Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Ordered To Provide All Customer Data To NSA

Rick Zeman writes "According to Wired, an order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court '...requires Verizon to give the NSA metadata on all calls within the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries on an "ongoing, daily basis" for three months.' Unlike orders in years past, there's not even the pretense that one of the parties needed to be in a foreign country. It is unknown (but likely) that other carriers are under the same order."

33 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking! by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but I am shocked! *ONLY* 3 months?

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Shocking! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It repeats every 3 months. It'd be illegal if it were longer, but an indefinately repeating 3 month order is not indefinite. So say the people who extend copyright 50 years every 49 years for a new, longer "limited" time.

    2. Re:Shocking! by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This seems unlikely to be a focused surveillance effort

      Yeah, I think collecting logs of all calls made by 70+ million people for 3 months pretty much rules out "focused surveillance" ;)

    3. Re:Shocking! by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody reported that one of their friends heard that a Muslim had just signed up with Verizon.

      The NSA is just trying to track him down.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Shocking! by doctor+woot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody reported that one of their friends heard that a Muslim had just signed up with Verizon.

      The NSA is just trying to track him down.

      Don't be ridiculous, that's what the drones are for.

    5. Re:Shocking! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only real surprise is that the NSA needs Verison to give it to them.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Shocking! by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Verizon already collects all this data. Is that unconstitutional? Verizon is probably only upset about this because they normally SELL this data and the gov't is forcing them to hand it over for free. That's the real outrage here. The NSA should pay for it just like everyone else.

    7. Re:Shocking! by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. This battle was lost more than 30 years ago in Smith v. Maryland. Metadata (number called, time, etc.) on calls, collected and stored by phone companies in the normal course of business, has no 4th amendment protection and the acquisition of it does not require a warrant.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  2. What would happen if they required names? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although Verizon is not required to hand over caller subscriber information under the order, this doesn’t mean the NSA can’t identify the owners of phone numbers on its own. Intelligence and data collected from other sources can help match the names of accountholders to the numbers collected in the sweep.

    This is a puzzle. What magic line would they cross by demanding names as well, when the amount of information they already require is enough to determine the individuals involved in a call and then some. This smells of a careful exclusion crafted by the AG or some such to skirt a law.

    1. Re:What would happen if they required names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although Verizon is not required to hand over caller subscriber information under the order, this doesnâ(TM)t mean the NSA canâ(TM)t identify the owners of phone numbers on its own. Intelligence and data collected from other sources can help match the names of accountholders to the numbers collected in the sweep.

      This is a puzzle. What magic line would they cross by demanding names as well, when the amount of information they already require is enough to determine the individuals involved in a call and then some. This smells of a careful exclusion crafted by the AG or some such to skirt a law.

      What did you expect when laws are made by lawyers, a profession whose sole job description is to find technicalities and loopholes that either excuse behavior that citizens would find abhorrent, or criminalize behavior that citizens find acceptable. What we used to call "torture" and "eavesdropping" are now legal because they're not technically torture or eavesdropping. Videotaping a cop beating a citizen is technically eavesdropping in many states, however, and after you've dealt with the criminal charge, if the cop was singing "Stop Resisting" to the tune of "Happy Birthday", you're still civilly liable for copyright infringement.

      "Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
      - Meringuoid, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454

      It's almost like these technicalities were intended to be abused from the day they were introduced to the House floor.

  3. Don't worry by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure it will only be for 3 months and certainly they would not ask again. It is only a one time thing, of that you can rest easy, citizen.

  4. The full story and the court order at The Guardian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The full story, with link to the court order, is at The Guardian -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

  5. Re:Second amandment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The military has bigger guns, but the members of the military are citizens too. Asking the military to kill their friends and family and neighbors is not so simple a task as you might think.

  6. Tip of the iceberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Verizon data is the tip of the iceberg, this is a tiny leak, it only covers an FBI request, it doesn't cover the full data grab. Congressmen, Ron Wyden, Mark Udall etc., ex CIA, everyone keeps hinting at the extent of the data grab and people go into denial about it.

    Other data being grabbed:
    1. URLs visited, times and ip addresses (sniffed from the network intercepts put in in post 2001)
    2. Email headers (right there in the pipe)
    3. Linkage data, you sent the email from that iPad/Android tablet? Theres the link between IP address and email address (right there in the pipe).
    4. Search data, https is no obstacle to a FISA warrant.
    5. Billing records of the phone, the identity of the user of the phone, data linking to their email address etc.
    6. Visa/Mastercard/Credit Card/Paypal/WesternUnion, ATM data,.....
    7. Bank transactions, (and not just the SWIFT data the EU handed them), handed over under excuse of 'laundering'
    8. Facebook, all visible data and all deleted data
    9. What you said on slashdot, even as AC, including drafts
    10. What you said on every public website on every blog, on everything linked to your ip address and in turn linked to your real id.
    11. Every public'ly buyable database
    12. Your voting preference (already well analysed for political parties)
    13. Your IRS data
    14. The contents of all email older than 6 months.
    15. Add that to the Verizon data (where you are, who you called, when)

    It's a zoo, you're in a cage and those creepy guys outside staring at you, they're your zoo keepers.

    Be careful what you say, to whom, who you're with when you say it, re-read you emails with a jaundice eye, can it be misconstrued by a malicious actor?
    Are you outside the USA? Do you think you're immune?! Have they got any lever on your elected politicians? Is he a puppet now?

    Could you, or have you ever upset anyone with access to that surveillance data?
    Have you ever expressed views that might cause you to be targetted by anyone with access to that surveillance data?

    Have you expressed pro-gun views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is pro-gun?
    Have you expressed anti-gun views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is anti-gun?
    Have you expressed strong Republican views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is Republican?
    Have you expressed strong Democrat views? Do you imagine every creep with access to your private data is a Democrat?

    The only safe views to hold in a surveillance state are bland views. Be grey, keep your head down, express no strong views. Do nothing of note have friends who do nothing of note.

    Don't think, that just because you're doing nothing illegal, that you're safe.
    Having an affair is not illegal, yet General Patraeus was outed by on FBI agent Fred Humphries as a favor to a friend!
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/holly-petraeus-scott-broadwell-silent-petraeus-scandal/story?id=17718793

    And in retaliation his supporters outed General Allen for having an affair with the FBI agents friend, and leaked photos (taken from surveillance of his friend) of a picture of him shirtless he sent her.

    Do you really think you've done nothing wrong? That you have nothing to hide?
    I'm pretty sure your data contains enough to lose you your job, end your marriage, lose custody of your children.

  7. But I'm a democrat.. by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After many years of travel and living in other countries, my political views shifted from right to left and I felt myself to a "liberal" democrat.
    Like so many others, I was caught up in the whole "hope" for change with Mr. Obama.
    One could say that regarding the police state, he is worse than nearly all who came before him, but I think that is missing the point. Democrat, Republican, I have come to the realization that it makes not difference at all. The system is simply designed to abuse.
    The alphabet soup agencies do not care who is the present. After all, they will still be there after the President is long gone and the next fellow seeking ever greater powers replaces him.
    So, does it really matter who you vote for?
    I really doubt it. The folks who have enough cash to even register with voters are all part of the same socioeconomic class. Classes look out for their own, not for other classes.
    I suspect things will get much, much worse before they ever get better. At least if history is any indication of the future.
    Good luck citizens.

    1. Re:But I'm a democrat.. by Specter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Money has nothing to do with it. Money is the symptom. Power is the problem, specifically consolidation of power at the national level. Money follows power. We've allowed way too much power to be consolidated at the national level. Every single problem we're talking about here can be traced to that.

      In theory we could ameliorate the problem by returning to the original intent of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. In practice, I see no way for that to happen since ALL of the political actors involved want further consolidation not less. For special interests, it's way more efficient to lobby the federal government rather than 50 state governments. For federal politicians, consolidating power increases their ability to sell their power off to the special interests. Rank-and-file members of team red and team blue both want more power consolidated at the federal level to better push their respective ideological agendas (both of which are rooted in the idea that the hoi polloi can't be trusted to know what's good for them).

      You can continue to rail against money in politics but until you address the disease instead of the symptom you're wasting our time and your breath.

  8. Which amendment would you like to lose today? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how there's such a huge passionate uproar about supposed loss of second amendement rights, but comparitively little concern about actual loss of fourth amendment rights...

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by Starteck81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny how there's such a huge passionate uproar about supposed loss of second amendement rights, but comparitively little concern about actual loss of fourth amendment rights...

      Actually I make a very big deal about the second amendment because I care so much about the other amendments. The second is the last line of defense in the protection of the others. It is the only amendment that gives the people a physical recourse should the three branches of government fail to up hold the Constitution.

      While were on the topic, the people that said they didn't want universal background checks because they feared a national registry could be constructed seem less like silly now, don't they?

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    2. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "USA military is by far the strongest military in the world"

      And look how bogged down it got against peasants and farmers in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

      Your argument is amusing.

    3. Re:Which amendment would you like to lose today? by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.

      Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years! Now consider this:

      Afghanistan 647,500 sq km 30 M people
      USA(lower 48) 8,080,464 sq km 306M people

      What makes you think an advanced military is going to be more successful fighting against guys with rifles and IEDs in a country with 12X the land area and 10X the number of people? How many government buildings in that area? How would they even begin to deploy their forces to guard every single one of them.

      Your ignorance is that you assume the resistance fighters would gather together in a group, identify themselves and try to fight military forces in a head to head clash of arms. That's idiotic. In a real scenario, they would operate in small groups, attack soft targets and then blend back in with the population. If the government forces tried to use their advanced weapons, they'd end up killing a bunch of innocent civilians, which only foments hatred against the government and fuels the insurgency.

      If you need more food for thought, look at the time, resources and manpower the government expended on this Dorner guy in California. ONE GUY with a few firearms. Now imagine 100,000 Dorners spread all around the country. Where is government going to find the manpower to fight that? How are they going to finance this war on the American people when they are already bankrupt? The people fighting them sure as hell won't be paying taxes.

      Then there's the question of how many soldiers and law enforcement officers will actually obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens.

      We have the Second Amendment, not so that a group of yahoos can take over the government, but so a POPULAR uprising can resist and depose a tyrannical government.

      For further reference:

      "The War of the Flea" by Tabor
      "Understanding 4th Generation War" by William Lind

  9. They told me this would happen.. by ams-maverick · · Score: 5, Funny

    if I voted for Romney. And they were right.

  10. 143,364 similar FISA warrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

    Since 2004, when they started spying on Americans, there have been 143,364 FISA warrants, similar to this one, applying to Americans.

    This is one warrant among 143364 similar warrants. 0.0006975% of the warrants.

    1. Re:143,364 similar FISA warrants by kasperd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the document it forbids Verizon from discussing the letter, even with legal.

      If I was the one receiving such a letter, I can see three options for how to deal with it.

      • Ask legal to translate the letter to English for me
      • Escalate it up the managment path as far as necessary.
      • Tell the sender they reached the wrong person, and ask them to instead send it to [address of somebody in legal].

      Complying with the letter without questioning is not an option, because I do not have the necessary knowledge to know if that would be legal, or to even tell if the letter was legitimate.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  11. It could easily be focused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like everyone else, I have no idea what they're doing, but no, it doesn't rule out focused surveillance. It could easily be a way to obscure who they're surveilling, so that Verizon, for example, has no way of knowing which customer they're interested in.

    Say I'm a burglar, and I want to know when you're not home. When you're not home, is the best time to break into your house and take all your stuff.

    One strategy is to stand outside your house, staring at it. You come out, we stare at each other for a few nervous seconds, and then you drive off. Aha, you're not home now. So I begin picking the lock on your door. The last thing I think, before you smash in the back of my head with a shovel, is how clever I was to make sure you had left. I was too fuckwitted to think you might be curious by our earlier staring encounter, and that you drove around the block, parked, and came to see WTF I was up to.

    Another strategy is that I hang out at a major intersection, seemingly taking notice of every car that passes by. Little do you (or anyone else) know, yours was the one I was interested in. You don't it's it's suspicious at all, to drive by someone standing by the side of the road a mile from your house. That guy was just looking at all the cars going by. Not focused at all, huh? Then how come your house is the one I emptied that day?

    If wired leaks a story about how Verizon was forwarding records about Dahamma to NSA, then you know they're watching you. If wired has a story about how Verizon is forwarding records about Dahamma plus a hundred million other people to the NSA, well shit, that wasn't about you. Nothing to be nervous about. They're not out to get you; they're out to get everyone.

    Or maybe they're really out to get just you.

  12. When I watched V for Vendetta years ago... by Camael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...I remember thinking that no sane citizens of any democratic country would ever allow the the state to amass such abusive and intrusive powers.

    And then, I read today's Slashdot article.

    So, given that it was bad under Bush, and is now worse under Obama, it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail. Is anarchy the only solution then?

  13. Xbox One = NSA spy platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NSA spying on all electronic communication is (very) old news. Microsoft's Xbox One (increasingly known as the XBone) has been designed from the ground up to massively increase the surveillance abilities of the NSA.

    The new console has 8 CPU cores and 8GB of memory. It actually runs as two distinct computers, with two CPU cores and up to 3GB of RAM forming a special 'Kinect' computer system that has its own OS, and is continuously processing the input from the Kinect sensor systems, regardless of what the user is currently using the console for (including AAA games that appear to NOT use the Kinect sensors in any way).

    The Kinect computer is constantly generating snapshots of data from the camera and microphone array, and stores these snapshots as encrypted files in a dedicated area of the enclosed HDD. These snapshots include full face photographs of each new person who enters the room. The Kinect computer is designed to compare sound and video/image data with a signature list (that can be changed and updated remotely), so that full video and sound recording can be triggered if the signature patterns are matched. This data can be either stored on the HDD (again, as encrypted streams) or immediately streamed to a remote server over the Internet if the console is currently online.

    Signature triggers can include things like gunshots or sounds of explosions, people talking in a given language (say Arabic), or a man shouting at a woman.

    Signatures can also (thanks to the body movement recognition ability of Kinect) represent given physical actions by people (for instance, two people engaging in love-making). Yes, you read that correctly- the Xbox One can be set to start streaming video to any remote server on the Internet if it detects people having sex in front of the camera.

    Most 'signatures' are quite small pieces of data, and the console can have many thousands of signatures active at any time. Usually triggering a signature will allow an actual Human to remotely inspect some of the snapshot data being constantly generated to determine whether to activate full streaming. This practice is similar to that used by the NSA for decades when spying on ALL phonecalls- phonecalls are also routed through signature systems, and those that trigger on any signature are flagged for immediate inspection (although ALL phonecalls are actually recorded and later subject to much deeper mining).

    The NSA (and other security services around the globe) have long dreamed of placing their spying equipment into the homes of every citizen. Mobile phones have gone some way to achieving this (the NSA collects, where practical, all the image data captured on mobile phones, but this is obviously severely limited by the bandwidth issues). The Xbox One puts a dream spy system into the living rooms of millions of people, together with massive amounts of mains powered computing resources to pre-process the data captured.

    Microsoft demands that ALL applications and games have some Kinect functionality to encourage owners to keep the Kinect bar fully 'calibrated'. The Kinect system CANNOT ever be deactivated. If the Kinect sensors report any failure, the console refuses to run games/applications. If the sensors detect any problem with visibility (like tape over the cameras, or Kinect turned to face a wall), the console pesters the user to recalibrate the system. One can start a game, and then block the cameras in some sense, but research by Microsoft and the NSA has determined that people willing to buy the Xbox One, even if they are aware of the worst stories about invasion of privacy, will cease taking any measures to protect their privacy after only a couple of weeks of ownership.

    Conversely, those who are prepared to ALWAYS block the cameras when not using a 'Kinect' game, or those who forego Kinect functionality altogether and permanently 'blind' the sensors will prove to be the tiniest minority, and can be safely considered to be no different from those who refuse to buy the console in the first plac

  14. Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently DHS can search laptops and phones based on "hunches" as well.

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently DHS can search laptops and phones based on "hunches" as well.

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      Aided and abetted by resources made available by the Bush Administration.

      This is why rabid partisans - among others - should be careful what they wish for. They may get it, only to discover that it ends up in the hands of the other side.

      But no matter which side holds them, we all lose.

    3. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I find it hilarious how many people absolutely hated Bush, and now love Obama, despite the fact that Bush and Obama are really pretty similar as power grabbing politicians. But then again, most people vote based on solely R or D, so I guess it's not surprising.

    4. Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not a generally paranoid person, but damn it all to hell. You've got the DOJ and it appears members of the Obama administration targeting "enemies" and now you've got them on a run with them being able to do taps because of whatever they feel like. And people called Bush bad? This is right out of "how to create your own dictatorship." What's next? Said enemies start to disappear because they're not toeing the Obama line.

      And are the Republicans in Congress busy applying checks and balances to stop this? No. But they are outraged about the IRS thing in Ohio. Outraged, I tell you.

      Did the Democrats set a precedent for reigning in a President when Bush started pushing the surveillance beyond what was legal and Constitutional? Did they challenge the "Unitary Executive" concept? No.

      Are the pure-as-driven-snow Paul boys out there putting their asses on the line to expose and stop this overreach? No.

      I guess Ron Wyden occasionally makes a little peep, but you know, because of "national security" he's not at liberty to divulge what he knows. Bullshit. Oath to uphold the Constitution overrules that. Or not.

      Will voting someone else in as President fix this? No, not if Congress isn't willing to keep them honest. We can't rely on some pinkie-swear by candidate-whoever to safeguard our Constitutional principles and not exceed their authority once they realize there's no penalty if they do. The division of government was supposed to prevent this kind of thing, because each branch would jealously guard their powers from the other two. This got broken.

      The President -- and by that I mean whoever's in the office -- doesn't have "Enemies" in Congress to go after. They're all in on it. It's got more bi-partisan support than baseball and apple pie.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  15. Solution is smaller government / reduced spending by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail.

    Not if you consistently vote in people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government.

    As you say, all roads lead to the same place. But a smaller government with a smaller budget can simply only do so much. The smaller the amount of money the government gets the less money there is to track everyone, store data on everyone, or funnel money back out of government to private citizens who helped elect people.

    It truly is the ONLY way to limit the reduction of potential harm from the system.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. Re:Solution is smaller government / reduced spendi by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Not if you consistently vote in people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government."

    I've seen a lot of mouthy political bullshit along these lines, but no actual politicians who are interested in implementing it (lots and lots of politicians who want to reduce spending in areas they don't like, while increasing it for areas they do, however).