Slashdot Mirror


Chief NSA Lawyer Hints That NSA May Be Tracking US Citizens

itwbennett writes "Responding to questions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday, Matthew Olsen, the NSA's general counsel, said that the NSA 'may', under 'certain circumstances' have the authority to track U.S. citizens by intercepting location data from cell phones, but it's 'very complicated.' 'There's no need to panic, or start shopping for aluminum-foil headwear,' says blogger Kevin Fogarty, but clearly the NSA has been thinking about it enough 'that the agency's chief lawyer was able to speak intelligently about it off the cuff while interviewing for a different job.'"

133 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. During the hearing . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . Fox News correspondents were seen sweating, nervously adjusting their collars, and making "SHHHH!" gestures to Mr. Olsen.

  2. May be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about the secret rooms of ATT, where domestic US traffic was routed to the NSA?

    NSA is, not "may be".

    1. Re:May be? by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You are quite mistaken if you think every major player does it. Qwest got in trouble two years ago for NOT doing it. Cox here in the southwest at least is the same way. Few other carriers are as large as ATT so its quite impractical for most other players to do it. Verizon and ATT probably do it but anyone else I doubt it. Time Warner might be in on it but it's mostly the old telcos that are working with the government rather than the old cable companies.

    2. Re:May be? by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Trust me the NSA doesn't need company approval to intercept data. Checkout the shit storm a system named ThinThread has created.

    3. Re:May be? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Two years? I remember it as almost a decade ago, but sure, let's look it up: Wikipedia reports it was May 2006, so split the difference. :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  3. "May" ?? +3, Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The chief NSA lawyer is surely a credible source.

      The NSA tracks EVERYONE.

    Yours In Miami,
    Anonymous

  4. Translation: by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    'Very complicated' = "Now, don't you go worrying your pretty little heads about that."

    1. Re:Translation: by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Very complicated" = "not ever actually constitutional, but the courts would never be allowed to challenge it so we could do it if we wanted"

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    2. Re:Translation: by slick7 · · Score: 1

      There's no need to panic: First lie.
      that the agency's chief lawyer was able to speak intelligently about it...: Second lie.
      Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Biggest lie of all, intelligence in the Senate, individually, committee-wise or otherwise.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  5. Certain circumstances? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On days that end in "Y", in months that have more than 27 days

  6. This is my "shocked" face by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So much for Imperial America going away with Bush the Lesser.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:This is my "shocked" face by Cwix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No but he drove us down that road as fast as he could for 8 years.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:This is my "shocked" face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but the NSA and CIA were DESIGNED to have this ability.. but WITHOUT the power of LAW. The entire point was to battle the USSR in a Cold War with "no rules" so we needed agencies that could break all our normal rules. This was why the Patriot Act was so nasty... it unlocked all the previously illegal evidence and actions and made them legal for no good reason. Using illegal searches and intimidation was allowed to hunt for terrorists.. just not ever bringing them to courts. Anybody these agencies caught that was truly evil was simply "done in" and left in a nameless grave somewhere.

      The big problem is that to catch spies, traitors, etc, you NEED to know who they sleep with, and what all their vices are... so they have TONS of that information. The problem is that regular police shouldn't have that information... because it's not LEGAL under normal criminal or civil rules of court. Of course if we would be more like Europe and get rid of "bedroom" laws and a bunch of other moralistic crap then all this invasion of privacy wouldn't matter. People view "morals" but morals aren't really a "science" you have "lawful" and "ethical" which are quantifiable and measurable and debatable. The thing is that most of what's in the tabloids and used to "manipulate" people doesn't really fall outside of "lawful" or "ethical" ... "morality" is just whatever the media can whip up on any given day. If you removed "morality" from the court of public opinion, much of what the NSA and CIA have on people would be worthless.

    3. Re:This is my "shocked" face by Cwix · · Score: 2

      What would make you think I had any intention of defending him?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:This is my "shocked" face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, look, a Glenn Beck viewer.

      Kill yourself.

    5. Re:This is my "shocked" face by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Not to Godwin my post, but I'm hoping we're not heading into a Weimar Republic here. Congress is getting so dysfunctional that we're in danger of enough people deciding that we need One Leader simply to get things done.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. "Certain circumstances" by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those being "Whenever the hell we feel like it."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:"Certain circumstances" by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      People should get a vote on where their tax dollars go. [usual rant].... This is becoming ridiculous!

    2. Re:"Certain circumstances" by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I would like most of them returned to me.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  8. Gambling in Casablanca! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am shocked! SHOCKED!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Gambling in Casablanca! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      I am shocked! SHOCKED!

      Your winnings, sir...

      Oh, thank you very much.

  9. Unthinkable scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is definitely unthinkable that the "certain circumstances" could be when the FISA court has issued a warrant. Right?

    1. Re:Unthinkable scenario by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2

      Hey, which side are you on here? Are you a fearless defender of liberty or a loathsome Communist oppressor? You're really starting to worry me...

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    2. Re:Unthinkable scenario by Dreamlandlocal · · Score: 1

      I'll see your FISA warrant and raise you a Patriot Act: Warrantless Wiretapping at the turn, "aw crap, just spy on everybody" a few years down the river.

    3. Re:Unthinkable scenario by Dreamlandlocal · · Score: 1

      Right. FISA warrants are are unnecessary now. There are a few restrictions on warrantless wiretaps that haven't been eliminated... yet. They need a few more years to work on that.

  10. Re:Very complicated by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.

    No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Re:Very complicated by black+soap · · Score: 1

    "Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.

    No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.

    Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.

  12. How is this anything new? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Tracking via cellular phones has been doable with a decent degree
    As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.

    1. Re:How is this anything new? by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the mission of the NSA isn't law enforcement, and it's a bit chilling to know that the spy agency that is more secretive than the CIA is actually pointing their sights at American citizens, which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing.

    2. Re:How is this anything new? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing

      Unless those people are in communication with people outside the country, in which case they (the domestic phone users) are one half of the call and tracking that is precisely what they're supposed to be doing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:How is this anything new? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The NSA's job is signals intelligence, phones and computers are exactly what NSA does. Even the summary makes it clear that the NSA might be doing to citizens what the NSA does.

      And this is nothing at all new.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)

    4. Re:How is this anything new? by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.

      I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:How is this anything new? by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo an accidental down-mod. Sorry about that.

    6. Re:How is this anything new? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the "certain circumstances" were "when we have a warrant" he wouldn't have had to beat around the bush, he'd simply have said "when we have a warrant".

    7. Re:How is this anything new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tracking via cellular phones has been doable with a decent degree As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.

      Every phone call you make insert some key words - here is a list - http://www.rense.com/general66/scgh.htm.

      Post back here when you notice the increase in blacked out SUVs in your neighborhood.

      These discussions happened the same way back in the early "carnivore" and "eschelon" days, nothing new.

      The surveillance leads to things like "warrants" and so on. It's continuous and total. Has been for some time. Remember, if you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about.

    8. Re:How is this anything new? by russotto · · Score: 1

      I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.

      I think you'll find that directive went right out the window with 9/11.

    9. Re:How is this anything new? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Post back here when you notice the increase in blacked out SUVs in your neighborhood.

      For extra fun, direct a low-powered IR laser, and maybe a low-powered microwave beam as well (extra points for an obvious-looking dish antenna also pointed at the SUV), at the blacked out rear-side windows, while making sure you're seen near your dwelling's windows wearing industrial/communications-style headphones while staring directly at the vehicle and typing madly on a laptop.

      For extra credit, casually walk by the SUV and attach an empty box (or filled with junk PCBs) with magnets to the underside of the bumper.

      For extra-super credit, place nothing but a note in the under-bumper box that says "Eat At Joe's". They'll go mad attempting to decode it.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:How is this anything new? by number11 · · Score: 2

      As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.

      So long as there is personal recourse against the judge that issued the warrant, if it turns out to be unwarranted.

    11. Re:How is this anything new? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Because the mission of the NSA isn't law enforcement, and it's a bit chilling to know that the spy agency that is more secretive than the CIA is actually pointing their sights at American citizens, which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing.

      Why, because no American citizen could possibly prove a threat to national security? And no one in the US could be communicating with foreign spies? You seem to have a very naive view of the world.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:How is this anything new? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So if a terrorist had phoned Mr A in New York on the day of September 11 saying "congratulations on the bomb thing, now on to phase two" you don't think that any subsequent calls to/from Mr A should have been monitored?
      And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:How is this anything new? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      So if a terrorist had phoned Mr A in New York on the day of September 11 saying "congratulations on the bomb thing, now on to phase two" you don't think that any subsequent calls to/from Mr A should have been monitored?

      In the general case, I don't think NSA should have had any clue that your hypothetical terrorist had called Mr. A. However, if they intercepted the call while the hypothetical terrorist was already being surveilled for another reason, then the proper response would have been to disclose to the FBI that Mr. A might possibly be connected with a terrorist organization so that the FBI could get a warrant to conduct an investigation legally and properly.

      And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.

      No, not by a long shot. That kind of thinking is dangerous because it implies a very, VERY limited understanding of the roles of the TLAs. FBI must conduct investigations of CRIMINAL activity, building a legal case that will withstand a jury trial so that CRIMINALS can be convicted of their crimes and go to jail. NSA, CIA, etc. are MILITARY (okay, maybe paramilitary) organizations. They are concerned with finding out which foreign nations are intending to harm the USA, and consequently provide intel to the military -- and ultimately, the President -- so that the U.S. can conduct MILITARY (or diplomatic) actions against those who intend us harm. When the government begins using its military against its own populace, you have officially entered a police state. That's a Bad Thing, by the way.

      Admittedly, there is a grey area where foreign states are engaging terrorist groups to conduct small-scale paramilitary operations against the U.S., but I would argue that terrorist activity within the U.S. is still well within the jurisdiction of the FBI because it is a criminal act. It is not the armed forces of another nation acting against us, even if the terrorist group is sponsored by another nation.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    14. Re:How is this anything new? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So monitor communications at the border, not inside

      Have you ever actually used any sort of communications device? Perhaps a telephone, maybe? Never mind. It's not possible that you're that ignorant of how the systems involved actually work, so you're just trolling.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. What is the default assumption of cryptography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Always assume they have the code.

  14. Re:Very complicated by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.

    Possibly, but you have to understand that "the government in power" in this case isn't Obama, or Bush, or Congress, but instead the TLAs and their massive and growing secret activities. It doesn't matter, for instance, that they've knowingly and repeatedly violated the law - both the Attorney General and the federal courts have said, in short, "Regardless of whether the agency broke the law, you can't talk about it in an open courtroom. Case dismissed."

    I'm going to also assume they've acquired dirt on most of Congress as well as the President and most presidential candidates, as a way to prevent their funding from being taken.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Espionage 101 by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Always use a pay phone.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Espionage 101 by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And Crime 101.

    2. Re:Espionage 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pay a bum to go buy the phone and some liquor. That way the only person that has a memory of you is a drunk homeless person that could be killed quietly if necessary.

    3. Re:Espionage 101 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A pay phone? How quaint! I haven't seen one that actually worked in years.

    4. Re:Espionage 101 by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      The ones that work take credit cards, these days.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:Espionage 101 by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Crime 101 should be "don't commit crimes". Sadly, it doesn't seem to be.

    6. Re:Espionage 101 by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Go anywhere where travel happens. Bus stations, train stations, and airports all generally have a good supply of payphones.

    7. Re:Espionage 101 by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      It's like in the final season of 24, when Jack Bauer was on the run from the government, he bought about a dozen cell phones. Every time he made a phone call he would immediately throw the phone in a bin.

    8. Re:Espionage 101 by Scott+Scott · · Score: 1

      Because nobody would ever monitor those.

  16. but it's 'very complicated.' by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the equipment to do this is.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. Re:Treasonous Spies! by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    I hereby declare those laws unconstitutional.

    Arrest the NSA!

  18. Re:Very complicated by Applekid · · Score: 1

    "Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.

    No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.

    Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.

    Ah, that's what all that talk about "silver spoons" is all about.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  19. Well yeah by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:

    If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Well yeah by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      So I can't use a smart phone cause the NSA will track me?

      Why can't my GPS be RSA encrypted?

        Who controls the GPS?

      It's relevant because next suddenly the button to toggle my GPS gets removed and the absolute worst thing I have to fear there is reduced battery life right?? :)

    2. Re:Well yeah by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      You can make a choice not to use a smart phone (or a cell phone, period) if you'd prefer.

      Not easily--you need one for many jobs and they increase efficiency of communication and commerce.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    3. Re:Well yeah by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea, when they 'forget to mention' that it can track you to a sufficient degree of accuracy that you can be target by the Orbital Individual Lazer Dessication System ( OILDS ) You know about that right? Oh, did we forget to mention that as well? Well see, its part of the Global Coordination and Reconnaissance System( GCRS ) by which all human activity will be monitored and managed by a vast network of interconnected billionaires.

      See thats how they get you to let them stick it in... first its 'just the tip'. Oh, that? That's just a little thingie that communicate with the cell tower so that it can adjust its transmit power, its save your battery power! Then it comes out with a camera( of all things ). Then an app so you can catalog all your friends and family when your bored. Did we mention that the microphone is always on and we can listen anytime we want?

      See we always thought that fascism/socialism would come with with jackbooted thugs and German shepherds. It dosent, it comes with Angry Birds.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    4. Re:Well yeah by elewton · · Score: 1

      And, just as it is reasonable to expect that sociopaths will spy on you for their own advantage, it is reasonable to expect that sociopaths will steal your stuff if you make it easy.

      A predictable percentage of humans qualify for ASPD or whatever they're calling it these days. Anybody trusting a significant number of humans should take appropriate precautions.

    5. Re:Well yeah by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Just leaving your house is a huge privacy risk, but generally we expect people not to be creepy.

    6. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is akin to saying "It's okay for a burglar to steal from your home, if you leave your door unlocked".
      Just because you can do something it does not mean it is okay to do it.

    7. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ad mobile phones, I suggest watching http://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive.html#Marlinspike. Choosing to not use a cellphone may equate to not participating in society, which is a dilemma. And that sucks.

    8. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So now the citizens must actively work so that unethical and.or unconstitutional tracking methods used by the GOVERNMENT are not practical or won't work? Sincerely, WTF???

      Imagine facial recognition technology that matches your ID as you walk past any public building. So if you "care that much" you should never leave your house, or go outside with a mask? Or maybe people that care that much should just pack and leave the US?

    9. Re:Well yeah by Scott+Scott · · Score: 2

      By extension, I shouldn't use a phone ever, because the person on the other end will almost certainly be vulnerable to tracking and eavesdropping.

      We shouldn't have to spend our days attempting to cloak ourselves from our own government agencies. The ability of certain agencies to use GPS tracking has saved plenty of lives through helping to locate victims during rescue efforts, and that's just one worthwhile use. We shouldn't have to sacrifice that just to keep gratuitous government eavesdropping at bay. This smacks of the "she had it coming by the way she was dressed" rape defense. Yes, she looked good. No, it's not her fault he caught a flash of skin and assaulted her.

      The above notwithstanding, this is well beyond simply forgoing cell phones. Seven proxies or not, we're all exposed when an agency with the power of the NSA decides to pay attention.

    10. Re:Well yeah by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      so a smart villain must have a smartphone, it's a honey-pot see? And can be used to establish innocence to boot. All your important communiques are ported through custom android software that does encrypted VOIP over wifi because you are a mega villain with resources, but why not have the best of both worlds? If you you KNOW your adversary is tapping you - you provide disinformation. This furor about smartphones is a tax against the ignorant, effective, but limited.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    11. Re:Well yeah by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      Any competent criminal MUST have a smartphone, it's a honey-pot see? It can be used to establish innocence. All your important communiques are ported through custom android software that does encrypted VOIP over wifi because you are a mega villain with resources, right? But why not have the best of both worlds? If you you KNOW your adversary is tapping you - you provide disinformation. This furor about smartphones is a tax against the ignorant, effective, but limited.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    12. Re:Well yeah by Syberz · · Score: 1

      When you're walking around the street talking to your significant other, although in public, you don't necessarily want someone to follow you around, take notes of what you're saying and keep track of where you've been.

      Cellphone or not, just because someone can track you and listen in to your conversations easily, it doesn't mean that you've given them permission to or that they should do it on a whim.

      --
      ~Syberz
    13. Re:Well yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      By your logic, owning a house and car that is in any way visible merits the theft of all your worldly goods. Troll harder, friend.

      No, it's more like if you drive around in a convertible smoking crack cocaine, and shouting out to passers by how you just shot your girlfriend, don't be surprised when the police stop you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Well yeah by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can make a choice not to use a smart phone (or a cell phone, period) if you'd prefer.

      Not easily--you need one for many jobs and they increase efficiency of communication and commerce.

      If for whatever reason you were that paranoid about people knowing your whereabouts, just get another job that doesn't require you to have a cellphone.

      Oh, and trading security for convenience is always a choice.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Well yeah by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:

      If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.

      um, ya, don't you see all the peeps bitching about the wifi info google gathered? bunch of stupid ass consumers out there.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  20. Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    Ever since ECHELON chatter started 10-12 years ago, does anyone really think that the UK–USA Security Agreement nations hasn't been doing this?

    The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.

    If they want to look up where anyone else is, they can hit phone location, email IP, social media logs, international and domestic flight, rail and mass transit tickets and easy passes.

    Example - yesterday I traveled from Portland to Tacoma via Amtrak with a ticket (that would be in a database), I flew from Seatac to Anchorage and used a Passport for ID which was scanned. It would be trivial for NSA to know when I traveled, where I am and even what time my card paid for parking here in Alaska.

    1. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.

      So what happens when the technology advances to the point where it is no more difficult to track the entire population of the U.S.? It's a logical fallacy to claim it's no big deal just because it's impractical given current technology. Technology will catch up, but if you wait until it does to object, it will be too late.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    2. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I never said its "no big deal", I'm shocked that people think this is news, of course they are doing it, they've been doing it for at least 10-15 years.

    3. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Precisely. I'm pretty sure that the tech to do so is reasonably priced now, for something with a budget like the NSA. What's the data bandwidth needed per person to track
      - cell-related movements?
      - voice calls (full audio)?

      We already believe the NSA is doing the latter, and the former is likely less bits/sec, possibly by an order of magnitude or two. So, whatever datacenter in which they store the voice calls likely has a nice little partition or database where they can store any geolocation related things about us that they might find out, with room to spare. The hard(er) part is whether they can get the data from cellular phone carriers ... whose past behavior makes me believe it wouldn't be that hard.

    4. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      There are only so many ELINT satellites up there, so unless NSA has taps on all the telecomm central offices, its going to be really hard to track and capture all of it.

    5. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I watched "The Adjustment Bureau" recently, and they have a similar statement, although their "watchers/adjusters" were more supernatural than our (current) overlords. I liked that meme in the movie; however, your other responder is correct: technology will advance to a point where it is possible to watch everyone, 24/7, audio/video/multiple angles -- "and then there was nobody left to speak for me."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    7. Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cellphone companies already track where your phone is - otherwise they wouldn't know which towers to route your incoming calls & SMS through. The problem is just storing the data, but with a little thought that can be rationalised down to more meaningful datasets.

  21. Re:Very complicated by unil_1005 · · Score: 1

    You thought you meant Republican/Democrat type of government.

    But you didn't.

  22. Echelon by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    This is old news.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  23. I'm at work by chrisj_0 · · Score: 1

    you insensitive clod!

  24. Re:Very complicated by Roachie · · Score: 2

    What going to be 'very complicated' is reinventing the guillotine.

    It would appear that we will have a lot of practice.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  25. Re:Very complicated by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it was a Terry Pratchett reference: "He realized that not only was he not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he might even be a spoon".

  26. Stuff like the make me so mad I could just... by Roachie · · Score: 1

    sit down and write a very terse letter to my congress-person expressing my disappointment.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  27. Re:Very complicated by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    It matters a little. It's hard to use illegally gathered information against you in court.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  28. trailblazer technically defunct, they use by decora · · Score: 1

    an unnamed project called by Bush after it was revealed the "terrorist surveillance program" (not its real name)

    the NSA also uses pieces of the earlier Thinthread project, but with their privacy and anonmyization guts ripped out

    the newest IT system (and/or "transformation system") they have is 'Turbulence', which includes offensive capabilities according to James Bamford's "Shadow Factory"

  29. they also catch soldiers phone sex with their by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    wives back home. while they are deployed to afghanistan. at least according to Bamford's "Shadow Factory" (citing Adrienne Kinney, a former intelligence worker who was at an NSA in Georgia)

  30. thank you for posting by decora · · Score: 1

    if only more insiders were willing to speak out...

  31. Re:Very complicated by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

    Imagine the chaos with a spork.

  32. ??? you realize by decora · · Score: 1

    how many great artists and scientists have been at some time or another, drunk and/or homeless?

    1. Re:??? you realize by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      how many great artists and scientists have been at some time or another, drunk and/or homeless?

      And most of those nobody even heard of before their deaths. Could be doing their posthumous career a favor.

  33. I am old enough to know.... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    This shit never ends....

    My regret, I'll be dead before spaces is opened up.

    Another attempt another place to get it right.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  34. Re:Very complicated by Ohrion · · Score: 4, Informative

    In court? Spying agencies don't need to bother with court. They can get information to the right people to effect the change they desire.

  35. Re:Follow Me by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

    I avoid doing anything illegal

    There are so many laws in the states these days, it's impossible to know for certain you haven't done anything illegal. If someone watches you for long enough, they WILL find something to nail your ass to the ground for.

  36. Re:Have Authority != Do Anyway by element-o.p. · · Score: 1
    Obviously, you didn't read TFA:

    "There are certain circumstances where that authority may exist," even if the NSA has no warrant to investigate a the [sic] person whose privacy it is invading or global permission to eavesdrop on everyone, according to Matthew Olsen, the NSA's general counsel.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  37. Hmm. Complicated. by StickyWidget · · Score: 1
    Probably cross-border listening stations intercepting calls from US numbers, that just happen to be within the US at the time. Whoops.

    The only complicated part of this is the 'find some jackass to give a legal justification'.

    ~Sticky

  38. Re:Very complicated by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like Hoover and the FBI. Everything is cylical in nature indeed.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  39. You say potato, I say potahto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And any of this matters how? Historically, all of the collective of government spy agencies (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), has made sharing of information opaque. Its not a 'request for information on a form', its a fat pipe 24/7/365 data stream. Now all of these countries have governments that strictly forbid that these agencies do not spy on the country they are in: The NSA does not spy on citizens within the United States, the GCHQ does not spy on citizens within the UK, the CSE does not spy on citizens within Canada, the DSD does not spy on citizens within Australia, and the GCSB does not spy on citizens within New Zealand. There are no laws stopping the NSA from spying on Australia, Canada, UK or New Zealand. There are no laws stopping the CSE from spying on the US, UK or NZ or Australia. There are no laws stopping the GCHQ from spying on Australia, Canada, US or NZ. There are no laws stopping the DSD from spying on US, UK, Canada, or NZ. There are no laws stopping the GCSB from spying on Australia, US, UK or Canada. So if there happens to be information on the big fat data pipe that runs 24/7/365 that happens to be intercepted from 'partner agencies' about people outside of your normal mandate, then you didn't obtain it from within, and you didn't spy on locals, you just received intel from partner agencies about your own backyard. According to agreements, all of the information gathered from partner agencies is fair game.
    Sincerely, Anonymous Coward.

    1. Re:You say potato, I say potahto... by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that most countries have laws prohibiting spying by foreign agents on their citizens, otherwise espionage would not be a crime. :)

  40. Re:Very complicated by blair1q · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't happen. The GOP cut funding for socialist utensils in the last budget.

  41. Complicated reasoning. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With a warrant, any cop can do this.

    Why is it either a surprise or a scare that the NSA can, with what is bound to be much higher standards for justification (as long as the Republicans aren't in the White House, in which case justification involves merely setting up plausible deniability)?

    1. Re:Complicated reasoning. by ThermalRunaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as a Republican isn't in the White House? I suppose you have read all the new NSA directives since Obama has been in office that have upped the standard? Or are you referring to that time Obama signed the extension of the Patriot Act. Definitely higher standards there.

      Its the same from both sides, don't obscure the truth that the gov in general is running around destroying privacy and other rights while people fight about what side of some random carpeted aisle the idea came from...

    2. Re:Complicated reasoning. by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      With a warrant, any cop can do this.

      They can't with me, cause I don't drive around with my cell phone turned on.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:Complicated reasoning. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm thinking of starting an organization, perhaps to be named "Fuck you, esse!" to hit both the Mexican drug war started by US policies, and also for the inverse LXPK-type reference. Anyway, the idea is this: produce devices that communicate with other devices, over whatever fucking infrastructure, with the communications being uninterceptable. Then, either laugh all the way to the bank -- or to the wrong side of the grass. (Which is why I'm no longer thinking of starting it.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:Complicated reasoning. by Syberz · · Score: 1

      Standards? You really think that the NSA needs anything more than a hunch to do this?

      --
      ~Syberz
  42. Re:Have Authority != Do Anyway by Roachie · · Score: 1

    The 'certain circumstances' would be if the SUPER ELITE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY( DUMP duh duh duh DUMP dup duh duh DUMP...) would want go to to the trouble of humbling itself before the Justice Department in order to preserve liberty of some fuckin terrist.

    Dammit, Jack, what if its nokler next time?

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  43. You could have asked anyone... by Titanarm · · Score: 2

    Anyone within the intelligence community could have been able to "speak intelligently about it off the cuff'. It is clearly spelled out in Executive Order 12333. Everyone within the intelligence community is given yearly reinforcement training on it.

    The most important part that is emphasized during the training is that the US Intelligence Community cannot collect or maintain intelligence information on US citizens or those assumed to be US citizens (anyone physically in the US is considered a US citizen unless it is known that they are not) unless they are suspected of working for a foreign "entity".

    Therefore, if that person is suspected or known to be working for a foreign entity, the information can be maintained.

    There are no legal consequences if it's found that a US intelligence agency accidentally (or incidentally) collected information on a US citizen (think phone call between foreign person and US person), that information is purged from the system, and if related to a crime given to the FBI. There is only a legal consequence if the US continues to maintain the information once it's found and confirms that the US person doesn't fit the criteria in order to keep it. Keep in mind that most of the information that the NSA collects is never reviewed by a human and so isn't looked at to try and figure out if it involves a US person.

    Also note that there is nothing that prohibits the US from giving the "incidentally" collected information to US allies who would, of course, share it with us at our request. The executive order only says that the US cannot maintain it.

    1. Re:You could have asked anyone... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Murphy's law, anyone?

      That 99% of the intelligence gathering community is following the law to the letter is wonderful, but does not account for the damage that the 1% that are not following the law are doing. In so far as when things tend to go wrong, they go wrong catastrophically, you only need one agent in charge of important information to completely destroy the reason for having the agency in the first place. It's essentially a form of asymmetric warfare.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  44. Re:"May" ?? +3, Anonymous by gknoy · · Score: 1

    Yours In Miami,
    Anonymous

    ... but not to the NSA.

  45. A Scanner Darkly, Herd management by handy_vandal · · Score: 2

    The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.

    This is true. I expect that machines are sifting as fast as they can, and people are rapidly eyeballing the results (or listening to audio keyword excerpts at high speed) for human judgements. Something like what Phil Dick described in A Scanner Darkly.

    Consider also that analysis of collective behavior can be useful in a variety of ways: controlling the individuals as a herd saves you the trouble of controlling the individuals as individuals.

    --
    -kgj
  46. Re:Very complicated by techoi · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem at this point isn't the Republicans or the Democrats. The problem is the Republicans AND the Democrats. Don't matter who is in charge.

  47. Re:Very complicated by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    That's why I prefer the term Republicrats. We stopped having a two party system a long time ago. Instead now we have a shell game and most of the sheeple eat it up.

  48. Too wordy, here's the short version. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    the NSA 'may', under 'certain circumstances' have the authority to track U.S. citizens by intercepting location data from cell phones, but it's 'very complicated.'

    "When we REALLY REALLY want to."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  49. I pity anyone monitoring me by bb5ch39t · · Score: 1

    They will die of boredom. M-F - go to work/go home. Sat: go grocery shopping, go home. Sunday: go to church, go home. At home: surf Internet, mainly technology sites. This site is one of the "extremist" sites I go to. Damn, I'm boring.

  50. An Important Message from YOUR NSA by Roachie · · Score: 1

    How about those #regional_sporting_team ... abend( meme_tag_replace() ) I think they are going to have a good season!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  51. Re:Very complicated by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There's also a lot of ideological lag. Remember Chaplin was harrassed and even framed at great expense to the taxpayer in the 1950s because he was an outspoken anti-fascist. There's something truly comical about security agencies pretending that a millionaire hollywood studio owner was a communist and then having to change tack before everyone laughed them out of a job.

  52. Why is anyone surprised by this? by Desmoden · · Score: 2

    Of course they track and watch some Americans. Some Americans are trying to do some very bad things. Simply being a US Citizen does not (unfortunately) mean you don't want to do harm.

    Does it need to be done carefully? yes
    Does it need oversight? YES
    Could it be abused? yes
    Can we stop doing it? no
    Do we really want them to stop it? NO

    it's not like after this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project they just gave up that line of thought and went on to other things =)

    1. Re:Why is anyone surprised by this? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Supposedly, there's FBI for taking care of US citizens who mean to do harm. NSA is restricted by law to deal with foreign communcations only.

    2. Re:Why is anyone surprised by this? by Scott+Scott · · Score: 1

      NSA is restricted by law to deal with foreign communcations only.

      Too bad the NSA acts outside the law.

  53. Re:Very complicated by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.

    Sure they have. Can't handle pork with a spoon.

  54. if you are named... by nten · · Score: 1

    If any of your names are Hussein, you are being surveiled, no exceptions...

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  55. Re:Republicans - silly guys by Roachie · · Score: 1

    I don't think there have been very many successful legal defenses based on silly little Constitutional rules.

    Look, its the courts rodeo, and they ride in it day in and day out. They know there is a thing called a Bill of Rights and to them its a pesky nuisance at best.

    Think about it -Obama used to TEACH Constitutional Law at UofC One more time, for effect: He used to TEACH... CONSTITUTIONAL... LAW...

    Then he becomes prezdent and violates the War Powers Act, introduces legislation to requires you to buy a product from a third entity, etc... etc... etc...

    I'll wait while the reader digests this, perhaps new, information...

    It not that they dont know better and it's not that they're crazy, they just don't give a shit anymore.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  56. Re:Very complicated by Serpents · · Score: 1

    Everything is cylical in nature indeed.

    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again

  57. Rupert Murdoch by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    What should the citizens be more worried about, a private company violating their privacy by hacking their phones or their government violating their privacy by doing the same?

    I know what I am more worried about, and it's not a private business (though, of-course, a private business that works with the government is another thing altogether.)

  58. sheeple? by samjam · · Score: 1

    When you use the word sheeple you start the us/them falacy which made wolves out of the previous users of the word.

    1. Re:sheeple? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      When you use the word sheeple you start the us/them falacy which made wolves out of the previous users of the word.

      When you use the word sheeple you reveal to the world that you are a twat.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  59. Re:Treasonous Spies! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I hereby declare those laws unconstitutional.

    Arrest the NSA!

    You are so on their shit list now.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  60. Re:Very complicated by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    I'm going to also assume they've acquired dirt on most of Congress as well as the President and most presidential candidates, as a way to prevent their funding from being taken.

    When did the conversation about Murdoch and his tactics move west of the Atlantic?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  61. 83% of Americans shocked by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Based on a survey of American cell phones, the NSA said today that approximately 83% of the citizens were shocked to discover the NSA is listening in on their phones. NSA spokesman David Koch said, "That shows that only 17% of the population is real Americans and that half of those are illegal immigrants" (the kind of people who built America).

  62. Re:Very complicated by muckracer · · Score: 1

    > Can't handle pork with a spoon.

    Correct! That's what the spork is for. :-)

  63. color me shocked by bstender · · Score: 1

    and surprised...here i totally thought we were a nation of laws made by the people for the people. one would think that domestic surveillance would only be necessary for a regime that doesnt serve its people but rather operates solely to enrich a tiny elite.

    how weird is that! must be a mistake, they must only do it to protect us, yeah, that must be it.

    --
    look sig is kool