Slashdot Mirror
White House To Propose Ending NSA Phone Records Collection
The New York Times reported last night that the White House is planning to introduce a legislative package that would mostly end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. Instead, phone companies would be required to hand over records up to "two hops" from a target number. Phone companies would be required to retain records for 18 months (already legally mandated) instead of the NSA storing records for five years. It does not appear that secret courts and secret orders from the court would be abolished, however. From the article: "The new type of surveillance court orders envisioned by the administration would require phone companies to swiftly provide records in a technologically compatible data format, including making available, on a continuing basis, data about any new calls placed or received after the order is received, the officials said ... The administration’s proposal would also include a provision clarifying whether Section 215 of the Patriot Act, due to expire next year unless Congress reauthorizes it, may in the future be legitimately interpreted as allowing bulk data collection of telephone data. ... The proposal would not, however, affect other forms of bulk collection under the same provision."
This "call" no doubt falls into the same category of the Patriot Act Obama railed against as a Senator but has since expanded.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
The New York Times reported last night that the White House is planning to introduce a legislative package that would mostly end the NSA's bulk collection of phone records.
They have no intention of ending it, they just are forcing others to do it for them. Basically instead of you and I paying for the NSA to spy on us with tax dollars were going to pay the NSA to spy on us with our phone bills instead. Just because they privatize the burden of data collection doesn't mean they are ending anything.
Instead, phone companies would be required to hand over records up to "two hops" from a target number.
What this means in practice is that if you and I both call FedEx that is considered a "hop" and now our numbers are linked. They essentially can use any commonly called number to get to anyone else and you can cover a HUGE percentage of the population with a few common phone numbers. This is a "limitation" that really isn't a limitation.
I was in the US embassy a while ago to pick up a work visa.
There was a quote from one of the founding fathers, John Adams;
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
There is nothing safe about the Government having this power *because* it is the Government.
So, this new proposal changes where the records are stored, and not much else? The NSA can still get anything it wants with a warrant from a secret court, but now they won't have to go to the trouble of gathering the data directly.
Plus there's the bit where this new proposal would codify the legality of what the NSA has been doing (and will continue to do).
So about the only real functional change will be that the phone companies will be required to do the work for the NSA, plus the NSA will get a pass from the courts on the legality of the whole business, once it's declared legal by Congress.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This proposal will get a lot of publicity.
The "rejected" vote will come after the next elections and will be played down by the media...
No sig today...
Why all the focus on some archaic form of communication that's more a historical curiosity a few old people cling to than a relevant tool? I guess politicians are such old people? It'd be more interesting if they proposed a law to end bulk collection of Internet traffic.
These people -- the NSA, the House and Senate Intelligence Panels, and the President himself -- have LIED to the American people and our supposed allies at every possible turn during this process. They would have never even admitted these programs existed at all -- it was only Snowden's actions that forced their hands. Why the hell would anyone ever believe them now? We're to believe they're going to simply stop doing this? Without any real oversight or transparency? The sad thing is that most of my countrymen are stupid or apathetic enough (or both) to believe them.
Phone companies need call detail records ("CDR"s) to do their billing, which happens monthly. After thgat they have no business need for the data, and retaining it has been an "attractive nuisance", and tempted governments into demanding they hand it over.
The only good thing about this is the idea that, after getting a legal subpoena, the phone company will stream data about new calls. That's the valuable stuff when you're trying to catch a crook or spy, once you've identified them. Historical records are useful if you're trying to identify other possible crooks/spies, with some overlap between the two.
davecb@spamcop.net
In the above title, I had said "> 30 days", but /. removed the greater-than symbol
davecb@spamcop.net
That's funny. I could have sworn one of the hottest technologies around was a thing called a "cellphone".
I guess I must be old fashioned...
No sig today...
Considering most people use smart phones these days "phone records collection" I am sure can mean a lot of things. Not just who you call, but what is on your phone as well I reckon.
The issue they're describing is to do with voice call records.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I rarely use mine for phone calls.
This begs the quesion......if Snowden hadn't released this info, would this "change" be taking place? I wish I could say that this was an admission from the White House that what he did was right, but we know that's not the truth.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
>> planning to introduce a legislative package
Since when did Obama think a lawful path through Congress was a good option? Wasn't he the guy who said he'd work around our elected representatives to mandate the important things on his agenda?
Oh...I see. This is just a "planning to" press release. In other words, this is a BS trial balloon designed to get people off his back about the NSA without actually changing anything.
Well, I hate the NSA... but you're wrong there. I work for a telco and am involved in Billing software. There's plenty of reason to keep data around for a while. Disputes, bankruptcies, etc... not everyone pays their bill every month you know. But keep in mind, the only records we keep on call data are calls that cost the customer or the company money. So collect calls... long distance... etc... Keep data on local calls? Yea right... that's not even possible given that most switches are leftover from the 70s and quite literally have proprietary 20 megabyte drives (not kidding at all) If we had them log all calls, all day, they'd fill up in minutes.
We get around the limits by having scrips log in and dump the data daily to a database. To collect everything would be insane... we'd be scraping the switch every 5min and they are NOT fast. To do what they are proposing we'd have to convert every small town switch to a newer "soft-switch" and that would be a very expensive, very complicated project that would involve hundreds of people. We'd need government grants I'd imagine as it would likely bankrupt most small Telcos. I think that even AT&T would balk at this. I doubt they capture any more data that we do. If this does go through and the feds fund the expansion, it'd improve the countries phone network considerably but it would also increase the NSA's data collection capability several orders of magnitude. They'd have EVERYTHING... not just those calls that generate revenue.
Because everyone, rich or poor, East or West, has wound up waiting on hold with Comcast Customer Service for an hour to get told for the Nth time to reboot their router.
So you are one of those people (a not insignificant number) who find it an affront to actually speak to another person and instead chose to send some multiple of 10 text messages back and forth over an extended period of time to accomplish what would take 30 seconds by voice.
How long before text messages too are viewed ask ickky?
Phone companies need call detail records ("CDR"s) to do their billing, which happens monthly. After thgat they have no business need for the data, and retaining it has been an "attractive nuisance", and tempted governments into demanding they hand it over.
They still need it for billing disputes and the like. And of course, if they're not doing "big data" analyses of their own for commercial purposes, they're a lot different than, say, Amazon.
There is a significant advantage to having those records in phone company hands instead of government ones. If you have direct on-line access to data, any idle thought you might come up with is pretty much instantly exploitable. If the government has to go through a process - even a rubber-stamp FISA court - that reduces their ability to do large amounts of mischief in a short amount of time.
Bad enough that AT&T itself can plunder the data, considering how obnoxious they are, but at least I can select a somewhat less annoying carrier.
It's a lot easier than finding a less annoying government.
The NSA is part of the executive branch. President Obama could shut down the whole thing and fire everyone involved without needing to go through Congress. What he needs a law for is to find another way to do exactly what they're doing now.
If you want me to actually believe that you're changing, just issue the shutdown order.
That's funny. I could have sworn one of the hottest technologies around was a thing called a "cellphone".
Which, oddly enough, are mostly used to play social games, store apps, browse the internet, and check emails/texts. Notice phone plans went to unlimited voice when the shift from voice calls to data usage happened? I still use the phone...but I admit it is mostly work related now...and I am too old to be part of "generation Y". Voice calls are going to voip or being replaced with social media and text messaging. It concerns me as well that the government can pay lip service to us and claim they won't collect the voice calls...while still collecting the internet and voip traffic.
I think the Constitution must be respected! As it is now - far too much of it has been hijacked by the current AND previous government laws, we - the people, have certain inalienable rights. The government, the lawmakers serve the people - not the other way around.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Am I 'one of those people'?
Our experiences differ. I prefer email. Text messages are for hooking up down town.
Are you 'one of those people' who think that anyone who doesn't do things the way you do them is 'one of those people'?
With a smart phone you can communicate how you like no matter which one of 'those people' you happen to be.
Why all the focus on some archaic form of communication that's more a historical curiosity a few old people cling to than a relevant tool?
Usage statistics seem to say differently. The average adult (i.e., age 18 and over) cell phone owner makes or receives about 5 calls a day. People who send and receive lots of texts also make or receive a lot of phone calls. Cell phone ownership is heavily skewed toward the younger population, so it isn't a bunch of senior citizens making it look this way. With all due respect, perhaps you and your friends are outliers and a little out of touch with the real world.
I knew there would be some sort of loop hole. I never stoppped to think about a large corporation being counted in these hops.
Yeah, I didn't think of it either. Someone on NPR pointed this out the other day. Used to be they were allowed to go 3 hops but even without commonly called numbers 3 hops will get you to a HUGE number of people. (potentially 390,625 if my math is right) Now it is just 2 hops but when you include commonly called numbers like big corporations or government agencies like the IRS will get you pretty much to anyone. Hell, think about even something like your local pizza shop and how many people call them.
Why all the focus on some archaic form of communication that's more a historical curiosity a few old people cling to than a relevant tool? I guess politicians are such old people? It'd be more interesting if they proposed a law to end bulk collection of Internet traffic.
Because the phone records program is not likely the only program, we haven't seen any confirmation that they are also collecting logs of Internet use and emails or text messages, but the same arguments (and legal precedent) apply to those "meta" records as apply to phone records. But it seems less threatening to people to talk about phone records than telling them that all your emails, text messages and Internet Activity are being monitored by the government also.
The phone "meta" data debate has always appeared to be a red herring to distract from the total surveillance of all communications that is now being established.
How many people do telemarketers connect?
Outstanding question. My guess is a huge number.
I'm sure the NSA fully plans to adhere to these laws with zero oversight and their own personal secret court they use to fly in the face of democracy. They have such a proven track record in the past of adhering to laws and privacy.
Voice calls interrupt, Text allows time for a response.
Or are you one of those people that demand everyone stop what they are doing so they can hold a 30 second conversation with you talking about what a few quick texts would get done?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
". After thgat[SIC] they have no business need for the data,"
actually they do.
People don't pay there bills? they need it. People refute their bill? they need it. Someone bring a law suite? they need it. Financial records? they need it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bush & Republicans are responsible for absolutely everything you listed.
Republicans refuse to let any reform of the Patriot Act pass through Congress.
Bush II originated virtually all of the policies Snowden's info reveals.
Obama has done *nothing* but try to reform as much as GOP obstructionists will allow.
My facts are checkable. Obama is *not* doing this.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Bullshit. This is absolutely inaccurate & blows your whole premise. Obama is the head of the Executive Branch but that doesn't mean he has absolute Fiat power over all policies
Obama can't just declassify all classified documents or delete a whole organization by "executive order" for example...he can't just *delete* the Air Force from the Defense budget.
Just because Bush started two illegal wars with "executive order" doesn't mean its right or legal!
You think the CIA & NSA are just, you know, totally cool with Obama and Congress trying to reform them?Look at what the CIA/NSA has done historically, just since the 80s. Take it back to the 50s & the CIA might legitamitly be called the **most evil organization of the 20th Centruty***
The CIA is a front for criminal activity. A *very* good one.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Another interesting fact about John Adams, a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli he signed: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Very few people know of this, personally I feel that this should be part of ever American History class in the US.
While I don't support Obama, Romney would be no different.
Remember, the CIA and the NSA are have a high percentage of Mormons working for them.
Once the full implementation of LTE is finished, all cellphone's that use this tech will be VOIP right from the towers.
Till then... its just words.
The government needs to understand that it did a bad thing. An act of contrition is required. Some symbol of their acceptance.
Snowden would be a good example. They could do something else. But simply saying they're ending the program isn't enough.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yeah, that's why "executive order" was in quotations...Bush is responsible of course...
The wars were started by criminals who wanted to enrich themselves via the oil, heroin, govt contract fraud.
Bush/Cheney did **whatever their evil minds could imagine**
Thank you Dave Raggett
Amen Brother! My son (and others) will waste my time and distract my attention by texting constantly when a single 30 second phone call will do. When my son begins his text barrage, I try to intervene and make a voice call, but he will never answer. I just do not get it. And I can text with the best of them. I am as fast on the Google/swype keyboard as I am on a real one.
You've made the assumption he's actually in charge. Look at how much he campaigned for, that he's now against in deed and action, and to a far greater degree of just a 'typical lying politician'. For all practical purposes (other than his tepid healthcare plaything), he is a Republican. Gitmo, Wall Street, on and on and on.
Knowing what they've already done (with more to come unless they kill Greenwald first), is it really tinfoilism to think the NSA threatened the POTUS and his family to retain all their limitless power?
If you want to contribute to the conversation, why don't you point out "why" instead of just randomly firing off troll/counterpoints
How can you try to say Bush is completely clean of any wrongdoing? You can't really claim to have any credibility if you think the Bush administration is behaved legally.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." ... An obvious reference to the NSA!
Oops, you have older equipment than I have encountered! (My former landlady ran a crossbar switch, though (:-))
Cell companies in Canada are required to keep all their call data records for some multi-month period: I tried to get one to throw CDRs for fixed-rate plans away, and they couldn't. The tried moving them to a different relation on the same array and still bogged the system badly. They finally pre-archived them to a different array and were then able to complete calls* during the billing period...
Libraries are smart: as soon as the book comes back (or is paid for if lost/damaged), the records are expunged.
--dave
*They also claimed there was no capacity problem: I think they're bankrupt now
davecb@spamcop.net
I entirely agree it's better the security services not have the data without a warrant, but I'd still prefer the phone companies obey the privacy laws in the first place, and not have motivated CSE, NSA and their friends to mandate their keeping it for even longer.
davecb@spamcop.net
Rand Paul would be different. Romney would be different. Your bigoted argument against aside, the main stream media would have used Snowden to daily attack Romney as a tyrant and forced his hand. There would be Snowden statues in front of every news agency by now.
bigoted bigtid/ adjective adjective: bigoted
1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
How is this bigoted?
While I did not spell it out, I was simply referencing the fact that the CIA likes to hire Mormons because of their missionary experience in overseas countries. In addition, the NSA like the CIA appreciates their experience. Also, with the NSA building their new data center in Utah, I am sure that the vast majority of the hires will be Mormons.
I made no statement against their beliefs. They are free to believe what they wish.
I on the other hand am not afraid to let people know who I am. Why are you hiding behind your posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Of course, but they keep everything for long periods of time, not just what they need. It's stupid, and causes them some horrendous capacity problems. I've been on several diagnosis gigs where telcos couldn't complete a month's billing in a month... which is known in the trade as "we're going out of business soon".
To be fair, they're mandated to do so by the RCMP and CSE, who use them as an unpaid organizer for fishing expeditions.
davecb@spamcop.net
this is a stupid line of thinking
obviously, every person is responsible for **their decisions** in whatever position
Obama does bear the responsibility for ***fixing*** the Bush Trainwreck...or at least doing as much as he can...that is within his decision power...Obama must choose to fix things instead of just kicking the can down the road
Thank you Dave Raggett
I like that: I'd only hash data about recipients, locations, etc, but not sender and duration, so I could use it when disputing usage with the phone's owner.
Thanks!
I wonder if we could encrypt the sensitive bits with the phone's public key, so the owner could read the details off the bills but we couldn't???
davecb@spamcop.net
I prefer texting to talking especially at the beginning of dating someone. I can be pretty smooth when I'm able to write out my initial thoughts, then delete them before sending.
So, alleged terrorist calls Pizza Hut. I call Pizza Hut. That makes me a legitimate target. Alleged terrorist calls AT&T. You call AT&T. Now you're a legitimate target. Real terrorist calls another real terrorist on a burner cell. Not a legitimate target. This isn't any kind of solution.
Cellphone companies are using equipment that's from the 90s at the earliest. A regular phone company could have switches from the 50s. Most of ours date to the mid to late 70s. They cost millions back then, but city governments usually funded their purchase with low or no interest loans. They don't make anything like that anymore. You install mux's and run the traffic via fiber to wherever your headquarters is and add it onto a software switch. But those have licensing, you need bigger bandwidth, it's not a cheap processes at all. But once it's done you end up saving money. Telcos are doing REALLY badly right now. They are still regulated to the hilt (for no apparent reason) while the cable companies and googles of the world have free reign to offer ultra cheap IP phone service right in the telcos territory. What's ironic is most cable companies still only set their price slightly bellow the local telcos even though they really could offer it for free... or very close to free. That shoe could drop any day and we'd really be screwed. So there's no way in hell any telcos going to do these sorts of conversions on their own.
Also... Canada. Last time I checked you only had 1 phone company. No competition makes a big difference.
You have heard of ... voicemail? vibrate? If not being interrupted is so important your phone should be off as text messages and e-mail are also a distraction.
There are times I find text perfectly appropriate but it is generally limited to 'how much longer until you get here' or yes/no type of questions. For anything needing an explanation it is tedious.
Isn't doing what you are doing (I assume that you are truthful) just compounding the problem of conversation with new people? How will you ever get better at it?
Thanks of the background information! We have several telcos, but they tend to be later generations of the Ma Bell family, roughly one per province. They in turn own non-regulated cell companies, who compete mostly nation-wide.
The things which, IMHO, need to be regulated monopolies are the companies who own the poles in front of my house. One set carries the wires for the local baby Bell, the other carries hydro and the TV cables. As you might guess from the first paragraph, there is one cable company in any given area, often province-wide.
I'd be perfectly happy to ease up Bell and Rogers Cable* if we had a common carrier that they didn't own outright, have a huge stake in, or have overlapping boards with.
--dave
[* To paraphrase a friend, "The company to go to when Bell isn't hard enough on you"]
davecb@spamcop.net
Bartles you're a troll and your comparison is ridiculous. Educate yourself and stop soiling /. with your GOP-talking points.
Lenin was a "left-wing totalitarian"
You need to understand the difference between *civil rights* and *macro-econimic policy*
Obama is a "progressive" which means a libertarian-leaning "left"
You have alot to learn before you can make a contribution to this discussion but you will be welcome when that time comes.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I am out of practice. I was married 10 years to my late wife and didn't need those social skills. Getting some positive karma before getting into a vernal conversation helps.
You are right, however. This has not helped me when it comes to meeting people. It only works for people that are introduced to me. That is a preety strong handicap.
I'm glad the white house has shown us how trustworthy they are.
you're confirming the GOP co-opting of the term "libertarian"
the axis are as follows
Libertarian --- Authoritarian
Libertarians advocate for *individual freedom* while Authoritarians advocate for *individual conformity*
"right" and "left" in **American politics** equates to "conservative" and "liberal"
Thank you Dave Raggett
If we destroyed the NSA we'd have to build something like it tomorrow.
The problem was not the existence or core mission of the agency but rather its arrogance and the blindness of the administration.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You admitted that your definition of Libertarian is completely biased...
Then do the same thing with 'Progressive'
**progressive** is only used in terms of a Democracy that strongly favors individual rights and does not put capitalism above human needs
That's absolutely completely different than Totalitarianism
Progressive = free speech
Totalitarian = controlled speech
big difference
your problem is that the truth of what Progressives are doing in America causes you so much cognitive dissonance you have to pretend it doesn't exist
Thank you Dave Raggett
Bartles you need to put up or shut up.
Let's get specific.
You say "progressives" in the US today are doing these things:
Which is **line by line** Republican talking points.
These points aren't used to **engage** discussion....they are used to **subvert** discussion.
You take each of those points, one by one, and identify an **actual policy** attached to it...somewhere it is seen happening now in government.
In **every instance** Republicans vote against individual freedom and in favor of corporate enrichment. Democrats are a big tent but they always are the party that supports **policies** that increase individual freedom. Progressives are a 'wing' of the Democrats.
Go down the line of your list...but **you must identify a current policy**
Like this:
You say "progressives do everything they can to restrict....economic rights..."
Let's take economic rights.
Net Neutrality
Bartles...are you *for or against* Net Neutrality?
Progressives and Democrats support Net Neutrality by votes...Republicans always oppose it according to their votes.
Every issue you list, down the line, will bear out in this manner.
Republicans are your enemy. Prove me wrong...list out policies that relate to your list and let's put it to the test.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"pinheads"...that gave it away!
You're a Bill O'Reilly wannabe! No *wonder* you have no ability to talk about actual policies!
"net neutrality" could easily be a law in the House/Senate that could be voted on....but the GOP in the House won't let anything through, obviously
I love how you say this:
is there any law that is not "authoritarian" in your mind?
is 'net neutrality' more or less authoritarian than, say, censoring books as they did under Stalin?
Thank you Dave Raggett
You've devolved into attempting to make glib retorts instead of *engaging in the discussion*
you've been proven wrong, and no sass or attitude on your part will change that
Thank you Dave Raggett
I love how you can type and type and type trolling comments but you seem to run away when the discussion progresses.
Every policy issue in the US today, if you list it then research each party's position, shows Republicans favoring a small Oligarchy over good governance. Democrats are a big tent party but the people who are trying to actually be competent legislators are **all democrat** right now.
I asked you to list some issues & the policy position & you **cant do it**
When you're typing your next response, just remember, every letter you type, if its not talking about policy and specific votes it's just trolling....
Thank you Dave Raggett
No I didn't.
If I had "won" you would actually engage in discourse and ***changed your mind***
I used to be like you...my mind was changed...you can adapt your thinking as well.
Thank you Dave Raggett
all you have is ad homonym attacks
you **cant actually debate your beliefs**
you just make empty counterpoints and attack the person making you look bad
how do you feel about the fact that you can't examine the policies you advocate in action right now?
you were asked to back up your rhetoric w/ actual policy and you cannot
what's it like to hold that level of cognitive dissonance in your head?
Thank you Dave Raggett
you still haven't made one coherent point...you can only troll
name a few national issues & lets look at how the GOP votes on them
on virtually every issue the GOP is wrong
Thank you Dave Raggett
wrong...more empty counterpoints...***that's not a national policy issue***....we cant check how the GOP voted on that
Thank you Dave Raggett