Stanford Researchers: It Is Trivially Easy to Match Metadata to Real People

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/stanford-researchers-it-is-trivially-easy-to-match-metadata-to-real-people/282642/



In defending the NSA's telephony metadata collection efforts, government officials have repeatedly resorted to one seemingly significant detail: This is just metadata—numbers dialed, lengths of calls. "There are no names, there’s no content in that database," President Barack Obama told Charlie Rose in June.

No names; just metadata.

New research from Stanford demonstrates the silliness of that distinction. Armed with very sparse metadata, Jonathan Mayer and Patrick Mutchler found it easy—trivially so—to figure out the identity of a caller.

Mayer and Mutchler are running an experiment which works with volunteers who agree to use an Android app, MetaPhone, that allows the researchers access to their metadata. Now, using that data, Mayer and Mutchler say that it was hardly any trouble at all to figure out who the phone numbers belonged to, and they did it in just a few hours.

[hobbit709]

1. The only security TPTB are interested in is their own continued control.

[marmar]

2. k/r

[stevenleser]

3. That is not the question nor is it an apt comparison. I can do that too. Anyone can.

Give me a few lines of metadata and I can probably identify the folks too.

The question is, when flooded with metadata from 300 million Americans and Billions of people overseas, do you have the time to go through the metadata of and violate the privacy of any/all individual American(s) at random?

The answer is, no, you don't. The only folks you might have the time to go through are those that have a red flag raised and you might not even have time to go through all of them.

[starroute]

4. That's where data-mining programs come in

Right after 9/11, stories kept coming through about various fantastic data-mining programs that would make it possible to sweep up an entire terrorist cell from a few tiny shreds of information. We don't see stories like that around much these days -- and I can only assume it's because the programs have become so successful that they've entered the black hole of government secrecy.

So phrases like "do you have the time" and "individual American(s) at random" aren't really what this is about. It's about whether massive clusters of supercomputers have the time to go through and ferret out protesters, dissidents, and assorted domestic troublemakers. Whether, for example, they have the resources to stop the next Occupy Wall Street before it even starts. And that they most certainly do.

[stevenleser]

5. Which is exactly why this concern about blanket surveillance is nonsense.

The software has to pick out a few hundred or a few thousand people to be concerned about. The NSA/CIA/FBI cannot followup on more than that. You can have the best data mining software in the world. It can spit out all kinds of data.

You still eventually have to get to where humans have to start investigating and following up on the data. Each person the data mining software spits out means a lot of time and money invested in an investigation on that person if it is warranted.

Think about all the time and manpower and money that goes into a single murder investigation and that is a crime that is usually straightforward. Trying to parse all of this metadata into something that targets the right folks who are terrorists is a lot of work for a huge group of people.

[zeemike]

13. And that is where the unified law enforcement comes in.

You run the program on the meta data, create a list of troublemakers and send it to the cops in the city where they live...and they take care of it for you....you got a troublemaker the cops pull him over for a traffic violation, search his car and find drugs...one troublemaker fills the bed of a for profit prison....a win win for TPTB.

[dreamnightwind]

42. I find your argument ridiculous

The power from enough data on people's activity and intelligent algorithmic analysis (whose intelligence will advance rapidly) is staggering. You either don't see where this leads or you don't care, and I think it's the latter, since you seem to be an intelligent person.

[Enthusiast]

53. You are so wrong.

Very disappointing.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. You're no friend of the US Constitution

Actually, stronger words are called for, but the rules governing this site don't permit me to use them, so repetition will have to suffice: you, stevenleser, are no friend of the Constitution.

[Duer 157099]

73. That's almost as bad as saying

that it is ok if you arrested and thrown in jail for something you didn't do, because eventually you will be found not-guilty and released.

In the meantime, you've lost your job, your home, etc. But no problem, right?

What if those data-mining programs went one step further and just very simply put all of the "suspects" (based on who-knows what criteria, it's a secret) on the no-fly list? You know, just until there's time to investigate each one and clear them. Think that might impact some people's lives and careers?

Imagination is all that is required to see the future.

[Duer 157099]

74. There was a time when people, even intelligent ones, thought that it would be impossible to

sequence the whole human genome. That wasn't that long ago either.

If you cannot see the correlation ... well, I can't help.

[LeftyMom]

95. Now factor in the ever expanding and increasingly rediculous definitions of "terrorism"

[treestar]

19. Absurd.

It is easy to find Occupy. And how can the NSA do anything about it my finding their phone calls?

The NSA does not bother to "prevent" things like Occupy. How could the NSA prevent them from organizing a march? Block their phone calls? Block them from the internet? How would they do it without being obvious?

And there is free speech to argue against what Occupy is doing if they don't like it.

IMO this is a tempest in a teapot created by people who just want us to believe all government is evil all the time.

[starroute]

23. They do target the people they believe are organizers

There were reports to that effect when OWS was at its height. The cops would take photos during one demonstration, make note of the people who seemed to be organizing or directing things, and then single them out for arrest during the next protest.

Something similar happened during the 2004 GOP convention, and New York City is only just settling the resulting lawsuits now. Activists were preemptively arrested before the start of the convention and then held as long as possible on flimsy excuses without even being booked. It's how the system works.

And of course the NSA wouldn't be the ones to "prevent" the next wave of protest. They'd just supply the data. A lot can be done to disrupt a movement by taking out its leaders -- or even just by making their lives too complicated to serve as effective organizers. Occupy may be a leadership movement, but it does have key personnel, the people who know how to make things happen. And Cointelpro type tactics are very effective at taking those key people out of the picture.

[treestar]

30. And yet they could file lawsuits in protest

Wow, what a totalitarian country!

I don't know if I believe these Occupy people. It may be tough to avoid arrest, but the arrest has to be for something - there has to be a charge - and that charge can be opposed in criminal court, as well as the civil lawsuits.

Anyone who protests risks this, and it has ever been so, but in this country it has yielded fruit. And the penalties for disturbing the peace or whatever are small.

Civil rights and other demonstrations in the US have succeeded in influencing changes in the law! The NSA does a pretty crappy job if they are supposed to somehow stop that. They could not, and they can't.

[LeftyMom]

97. Many of the arrests worked like this:

Cop A pushes you into the street. Cop B arrests you for obstructing traffic by being in the street.

This was caught on video repeatedly.

[randome]

98. Yet no one thought to use video for evidence?

[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]

[LeftyMom]

99. They did. Many charges were dismissed that way.

Unfortunately a lot of people weren't able to come back to NY to fight BS charges (especially when court dates were rescheduled again and again) and just paid the fines and moved on.

[Caretha]

6. and hence

according to stevenleser, it's A-OK for the NSA to spy on all and every American, because you know....laws & the constitution are so yesterday, and what does it matter anyway, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, right?

Right stevenleser? Right?

Piffle

[stevenleser]

8. And hence, you build a straw man and beat it to death. Right? nt

[Savannahmann]

10. Yes you do

You beat the there is too much data for them to spy on everyone strawman to death.

So in your world, because EVERYONE isn't being spied on, there is no problem. So in your strawman universe, each individual would have to be spied on before it became a problem.

[stevenleser]

11. That is not what strawman means. nt

[Caretha]

15. Piffle

look it up

[freedom fighter jh]

7. But you do have the time to target a person and find stuff on him/her that you can use

for blackmail.

Blackmail looks to me like the biggest danger in data vacuuming.

if, for example, you can get dirt on all the presidential candidates, then you can control them and get whatever you want. And in "dirt" I include things that may be legal or even innocent but the disclosure of which could cause unacceptable trouble. In short, I mean things that should be kept private.

Blackmail is just waiting to happen when government has lots of privacy and citizens have none.

[stevenleser]

9. Any hacker can do that. Even a fairly untalented one. And you don't need to vacuum up tons of data

to do it.

[freedom fighter jh]

12. "Any hacker can do that."

So what? How does that justify anything?

You don't need tons of data to target one person. You do need data on everyone -- totaling tons of data -- to have the option to target absolutely anyone.

[JimDandy]

14. Exactly. n/t

[Caretha]

18. ^^strawman argument^^

you seem to have a hard time with comprehension, hope this helps.

[Marr]

57. What kind of argument is that?

Any thief can break into your home, too. Does that mean the NSA should have the freedom to do so at their leisure?

[treestar]

17. Someone running for office trying to get dirt on the other

would have far less trouble digging up dirt other ways than bothering to attempt to corrupt an NSA agent and get them to find who the other person is calling. It might be easier to corrupt Verizon employees. But then again, the effort would be useless and non-productive. Just go and talk to people the candidate knew. Find someone who doesn't like them. That's a lot easier.

And not every single NSA employee is trying to find someone to sell data to. They probably have a job to do day to day.

[freedom fighter jh]

22. It isn't the agents; it's the folks who run the place.

Those folks potentially have total control over everyone, because they've got everything on everyone. They can cow anyone they want/need to cow. There is no check on them because they operate in secret.

[treestar]

27. How is that going to work?

The person "cowed" only has to go to the media. Or to the courts. And has the power to reveal who the corrupt government official is.

[freedom fighter jh]

32. Not much danger of the cowed person getting anywhere with the media or the courts

when the media and the courts can so easily be targeted themselves.

By continuing to support these programs, we the people are handing almost unlimited power to those that carry them out.

[treestar]

49. Anyone can get the ear of the media

especially if they are claiming government corruption.

If the NSA targeted you unfairly, you'd go off and slink away?

[Th1onein]

51. Are you joking? How would anyone even know they were being targeted?

Really, really bad argument.

[treestar]

63. It would have to come out sometime, wouldn't it, or what would be the point

of them targeting you?

How long do you think it will be before you are whisked away? Verizon's metadata says who you've called, which presumably is not suspicious.

I'm supposing you believe they spy on DU, which is public, but they could get IP addresses. Considering what you've posted here, how long do you think it's going to be before they come to get you? And then, what are they going to do with you? A new arrival at Gitmo would make the news.

[riderinthestorm]

67. No it need never come out that a person is targeted.

It would be easy to destroy someone without anyone knowing they had been deliberately targeted. Identity theft, police harassment for minor offenses over and over, planting child pornography on your computer, killing a spouse or child, getting forced out of work and ensuring that person never works again etc etc.

[Th1onein]

79. Treestar, have you heard of the SOD?

Where they "recreate" the chain of evidence? "Parallel investigations"?

You are misinformed. The fact that you then begin making fun of others who ARE informed, is pitiful.

[freedom fighter jh]

59. I don't know what I would do.

Are you trying to imply that if I went to the media they would publicize my case? What's your basis for saying that?

If you've even heard of other recent whistleblowers Thomas Drake or William Binney, most likely it's through the alternative media. The mainstream media gave them only piddly coverage.

Thomas Drake was prosecuted for blowing the whistle. Binney was threatened with prosecution.

It is impossible reveal government wrongdoing through lawful channels, be heard by the people, and come out intact.

[treestar]

64. But you know about them

How do you know their names?

The media is a lot more diffuse, also. You can make any sort of claim and it can get traction. Even the crazies with their theories. If such a thing happened, Alex Jones might pick it up as it would further his agenda.

[freedom fighter jh]

69. It's from the alternative media that I know their names.

Most people don't follow the alternative media.

Are there any that you and I don't know about? I don't think it's possible to answer that question. So the fact that I do know about some people who went through channels does not prove that going through channels works every time or even most of the time.

Consider especially that going through channels was so bad for William Binney and Thomas Drake -- they could have ended up in jail for a long time -- that they both support what Snowden did.

[treestar]

75. And I would bet you are not even trying to find

people who went through the channels, as you call them (respected the law) and it worked out fine.

Obama even made some changes when this all came out.

Throwing away the WPA as though it was never passed - shameful. As finding a couple cases to use as excuses - that means disrespect for the rest of us. The laws our country passed, under its system that has functioned two hundred years plus, you want any old person to be able to trample on them.

[freedom fighter jh]

77. Why should I try to find information to support your argument?

Isn't that your job?

What changes did Obama make?

What's WPA?

I'll thank you not to impute feelings to me.

Violating an unjust law to try to bring about improvement is a tradition with an honorable history.

[Caretha]

34. ROFLMFAO

You are funny, and not in a humorous sort of way.

I'm sure that would of worked out hunky-dory for Edward Snowden. Gawd, tell me you are not really that dense.

[treestar]

50. Zero substance you have there

There is no reason to presume Snojob could not have had a fair trial. He is a liar to claim he wouldn't.

[rhett o rick]

45. If that's the best you can do, you certainly arent very imaginative. I can think of a dozen ways

that personal data could be used to influence people.

[El_Johns]

80. I don't understand why you defend this. Why do they need all that data in the first place?

[Gormy Cuss]

29. The answer is yes.

The initial time investment is in writing the code to do the matching. Once that is done, tracking and violating the privacy of those matches is low cost.

Why would someone bother looking at people who aren't flagged? Personal interest, a favor for a friend or official, or perhaps even an off the books paid search for an interested third party.

The fact is that the administration downplayed this. Either the president wasn't informed or he made the strategic choice to assure people that it was benign, anonymous data.

[rhett o rick]

44. Strawman. Of course they dont have time nor inclination to check up on everyone. That's a

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

distraction. The concern is that they CAN check up on anyone. For example if there were "leaders" for Occupy, they most likely would be targets. Investigative journalists might be targets. They can target whomever they think is a threat. Anyone that speaks truth to power would be checked out and maybe neutralized. Of course the conservatives love that power in the hands of authoritarian leaders.

[nilram]

54. +100. And if they don't have "time" now, they'll have the compute time later, when machines get even

faster. Gets easier and easier to check up enemies, even as the "enemies" get more and more numerous.

[Marr]

56. +1

[Marr]

55. Wait-- so now your argument is not that the data is anonymous, but simply that

you're really really certain that people who have a "red flag" next to their name have really, really earned it?

It seems like you're acknowledging that mass-spying is exactly that-- but you just happen to trust the people in charge.

[rhett o rick]

60. I think you've got it. One characteristic of conservatives is that they have FAITH in their

authoritarian leaders. If their leaders are doing it, it must be good. And if their leaders say they arent spying, then it must be the truth. And if their leaders want to persecute Snowden, then it must be deserved.

These conservatives are so blind that they have lost their ability to reason. They believe that if a Republican is president then whatever Clapper does is suspicious, but exit Bush and enter Obama, and bingo-bango, now Clapper is golden.

Clapper is running the same spy programs for Obama that he ran for Bush. Personally, I dont think Pres Obama has enough power to fire Clapper.

[Thinkingabout]

68. K & R

Isn't it amusing the anger is directed towards NSA when those gathering the information from data bases available on the internet. This has to be the weakest argument I have heard yet. It is not the object of the NSA data collection to associate this information with names. Unless it is on the part of rogue employees this is not happening. If these same people worried about the privacy why are they not placing anger towards phone providers, after all, those companies has both names, numbers and addresses.

[Logical]

86. LOL, so it is your argument that the NSA having the data is no different than the...

Phone providers having it? Really?

[Thinkingabout]

91. You should explain the difference if you truly believe there is a difference.

[RC]

101. Easy. Very easy.

The phone companies need that information to properly run their business. Name and address, so they know who is responsible for paying the bill. The meta data so they know where the traffic is, so they can beef up places with heavier traffic and scale back where the traffic is low. This is private information belonging to the phone company.
The government, on the other hand, can only get this information legally on court warrant and then only targeting certain people or groups of interest. The reason for that interest must be stated in the warrant. With narrowly defined exceptions the names of the people involved must be on the warrant. There is NO PROVISION in the Constitution for mass surveillance on the citizens of this country, on any scale, for any reason. In fact it is expressly forbidden.

For your convenience, I have included the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where in the Hell is the probable cause on the massive data mining of the communications information and storing that information on virtually everyone, that the NSA is doing? It does not matter what excuse they are using to gather this information and storing it, it is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

[Thinkingabout]

102. Where is the probable cause, that would be the easiest question to answer, the US has had

attacks, not once but more than once, not all attacks are on American soil, we also have facilities in many countries which we need to protect. It is not over, may never be over but information needs to be collected in order to perhaps curtail attacks before they occur. I would think lose of life is a probable cause.

The providers only keeps data for a short period of time, they providers does not set up surveillance measures to determine when and where calls are made in order to set a pattern of possible attacks. The information furnished to NSA is the phone call records, the same as you see on your phone bill, does not have the name of the caller or the called name.

I think there will be a ruling in the future which will cover the warrant issue so many seems to have. Many seems to think the warrant issue is not a portion of the Fourth Amendment but it is. From the time the Fourth Amendment was written many of the services we use was not a part of the world. We see Google Earth and can see vehicles parked, cameras are everywhere, homes are installing cameras, is it violating your privacy, maybe but we are entitled to protect our property, the same as the US is entitled to protect their property and people.

[Logical]

85. You really are a disappointment on this topic. And clueless! nt

[LiberalAndProud]

89. Is your argument that they are overwhelmed by too much data?

Perhaps it would be better if they obtained warrants to prevent being overwhelmed, then. Really I find your defense of these warrantless searches empty of comfort. You may be at ease living in a surveillance state. I find it to be a terrible overreach by out-of-control -- even uncontrollable -- government agencies.

I don't understand how anyone, least of all good Democrats, can possibly feel comfortable with this.

[fascisthunter]

96. holy f*ck

and you are on our TV as a rep of the Democratic party's endeavor.

[treestar]

16. I would hope so, if they really see a pattern

they can follow up on that, and if it turns up nothing, no harm.

No one in that scenario will get criminal charges filed against them.

There's no point in their going to look through every call. There would be not enough time in the universe for that. And nothing to be found from it.

[Caretha]

20. One more who thinks it's A-Ok

not surprised though, no, not in the least bit surprised.

[treestar]

21. Are you implying something?

Wow, somebody disagrees with you on the internet. I could as easily say one more bully who expects us to adopt their negative world view and negative government view or they are going to name call. I'm not surprised that you are willing to risk our national security over this non-drama.

[Caretha]

24. Wasn't implying anything

I pretty much say what I mean. See how easy that was.

Btw, it bothers me not that someone disagrees with me on the internet - I just chalk some of it up to Yahoo commenters who lost their way.

[cantbeserious]

25. Should Those That Support The Desecration Of The 4th Amendment Be Trusted

This one thinks not.

[rhett o rick]

46. You are under the assumption that the NSA is working for you. That most likely isnt the case.

You seem to want so badly to believe that the NSA is looking out for your best interest. First of all, most of those in power of the intelligence agencies are fucking conservatives. Do you trust conservatives?

[PowerToThePeople]

26. You are authoritarian scum

And a traitor to the United States Constitution.

-----------------------

Federal Judge Rules NSA Bulk Phone Record Collection Unconstitutional

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/16/251645205/federal-judge-rules-nsa-bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional

[treestar]

28. But you didn't answer my post

Just made an insult that I am supposed to believe? No, I am a rational person. You are nuts. The government is not coming after you. If it did, you can get a lawyer (or not) and do several things.

[PowerToThePeople]

33. Yes, I answered your post

The answer is that your views are anti-democratic, authoritarian, and go against the constitution of the United States. The fact that you support these things leads me to call you "authoritarian scum."

I am far from nuts.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

31. Americans used to be better than this

Disgusting, cowardly filth. How did you get to this place in your life where you think these fuckfaces spying on every citizen is ok? What's wrong with you?

[treestar]

61. They are not spying on every citizen

How could they?

Why would they bother? They cannot suppress political dissent in this country.

[Th1onein]

52. This entire idea of them wanting to check on every person is a distraction.

WHY do you keep repeating it? It's not a matter of them wanting to check on every person. It's a matter of them having enough data on everyone so that they can TARGET anyone that they choose. That's absolute power.

[treestar]

62. Who would be worth targeting?

On the same people who can loudly dissent.

Totalitarians spy to find dissent they can punish.

That can't be done here. Or Boner would have been in Gitmo long ago.

There's nobody to target. If you protest, you can do it in public. You can't be arrested for that! You can make a sign and go onto the public streets. What is the point of finding out who you called on the phone?

This is getting ridiculous. You're creating a dystopian fiction and expecting everyone to believe it. It appears you believe it yourselves, and all you can do is call names like "authoritarian scum " when reality is mentioned.

And you provide no answers to the real possibility of terrorists, and I suppose, also think the government should have prevented 911?

[Th1onein]

81. They have already been targeting protesters.

Have you read anything on this thread? They are already doing it.

And I haven't called you "authoritarian scum," but I see you're using the typical to make fun of people who disagree with you. Not a real good argument.

The programs that you support have not stopped one terrorist plot; not one.

[treestar]

82. For what?

Have these protestors been stopped from protesting? No. They can continue, even from jail, if that's where they are for violating some ordinance - and they could have protested without violating that ordinance. Snowjob is making up this nightmare. The same people who make fun of us for supporting Obama or any other Dem and call that worshipping are doing exactly that with Snowjob. They've made him into some sort of movie hero. And it's all in their minds.

[Th1onein]

83. First of all, you do your argument no good by calling Snowden "Snowjob."

Nasty little tactic normally used by people who don't have logic on their side.

Second, protesters can protest from jail? Who do you think you're kidding? Can they also organize from jail? Now THAT deserves a !

Third, Clapper sat in front of Congress and has ADMITTED lying about collecting information on Americans. THAT is not the NSA's job. And, he's using a totally brand new definition of the word "collect." They already have all of our info; they've already collected it and stored it, which is absolutely against the law. The info that the NSA doesn't collect, they get other countries to collect on Americans and they are sharing that information. It is TIA, all over again.

And, by the way, I notice you said nothing about the SOD and the fact that an agency that is NOT supposed to collect information on Americans IS collecting it and sharing it with other agencies, who then prosecute Americans. Even they know that's illegal, or they wouldn't have to be covering up the chain of evidence, and creating "parallel investigations." Is that okay with you, too?

You should be ashamed of yourself to be supporting such a thing. This is America.

[Marr]

58. You drop the old excuse but continue defending the policy.

Surely you see why this sort of thing makes it hard to take those excuses seriously.

[gulliver]

35. Thinking the distinction is silly is silly.

"Silly" was the writer's word, not the researchers'. What is silly is equating the potential for harm to harm. By that measure, why do we allow up escalators, nail guns, tree trimmers? Why do we allow scissors when we know that some people are going to run with them?

The whole paranoia about the government collecting metadata is based on ignorance bordering on that displayed by anti-vaxxers.

[freedom fighter jh]

40. Maybe radioactive substances should not be controlled,

since the potential for them to be used as weapons or just handled carelessly is not the same as their actually being used as weapons or getting out into the environment.

Given the low probability of harm, sometimes harmful potential, though it is real, is much less than the beneficial potential -- thus nail guns, tree trimmers, and scissors.

Sometimes the potential for harm is substantial.

These people have access to information about what every one of us is doing all the time. Congress's oversight of them is a joke, as evinced by Clapper's lie, which should have brought perjury charges but instead just kind of brought raised eyebrows. If that info is not being abused, it's only by a miracle.

[Aerows]

36. I can't tell if people that defend this as being irrelevant

are willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant. You can match things even without a database and construct a person's identity. With your metadata, you can be tracked anywhere you go, who you know and what you do.

People that are alarmed by this aren't necessarily alarmed because of personal reasons. They are alarmed because those that have power over their lives can have such information used against them, or that such information could be used against them if they merely disagree with someone, for harassment purposes or for fraud.

If you AREN'T concerned and defend these programs, you have a motivation other than mine and my country's best interest in mind, or you are sticking your head in the sand saying "it could never happen to me".

[freedom fighter jh]

41. I'm more worried about how this info will be used against public officials than about

how it could be used against me.

It's a recipe for corruption. if someone tries to do the right thing in Congress or the executive branch, just threaten them unacceptable consequences. They'll have to shut up quick.

I believe this has happened, is happening, and is part of the reason why the system no longer works for the people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. If, according to some, it's so harmless and benign, why did they keep it secret?

And, why are they so upset about Snowden telling the world they do it?

[Aerows]

38. Anyone defending this

doesn't have you or your country's best interest in mind. I feel like someone getting hard sold by a snake oil salesman sometimes when the defenders come into these threads, and they seem to be saying "Oh come on, what could it hurt? It MAY help you fight off ____ disease, and then won't you be thankful?"

They never worry about what else is in the snake oil that could kill you faster than the disease. It's classic flim-flam type pressure. You get ridicule from them as the last defense. I think most of us know when we are being given the hard sell - and when it gets that hard that it flies in the face of facts and reason, I know it has nothing to do with "helping me".

[treestar]

65. Because Snowden violated the law

If you're going to take the position they can keep nothing secret, you're saying we have no right to national security whatsoever. What country survives with that? At least this country has laws about it.

Are you also against it when police detectives do anything furtively to investigate? Or should they let all suspects know they are onto them and exactly why? Then what would happen? Many an actual case could never be filed, and many crimes would go unpunished, with that opportunity to escape or hide evidence.

It's like you're against there being any rule of law whatsoever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. So, what has all this spying done for us?

A more peaceful world?

More respect from our allies (who we're spying on)?

Security?

Are we "safer" now?

Who has more done more harm? The NSA or Snowdon?

If the NSA can't deliver on those things, what's the point of having it?

[treestar]

76. May well be

If it was known that we didn't do anything to protect ourselves, you really think all those other countries are so peaceful they'd leave us alone? We are a lot safer than we would be without it. It's one thing to complain about overreach but the idea we could do nothing at all is just as extreme as the most authoritarian Cheney like theories you can find.

We don't know what harm Snowden did, but the NSA hasn't done any that anyone can point to. And their activities could have protected a lot of us. Hell when something happens, the media and others are all over the government for not having prevented it, that is, not having found out about a criminal terrorist plot beforehand. The perpetrators of those don't put their plans in the news. So now they're supposed to prevent it all without any national security agency or CIA?

[WillyT]

39. K & R !!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. Oh no, a phalanx of DU computer experts has assured us that this cannot be done,

and if it can be done, it is of no importance, and if it is important then we should just trust the good intentions of our hero and keep the faith that he has only our best interests at heart.

[rrneck]

47. If it's useless for catching people then why do they need it to catch bad guys? nt

[neverforget]

48. What business is it of the government to collect all this metadata about American citizens?

[randome]

66. So they can track co-conspirators after an attack.

Bear in mind that the NSA aids other countries' terrorism efforts, too. If there is an attack overseas and there is evidence someone in the U.S. helped, it makes sense to try and find those individuals.

When a major crime occurs here, law enforcement typically does a similar investigation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[neverforget]

78. So I'm a co-conspirator? Otherwise why would they collect my data?

[randome]

84. Because without it, they would need to go hat-in-hand to every telecom in the country.

It would be, for all intents and purposes, useless and self-defeating.

This is the Digital Age, when data is ridiculously easy to obtain and disseminate. Law enforcement agencies must change with the times.

One of the Powerpoint presentations G&S provided showed that 4 levels of approval are needed before a query can be used on the metadata.

That sounds like a robust system to me. It also sounded like a robust system to Carl Bernstein.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

88. BS, They could get the data almost immediately when needed! nt

[randome]

90. How?

Do you know how many telecoms there are in the country? Neither do I but I assume they number in the hundreds by now, both local and nation-wide.

Maybe by having a direct pipeline into every telecom? Sounds expensive, prone to hackers and employee malfeasance. It's only my guess as to why they want the metadata but I would think speed and accessibility are the primary reasons.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[neverforget]

93. Law enforcement agencies must comply with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

The NSA sweeping up everything IMO is a violation of the 4th Amendment. I am an American citizen not a suspect. If I am suspected of a some wrongdoing, get a warrant for me and my data from Verizon. These blanket warrants are complete BS.

[randome]

94. Where have you been for the past 6 months?

The NSA doesn't even need a warrant for third-party business records. They are not covered by the 4th amendment. That's been the case for decades now.

If you want that to change, change the law, but to say the NSA is 'violating our 4th amendment rights' is a false statement.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[neverforget]

100. Apparently you believe that Smith v Maryland allows the NSA to scoop up all the data of Americans.

However, that case was about an individual (a robber) and not a government surveillance program. That's a gigantic difference in scale as in an individual vs ALL Americans.

Where have I been for the past 6 months? Watching you defend all things NSA.

[Logical]

87. LOL, they got you believing that shit? nt

[Marr]

92. No kidding. "Please protect me, daddy!".

That's exactly the same sadly servile mindset that we saw in conservatives under Bush.

If you'll surrender your rights every time you get scared, you can be confident that policy makers will keep you scared as much as possible.

[Harmony Blue]

103. Some people rather believe in some order

when reality is we can quickly descend into chaos. I believe that over reliance on others for your own safety is a stretch.

[Thinkingabout]

71. Perhaps all posting here should realize information can be acquired from blogs, you can

be located by the information you provide plus a trail of activity can also be located. Also, the names, phone numbers, and addresses is also in a data base the providers maintain. If you communicate online, wireless or plain old telephone service, there are data bases maintained. To all who argue your privacy is being invaded, there are many data bases maintained to get information, it is not the NSA or government agencies, but also these data bases can be issued a warrant to obtain the specific information associated with these data bases. Unless employees are rogue and stealing information these associations, these databases aresecure.

[Jefferson23]

104. Highly recommend. n/t