple of days ago, I saw a report where the NSA was talking about changing how they store data, and instead, just let the telecoms keep it for them. They said that they would have to get Congress to pass legislation that would require the telecoms to keep the data longer, because they need it available to them for at least five years.
What does that tell you? Someone's got a database from which they can access our communications, and it ain't the telecoms!
Obviously, the NSA has the database. And, from that database, they "collect" any information that they need to "collect" on any of us. Clapper made that very clear with his metaphor that "collect," to him, meant that he took the book off of the shelf and actually read it. What everyone is missing is that there is a library, with a bunch of books in it. There are your communications, all of them. And when the NSA wants to "collect" them, they pull your book off of the shelf and read it. THAT'S Clapper's definition of "collecting."
But they've already got all of the info. And they are storing it in their "library." They only "collect" it when they need to "target" you.
Now, suppose that you have a big mouth, and that people listen to you. Suppose you challenge the status quo in some way? It's time to "collect" your communications because now you're a "target." Suppose you say something that can be construed to be a threat to someone somewhere, somehow? It doesn't have to be a real threat; it might even be a joke. But, now, they've got something to use against you, to put you away. And they don't have to give you any of the communications that might have exculpatory evidence in them, that might show that your "threat" wasn't a threat at all. After all, they have control over what they "collect," and they're the only ones who can dig that far back in the database.
We are here, arguing over what the law says, what rules and policies they have in place, but we are missing the forest because of the trees."
Now, we see this from the EFF: "The targeting document also references a key fact that the NSA has previously shrouded in secrecy and word games: the existence of an NSA database of the content of communications. When checking for foreignness, the document instructs the NSA to Review NSA content repositories and Internet communications data repositories. In the Jewel litigation, we have contended for years that the NSA has a database of content, and now have an explicit reference."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023063955
So, for all of you who have been insisting that the NSA does not STORE this information and for those of you who have been insisting that they don't STORE CONTENT, there you have it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Memory to store 2 phone numbers and the length of call requires only a tiny fraction of that.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)100,000 square feet just in that one location, there has to be at least 1 cat video stored there too..
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Like...when the Russians call and warn us about radicalized Chechan muslims living here, nothing makes the problem go away like porn.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)who can forget dear uncle ruslan, married to graham fuller daughter, a expert on islam, former cia agent, former vice chair of the national intelligence council, its such a small world out there in terrorland.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Many people think that others don't take this "leak" seriously -
Well yeah, we've been yelling about this for decades and getting the government involved is sort of like "duh!"
Our government was way behind in this! Private "Loyalty" were much more productive in gathering information.
Actually, I have nothing to back my statements up. As far as you know, I could have just made up those stats!
Here's another useful stat:
{b] Women who do not have an orgasm do not get pregnant!
Is that true? Well, apparently it's just as true as some of the claims that Snowden has made.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He merely backs up claims by Binney, Clarke, and others. Then there are comments made by lawmakers, like Warren. Prohibited from giving public details, they give general warnings like "If the people knew the details we know, they'd be oitraged". That is a red flag, if ever there was one. Then there's the over-bearing secrecy, lack of transparancy, and over-zealous prosecution of whistle-blowers. If everything was being conducted on the up and up, then why the overreaction? If government is acting like there's something to hide, then I can guarantee they're hiding something.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I'll have to go back to my notes.
I know that when I first saw "database" in this context, warning bells rang.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
allin99
(894 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Jarla
(156 posts)In context, this is what it says:
(S) NSA may also apply technical analysis concerning the facility from which it intends to acquire foreign intelligence information to assist it in making deterrninations concerning the location of the person at whom NSA intends to direct surveillance. For example, NSA may examine the following types of information:
(S) For telephone numbers:
(a) Identify the country code of the telephone number, and determine what it indicates about the person's location.
(b) Review commercially available and NSA telephone numbering databases for indications of the type of telephone being used e.g. landline, wireless mobile, satellite, etc.), information that may provide an understanding of the location of the target.
(S) For electronic communications
Review NSA content repositories and Internet communications data repositories (which contain, among other things, Internet metadata) for previous Internet activity. This information may contain network layer (e.g. Internet Protocol addresses) or machine identifier (e.g. Media Access Control addresses) information, which NSA compares to information contained in NSA's communication network databases and commercially available Internet Protocol address registration information in order to determine the location of the target.
*I am guessing that "facility" means something like a telephone company or an email provider like Google.
It's not clear to me if this means that they're indiscriminately recording everyone's phone calls and storing everyone's emails.
Monkie
(1,301 posts)Review NSA content repositories and Internet communications data repositories (which contain, among other things, Internet metadata) for previous Internet activity. This information may contain network layer (e.g. Internet Protocol addresses) or machine identifier (e.g. Media Access Control addresses) information
what they mention specifically is all metadata which could be used to locate, on the other hand its data repositories, and they mention "among other things", so i guess it boils down to what those other things are.
"*I am guessing that "facility" means something like a telephone company or an email provider like Google."
This is incorrect. They (NSA) were talking about having the legislature pass laws so that the telecoms would be required to keep the communications in their databases longer, instead of the NSA keeping the database of calls. So, it's the NSA database.
Jarla
(156 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Ah, to be so naive.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)It was being discussed by security experts, that the NSA can re-constitute any conversations they need. So if a year from now, total support for the One Percent is required, then anyone protesting Monsanto or the XL Pipeline is considered a terrorist, well, your conversation from October 2011 can be listened to.
People need to wake up. This nation has been taken over by the One Percent, and their puppets (Who we have been forced to view as "our elected officials" and also the Big Corporations.
And if people want to pretend that this is not fascism, well, they've only themselves to blame when it is far too late to do anything.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Suppose this, Suppose that, Suppose that the Earth is flat .....
When I actually READ the FISA court orders, I don't see any of those suppositions except for laws that would block them.
Good try. Unfortunately, the FACTS disprove your suppositions.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Sorry. That's just the way it is.
P.S. Not a racist.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FISA stands for "FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act" but this was a strictly domestic operation. Or the fact that, regardless of any law, the Constitution specifically forbids non-specific searches.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)The leaked documents?
You, sir, are an idiot. What you claim has no basis in Reality.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)If you can't back up your contentions with facts, as I have, then simply shut up.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And to students of logic, it is not a convincing attack.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Even for you.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)They will only pull your book off the shelf if you are troublesome. Otherwise you have nothing to worry about.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Once that happens, they got a road map right to all your friends...
Next thing we know, we're sharing a cell block at Gitmobyanothername.