U.S. spy agency paper says fewer than 300 phone numbers closely scrutinized

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

U.S. spy agency paper says fewer than 300 phone numbers closely scrutinized

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:51pm EDT

(Reuters) - The U.S. government only searched for detailed information on calls involving fewer than 300 specific phone numbers among the millions of raw phone records collected by the National Security Agency in 2012, according to a government paper obtained by Reuters on Saturday.

The unclassified paper was circulated Saturday within the government by U.S. intelligence agencies and apparently is an attempt by spy agencies and the Obama administration to rebut accusations that it overreached in investigating potential militant plots.

The administration has said that even though the NSA, according to top-secret documents made public by former agency contractor Edward Snowden, collects massive amounts of data on message traffic from both U.S. based telephone and internet companies, such data collection is legal, subject to tight controls and does not intrude on the privacy of ordinary Americans.

The paper circulated on Saturday said that data from the NSA phone and email collections programs not only led U.S. investigators to the ringleader of a plot to attack New York's subway system in 2009, but also to one of his co-conspirators in the United States.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-usa-security-idUSBRE95F00B20130616

[cantbeserious]

1. For 300 Phone Numbers - Why Is Standard Wiretapping Insufficient?

eom

[Tx4obama]

3. The meta-data storaged at NSA is 'after' phone calls have been made...

... could be weeks, months, or years later.
The database can be searched to see who called who - there are no taped conversations in the meta-database, just phone numbers, time/length of calls.

With a Court Ordered wiretap you have to know the phone number beforehand and the call would monitored in real time or taped.

[cantbeserious]

4. Yeah Right - Keep On Believing That "No Taped Phone Calls" Part - I Now No Longer Trust Our Government

All credibility has been forever lost to me.

See Here - NSA Admits To Listening To Phone Calls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023024565

[Tx4obama]

8. I do not believe the NSA said that. 'Nadler' said that & probably misunderstood what was said

There is no other source other than Nadler that I've seen.

Anyone have a link to any other person saying the same thing?

Anyone have a link to The NSA saying such a thing?

[ohheckyeah]

12. LOL

Like the NSA has any credibility.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Loretta Sanches

Tip of iceberg

Kirk, if the American people knew...

There is a backhoe over there, will be faster than doing it with an entrenching tool

[Life Long Dem]

17. Bush should have been impeached for his illegal wiretapping

[cantbeserious]

18. And Now It May Be Obama's Turn To Face The Same Possibility

eom

[stevenleser]

52. Bush wiretapped without a warrant and this was found to violate the FISA law. Obama did not.

Obama got FISA warrants.

Simple

[cantbeserious]

53. So We Are Told - With The Latest Revelations I Know Longer Trust Obama Or The Government

eom

[Tx4obama]

19. Yes, I agree Bush should have been. But there is not any illegal wiretapping under the Obama admin

[cantbeserious]

25. You Seem So Sure - Do You Speak For The Obama Administration - My Suspicions Are Raised

eom

[Tx4obama]

26. All I know is that there has not been any 'evidence' of illegal wiretapping.

Searching the meta-database's data is not the same thing as 'wiretapping' a phone.

[cantbeserious]

27. No Known Evidence - However, That Does Not Preclude The Possibility - Where There Is Smoke ....

eom

[Tx4obama]

30. Sounds like one of Darrell Issa's fishing expeditions - if ya keep looking ya 'might' find something

LOL.

[cantbeserious]

31. Nope - Just A Well Honed Sensitivity To Being Lied To By Our Government - Over And Over ...

eom

[ohheckyeah]

29. Yeah....

and I fart pink fairies.

[Whisp]

41. when the metadata is collected, and it is not by Greenwald's definition of 'direct access'.

NSA can't just go walking into Verizons servers and shop around. They have to ask for permission to see the meta data that Verison stores. As said above, meta is only numbers called from where and time. There is no dialogue involved.

Verison gets a court order then places the requested files only in a separate secure server away from their main database and NSA scoops it up from there.

How these phone numbers come up for closer investigation is probably by regular 'spy' means - footwork, undercover, etc., They see someone suspicious, get their phone number and then look into it.

Once they have that number Then the recording and surveillance starts.

This is how it should work ideally, but things are rarely ideal in this world.

This is what I have come away with to put this together in my mind over the last while.

[cantbeserious]

42. I Don't Believe That And I Won't Be Buying Swampland In Florida Either

eom

[Whisp]

43. fine. eom.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Check this

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

Those talking points have been ahem passed over.

Time to pick sides, the constitution or your party.

[Tx4obama]

9. See comment #8. That is only what Nadler is saying - it's what he thinks he heard.

No one else has said they heard that.

I believe Nadler is confused.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I believe you chose party over country

And that is sad.

[Tx4obama]

13. You have no idea what I've chosen. I believe it is best to wait for 'correct' information.

The only thing out there right now is one article with only Nadler's words.

I believe he is wrong - if more info comes out from the other people that were there then it will be different story.


Edited to fix typo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Given the history of the last oh 60

Years...I am willing to bet he's right. It's not a feeling, it's history...

Now perhaps this is the beginning of the leak for the Crown Jewels.

If you miss the reference, I understand. It's part of the Church Committee hearings. At the very least we need that. That is the bottom rung.

Mark my words, the Administration will fight it.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Indeed those quote marks

around 'correct' are exactly on the mark.

[sweetloukillbot]

33. The headline and the story don't jive either

The headline says they are listening to calls without warrants. The story says they CAN listen to calls without warrants. That's a big distinction and a bad headline. Still not good if they feel they can do it without a FISA warrant, but that is not the same as they are listening to calls. One simple word and I wouldn't have had a problem with the story, but the hyperventilating, bad journalism that has come out of the woodwork over the NSA pisses me off as a reporter.

[HooptieWagon]

49. If they can, they are.

They're not building an $8 billion complex to listen to 300 calls.

The bit about warrants is only if it's to be submitted as evidence in court...they can and will use information gleaned from spying for other purposes.

[cantbeserious]

14. I Choose Constitution Over Party Every Day

eom

[DontTreadOnMe]

35. The "Constitution" that allows the NRA to push assault rifles on us?

That "perfect Constitution".. written 200+ years ago by slave owners... before the invention of cellphones.

[cantbeserious]

39. Yes, The Same Constitution And Bill Of Rights That Contains The 4th Amendment

eom

[DontTreadOnMe]

40. Let's discuss how many different interpretations of the 4th Amendment there are...

and then we can discuss how futile it is to refer back to the "Constitution" as having the "final say" on anything.

[GoneFishin]

15. 300, give or take 999,700

"... that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more ... "



http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[JimDandy]

48. Of course there are no taped conversations

in the meta-database... they're in the recorded calls-database, silly.

Seriously, pull your head out of the sand and start helping to get our democracy back.

[Pholus]

2. So at an estimated 10-20 billion dollar budget, 300 calls works out to...

A mere 33-66 million per call.

Hmmm, considering what government contractors charge for their "services" perhaps this number is right!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Yea, I believe them. Why not? They wouldn't lie to us at this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Here

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[Tx4obama]

10. When Nadler comes out & says he misunderstood what was said are you going to retract those links ?

[BeyondGeography]

34. You're riding that Cnet story awfully hard, aren't you?

Obama shouldn't be implicitly trusted, but you should understand at least one thing about him by now: He does not ever shoot from the hip (well, ok, the Kamala Harris thing was shooting from the hip, but, you know).

So it's worth recalling what he specifically said the other day:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks—if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So, I want to be very clear—some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so—nobody is listening to the content of people’s phone calls.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/

That's awfully clear to me, coming from a guy with a lot to lose if it's way off the mark, and one with a pretty damned good track record of avoiding mistakes with the language. Compare the President's straightforward statement with the Cnet article which could easily be read as Nadler and Mueller misunderstanding each other in a hearing, and contains no follow-up reporting post-hearing (i.e., no fresh statement from Nadler), and I hope you'll excuse some of us from jumping to conclusions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You go on

I am back at the dictablanda.

[Tx4obama]

44. Muller and Nadler had the following...

... exchange where Nadler asks him about this. Nadler said that it was his understanding that analysts can listen in. Mueller claims that is not his understanding of the NSA program. Nadler may be mistaken. Here's video of the testimony Thursday from C-span. The exchange begins 45 - 46 minutes into the testimony:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1


Text above is from Roselma: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023024565#post92

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I guess so is Loretta Sanchez

Bimmey and others.

This is a classic technique...in case you are missing it, the last five weeks have destroyed much trust...they did it themselves.

We now live in an inverted totalitarian state, where you cannot trust anything that comes from the administration, and where elections are an exercise in futility.

Don't take the red pill, once you do, going back to sleep is damn difficult.

Trust me, I get the chance, I will press the questions...again.

[GoneFishin]

20. Maybe the discrepancy hinges on their definition of "searched for detailed information on calls".

Maybe they don't consider recording calls searching "for detailed information on calls".

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Well, gotta give them credit

You caught us in another lie...let's see if this new and improved talking point (tm) works with the rubes.

[Catherina]

24. "The unclassified paper was circulated" lol! Can we see the classified paper now?

William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency's worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more. "They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that's what they record," Binney said.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Interesting. That's just what I would EXPECT spooks to say... nothing to see here. Move along. n/t

[baldguy]

37. Just like cops who watch ALL the cars go by, just to catch a few speeders.

[beevul]

38. Only 300?

How many does it take before it becomes wrong?

[WinkyDink]

45. Key weasel words: "closely" and "detailed."

[Downwinder]

47. $20bil for 300 phone numbers?

[HooptieWagon]

50. Yep.

Since they only scrutinize 300 calls, maybe a big budget slash is in order.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. My farts smell like lilac. n/t