for all practical purposes, there are TWO databases

[unblock]

the first one is the big scary database with ALL the data. "content" and everything.

they take that and put SOME of that data a second database -- no "content", no names. nice, clean, non-scary stuff.

the nsa and the fbi and the cia and the rest of the alphabet have their way this the second database, which they use to identify interesting accounts in the first database, then there are all these safeguards to restrict access to the first database warrants and probable cause and all that.



what they gloss over is the fact that they collected the first database in order to create the second database. they didn't just collect content-free, non-scary stuff from all over and build one big second database. no, they did the scary thing, collecting everything, to create the first database, and THEN created the second database.

now they're observing all these nice rules about accessing the second database.



but of course the objection is that they created the first database! they play semantic games that, hey, no one's looking at the content, so it's not a problem. but, sorry, the government collected massive amounts of all this data. the fact that they're supposedly biding their time and looking at it piecemeal isn't the issue. the problem is that they had no business collecting it in the first place.

it's an unreasonable search every bit as much as it would be to open every piece of snail mail and make a copy of it and reseal the envelope and just say, hey, we don't actually LOOK at it without a warrant!

until a change in policy comes along and of course it becomes important to look at more of it. or just this one person's calls, don't ask, it's classified.


but they don't want a discussion about the first database, so they keep talking about the second database. no content! no names! let's talk about that one!

[On the Road]

1. If it Makes You Feel Better,

what will probably happen is that the telcos and other providers will be asked to retain their metadata for a longer period of time. They may even be paid to do so.

The data will remain there until specific data is requested by FISA warrant. Because the normal warrant process is so slow, there will probably be an accelerated method of accessing the raw data from the various company sources.

Whether that will really provide greater privacy is another matter.

[randome]

12. Of course it would not provide greater privacy.

It would give the illusion of greater privacy.

More points of interception. More chances of hacking, even internal company malfeasance. Face it, some people will never be satisfied.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KittyWampus]

2. Your OP is totally unsourced and generalized to an extreme. There are two programs we know of:

From what I've been able to determine there are two programs that deal with data/information… and you've reversed the order in which they are probably used.

PRISM- which seems to be centered around accessing metadata from telecomm etc via warrant. This program has severe issues that need to be addressed regarding safeguarding innocent people home and abroad.

Unnamed Program- tapping directly into undersea cables and scooping up ALL communications, not just metadata.

[Recursion]

5. The released PP slide calls that the "upstream" source

Also note that PRISM isn't a collection program, it's an analysis program.

[unblock]

8. most of my information on this comes from npr

though of course they're getting in it straight from people trained to lie about such things, etc....

[bobduca]

3. definitely some misdirection around "collection"

It also seems like this program would be an ideal way to launder the data that has already been collected without a warrant, and spread some of those mega dollars around to companies like the spy service provider alluded to by the smug, all-knowing spy industry professional here at DU.

I think that the admin and the nsa lawyers have attempted to define policy in terms that require human agency at all points. So if a software agent is running, collecting data its not a data collection until someone accesses it! Like a quantum cat in a box.... the collection is not a collection until viewed. Preposterous fig leaf, but we should just trust all these bush era hold-overs...

[Recursion]

4. There is no first database. You're making that part up.

Other than that, good post.

[JimDandy]

13. It's a good educated guess that there is that first database.

IMO the whole reason for the particular setup of NSA servers (as revealed by Klein in 2006) feed by a split line directly connected to the telco's servers in an adjoining room, is so that noone, not even the telcos would be able to know who the NSA was targeting.

The ONLY way for the NSA to keep secret who their targets are, all the way through a secret warrant process for content data, is for all telco data content to be dumped into an initial database. And unfortunately secrecy ALLOWS for the possibility of corruption and, with no oversight, I find it inconceivable that the NSA isn't looking at that content first, and, if they find something incriminating, to then and only then go after a secret warrant.

We need to make strong laws backed up by strong technology that will ensure that all phone and internet content originating in the U.S.A. is unable to be seized and stored by telcos or any government agency, especially private communications like phone conversations, texts and email.

eta The only phone, text, or email content our government agencies should ever be able to obtain is in real time, through a wire tap authorized by a court ordered warrant.

[randome]

15. So no more wiretaps for human trafficking? What about pedophiles? Organized crime.

There is no database with the world's communications on it. If Snowden or you or anyone else disagrees, show us the evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JimDandy]

16. I was editing the post

when you answered, to add that only wire tapped conversations in REAL time should ever be allowed for phone calls, texts, chats and emails.

As I said, it is my logically deducted opinion that the NSA has such a database and yes indeed we all NEED a whistle-blower to come forward with such documentation.

[MineralMan]

6. No. Incorrect. nt

[unblock]

9. thanks for clarifying.

[MineralMan]

10. No clarification required. You have incorrect information.

[unblock]

11. and whatever information you may have is, from my perspective, useless.

if i've made a mistake, by all means have at it. not that i'm sure any of us has great information on this, it all seems deliberately murky to me. but if you think i've clearly gotten something wrong, please let me know.

perhaps some way more illuminating than simply claiming i'm wrong.


my take is mostly based on what i've heard on npr.
other than characterizing it as two separate databases, which of course is not meant to be a technically correct characterization, it's just meant to illustrate the issues.

[RobertEarl]

7. You got it, unblock

They tap into the lines and collect everything they can. But all they have is words and bytes that have a time stamp. That is the first database.

The second database is that from the telcos. It is the meta data. It has the time stamps, same as the first DB. It also has the tele numbers and identifying details.

When they compare the timestamps from the meta to the timestamps from the collection DB, they can then discover: It was a one robertearl, at 13:45, on 2-14-10, who called 555-555-555, and talked for 22 minutes.

Now they look at the first DB and pull the collected 'book', or contents of the conversation, and find out that robertearl has 5 girlfriends who are all just dying to see him again in all his naked glory.

It is a marvelous operation and you'd think the government apologists would revel in that establishment... and leave the rest of us alone, eh?

[The Link]

14. Yes. Correct.