Slashdot Mirror


Can Commercial Storage Services Handle the NSA's Metadata?

itwbennett writes "In a review of NSA surveillance last month, President Obama called for a new approach on telephony metadata that will 'establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.' Obama said that a third party holding all the data in a single, consolidated database would be essentially doing what is a government function, and may not increase public confidence that its privacy is being protected. Now, an RFI (request for information) has been posted to get information on U.S. industry's commercially available capabilities, so that the government can investigate alternative approaches."

14 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. And? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    And what if some commercial storage vendor can't or won't handle the NSA's metadata archiving requirements?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:And? by similar_name · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you can't trust an NSA contractor, who can you trust?

  2. Give it to a private contractor. In Hawaii. by dsmithhfx · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the only was to be sure.

  3. Not really a technology problem by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is less of a technology problem than a policy question. The technology exists to build secure databases and make it accessible to only one remote client. The real controversy is over collecting the data, and who holds it. Private companies don't want to do it. Many are against the NSA, and by extension the Federal government doing it. If only there was somewhere in the middle, between the Federal government and private industry...

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Not really a technology problem by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      Well, one of the numerous problems with this whole situation is we can't rely on anything the govt, or the companies involved, have to say. Are these companies really against this, or do they just see the need to pretend to publicly? And even if they really are against it, would that change for sufficient compensation?

      Either way, privatization is not going to make the underlying problems (such as much of the program being unconstitutional) go away.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  4. Yes by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given enough money.

    Once the USA government asks for bids on this, you will get many companies wanting a share on this juicy contract. This is supposed to be with the intention of increasing security, but just wait a couple of years and stories will start to pop up as to how corners have been cut to turn a few extra dollars with the result that this data becomes available to all sorts.

    1. Re:Yes by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm sure one of the usual defense contractors built all the stuff the NSA is using in the first place, so having one build and run it someplace else doesn't seem like a problem. It just doesn't really seem like a solution either. How does moving around the lines on the org chart fix this issue?

  5. Why even consider it? by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a bluff. A feint. A thinly veiled threat. It's not intended to actually come to pass. One of the things Obama proposed is to move the keys to the friggin kingdom from government controlled servers to nebulous "third parties". And in the very same damn speech he pointed out how this would be a ludicrously bad idea.

    (Well, I mean, he also suggested that the telcom companies who move this data keep it until the NSA asks for it. That or third parties. I don't mean to harp on a stray comment or anything.)

    But let me spell out the subtext here for anyone that can't read between the lines: If you try and keep the government from storing this data, we'll just go find someone else to hold it. And my, my, my, doesn't that sound just simply horrible? Be a REAL SHAME if someone were to try and enforce that 4th amendment 'round here.

    Also, fuck beta. I have no way to tell if someone responded to me other than looking at that specific thread.

  6. This entire system is so f-ed up by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so they want to store everything passing across the lines that they deem suspicious, promise us that no one will look at it with a warrant, then if you're ever suspected of something they can go back and find all your communications over the past X years. And, since the feds don't want the blame for holding onto this information (and looking as Big Brother-ish as they are), they want private industry to pony up the disk space? I'd almost trust the NSA more to house this info since they'll only snoop in on my conversations when I post/say a flagged word/phrase. Wheraeas I KNOW private companies will as soon as they figure out how they can commoditize it.

    It's Orwellian enough seeing Google spam me with ads based on my email conversations.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:This entire system is so f-ed up by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, so they want to store everything passing across the lines that they deem suspicious,

      No. Not really.
      They really do want to store everything passing across the lines. Period. The "deeming suspicious" part only comes into play once they get a warrant to go look at the data they've already collected and stored.

      The up-side to this idea is that the NSA isn't holding onto the data that they promise they're not looking at without a warrant. That's about it.

      The down-side to this is that we SURE AS SHIT can't trust a third party to not look in the box. This third party is also implicitly alerted to who the NSA is investigating and when. That information alone is itself sensitive and not the sort of thing to be trusted to a third party.

      Of course, you know, I guess I could extrapolate my answer and cut down your sentence even further:

      OK, so they want to store everything

  7. It doesn't matter. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    They probably can, given enough money, but 'the capabilities they need' are actually quite modest. The metadata program has no legitimate utility, so just write me a check for half a billion, and I'll build a machine that sits idle and is not connected to the internet, let alone accessible by the NSA. I've solved your problem with equal efficacy and far reduced cost.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  8. Wrong question. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can they? Sure. It's not as though the private sector can't store data, if provided with the right incentives. Heck, AT&T is providing the DEA with access to nearly three decades of call records, plus consulting expertise, right now!

    Trouble is, that was never the fucking point. Do people want the NSA collecting a giant database about them? No. Does it make the slightest difference if the giant database is nominally Verizon's giant database, that just so happens to respond to all queries from the NSA? Aside from the greater likelihood that the database will be used for marketing and surveillance, not a bit. The ostensible '3rd party' won't remain at arm's length for long. Why would they? An entire organization with a single customer, dedicated to shovelling data toward them on command? Instant capture. The only time the 3rd party will be 'independent' is if somebody asks the NSA what that 3rd party is up to, in which case they'll oh-so-innocently-have-no-idea-what-that-independent-entity-does. For all other purposes, they'll be joined at the hip.

  9. god, people are retards.. by strstr · · Score: 3, Funny

    The meta-data information provided by the President is a fucking cover story for hiding their spy games program. It's already been exposed that they are doing much more than saving meta-data; they're collecting word for word, every communication domestically and foreign, saving the content of our communications.

    Lets focus on the meta-data for a minute thing: according to Bill Binney, previous NSA director on technology that helped design the system, anybody can store meta-data and equipment that fits inside a 20 by 12 foot room. FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS, WORLD WIDE. So of course Verizon, AT&T, and these others douches can store this information. In a room probably the size of 5 by 5, because they'll be storing it themselves ; and providers are already storing this information anyway, which has been available for law enforcement use for some time. The Bluffdale data center in Utah is big enough to store 100 years of content data though, .. which means they're using it to store actual profiles and content of people, not just meta-data. Details @ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb... "NSA Collects ‘Word for Word’ Every Domestic Communication, Says Former Analyst"

    On top of that, they have a massive satellite and radar system with a variety of capabilities, which is being used to target Americans during continuous black operations. Mind reading capability, tracking from space, watching our movements wherever we are. look at the details @ http://www.oregonstatehospital...

  10. Metadata by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Seriously, all your data is perfectly safe. I have worked with GIS for 14 years. and I can tell your conclusively that absolutely no one reads metadata. :)