Slashdot Mirror


NSA To End Bulk Phone Surveillance By Sunday (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The White House announced today that the NSA will be shutting down the program responsible for the bulk collection of phone records by the end of tomorrow. The program will be immediately replace with a new, scaled back version as enumerated by the USA Freedom Act. "Under the Freedom Act, the NSA and law enforcement agencies can no longer collect telephone calling records in bulk in an effort to sniff out suspicious activity. Such records, known as "metadata," reveal which numbers Americans are calling and what time they place those calls, but not the content of the conversations. Instead analysts must now get a court order to ask telecommunications companies ... to enable monitoring of call records of specific people or groups for up to six months."

139 comments

  1. Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't believe them

    1. Re: Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're replacing bulk collection with bilk collection.

    2. Re:Bullshit.... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      Sure, they are still collecting the information. I wonder exactly how they will now be doing it. Perhaps, they will just put taps on the line like they do for calls between countries that do not route via the US? Few would need to know.

    3. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe them

      More likely they don't need it anymore because they've replaced it with something more comprehensive, more sinister, and -- of course -- far more secret.

      At this point, I imagine that any publicly-known programs are just façades, and that the truly valuable tools are top secret. This story might be just a public-relations "freebie" by announcing they're scaling back something they don't really need anymore.

      The PR handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time now, and no doubt they're been readying replacement programs that are fully protected from any kind of public scrutiny.

    4. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, if you will recall correctly from the last 4 decades, require us all to stfu about them.

    5. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't believe them

      It's true, dear citizen. If you have doubts, please contact your nearest NSA office (*) and we'll be pleased to answer any question.

      Also, we don't have data collection systems on sites like this one anymore.

      (*) For secrecy reasons, we unfortunately cannot inform our address and phone number. And, well, if you get these from any source in Russia, it's not true. Thank you.

    6. Re:Bullshit.... by edibobb · · Score: 1

      Fool me once...

    7. Re:Bullshit.... by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 2

      When they tell you they're going to stop doing something you don't like, you should be very worried.

      Because it always, always means they're going to keep doing it, and they're going to do it more, but they're going to call it something else.

      CIA, NSA and FBI have been doing this since their inception.

    8. Re:Bullshit.... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I don't believe them

      I don't either, and I don't think anyone with even an average IQ believes it, either. They're telling us they aren't going to do it anymore, but what they're just 'going dark' with it instead. Wouldn't at all be surprised if they actually expand their collection operations to include actual recordings of conversations as well. Assholes.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      *as they kick you in the nuts* "We here at DynaCorp are no longer punching our employees in the face!"

    10. Re:Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure, they are still collecting the information.

      Yep. I'd bet that they're still doing it one way or another.

      They may have found some loophole so they can deny it with a straight face or they may just be lying through their teeth, but I'd bet anything they're still at it. They've invested hundreds of millions of dollars and years (if not decades) into building their surveillance network and ground assets...to think they'd just stop because of a court ruling is simply naive in the extreme.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re: Bullshit.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "..court order...to enable monitoring of call records of specific people or groups for up to six months"

      I would think that every single telephone company in the US has received a court order today, enabling the monitoring of call records for every single customer/phone that the company services.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re: Bullshit.... by valdezjuan · · Score: 1

      Make all telcos/ISPs route out to an international networks where it gets 're-encapsulated' to appear that it's coming from outside the US. Seems like an easy way to force compliance, especially if you gently remind companies about the foreign shores they are based in (on paper at least). In fact, that being the case, I wonder if the 'technical' argument can be made that they are foreign entities, so the traffic that generates within the US borders By customers of that company could be considered a 'foreign' network and therefore not subject to any constitutional protections?

    13. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are also dumping and compressing the audio. It's not that hard to do. If you're already spanning SIP traffic, the RTP stream is right there lol. This is just a move to settle the minds of the average who fail miserably at insight checks. A legal court order would be nice yeah, but it's still actively in use behind the scenes. Men In Black don't rest!

    14. Re:Bullshit.... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Lol :D

    15. Re: Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Make all telcos/ISPs route out to an international networks where it gets 're-encapsulated' to appear that it's coming from outside the US.

      They'd just subvert or tap the route into the network. All this would do is provide a "one stop shopping" monitoring point where they could be assured of easier access to the data.

      Personally, I think things have gone well past the point where much of anything could be done about the spying. The spy agencies have billions of dollars and unlimited manpower to throw at this "problem" of privacy, and stopping it would be like bailing out the oceans with a thimble.

      In my opinion the networks we all use are thoroughly subverted, penetrated, and owned, and they're probably going to stay that way. No law and no amount of public outrage is going to make them stop doing what they're doing, Congress can pass all the laws it likes and the various spy agencies will simply shit-can the memo and keep on collecting data.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    16. Re: Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but "now" if they don't stop, the specific agents that do so should no longer be protected by limited immunity for their actions. Sigh. As if the courts would ever follow through on John Doe suits against NSA workers...

    17. Re:Bullshit.... by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

      Yep. I'd bet that they're still doing it one way or another.

      There's a clause in the law that says the end of the program doesn't stop any ongoing investigation.

      But wait, the NSA was investigating everyone.

      That's right. Everyone is merely part of an ongoing investigation. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

    18. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." --GWB

    19. Re:Bullshit.... by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Yup, "WE can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a program."

      "We're from the government and we're here to help.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    20. Re:Bullshit.... by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      Governments just make laws, they don't follow them.

    21. Re:Bullshit.... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      I don't believe them

      I don't either, and I don't think anyone with even an average IQ believes it, either. They're telling us they aren't going to do it anymore, but what they're just 'going dark' with it instead. Wouldn't at all be surprised if they actually expand their collection operations to include actual recordings of conversations as well. Assholes.

      Yep, just like the analog days. I think the worst part of the entire thing is we had to pay for this upgrade shindig for them while they line their pockets on corporate espionage.

    22. Re:Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "WE can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a program."

      TRANSLATION: "Yes, we're doing it."

      -

      "We're from the government and we're here to help."

      TRANSLATION: "We're gonna screw everything up and then charge you for it."

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    23. Re:Bullshit.... by rakslice · · Score: 1

      I mean how many grandmothers can one person have?

    24. Re:Bullshit.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There really isn't any part of your comment that applies to this situation. Collecting the phone records was a minor and relatively inexpensive program that doesn't have much of anything to do with the rest of their surveillance capabilities. They aren't doing this because of a court order but because of the President and Congress taking action.

      --
      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
    25. Re:Bullshit.... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it all but admitted to that they are stopping the data collection because now they expect the phone companies to do the data collection for them and give them unlimited access to it? This way, they can say "we've stopped data collection" while still getting all the data that they would have had access to had they continued collecting it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    26. Re:Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      There really isn't any part of your blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

      I'm sorry, did you say something?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    27. Re:Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it all but admitted to that they are stopping the data collection because now they expect the phone companies to do the data collection for them and give them unlimited access to it?

      I don't know, but that could certainly be a plausible explanation.

      If this is the case then, as you said, now they can look into the camera and swear up and down that "We ain't doin' nuthin'!" and technically be telling the truth*.

      -

      *for very small values of "truth"

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    28. Re:Bullshit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Israeli company that does billing for all the telcos still gets the Call Detail Record data from them and so has all the data that NSA used to collect except cell tower location meta-data.

      Israelis and NSA share, so nothing has changed.
      https://thinkpatriot.wordpress...

    29. Re:Bullshit.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think that's a fair representation of your understanding of the subject.

      --
      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
    30. Re:Bullshit.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I think that's a fair representation of your understanding of the subject.

      It's certainly a fair representation of the value I place on your comments.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    31. Re:Bullshit.... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Seriously dude, do you have Stockholm syndrome?
      These bastards have been spying on you, don't even think you were somehow passed over, for over a fucking decade and lying about it with a straight face the whole damn time. And what did they do when they got caught? They blame the person that fucking told us about their lies. If this were a relationship it would be the most abusive relationship in the history of humanity. And somehow you trust them at their word? How much abuse will it take before you quit running back to them? Will it be when you are the one unlucky enough to be the one who gets beaten within an inch or your life? Will you still show unconditional love for them when they murder you or someone you care about?

  2. The article is a lie by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    Instead of collecting the metadata themselves, they are getting (I think they're even paying) the phone companies to do it. Problems solved.....

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:The article is a lie by metamatic · · Score: 1

      And they're still doing the bulk phone surveillance, by exchanging data with GCHQ and the other members of the UKUSA pact. They just aren't doing surveillance of Americans directly themselves any more.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  3. Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks Obama!

  4. What court? by Checkered+Daemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what kind of a 'court order' are we talking about here? An honest to God subpoena issued by a real court and a real judge and all the Constitutional protections provided by such? Or a secret FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) finding issued by a bunch of kangaroos with a rubber stamp?

    1. Re:What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By secret kangaroos with rubber stamps - but there will be a non-kangaroo there to argue our case who will be ignored and sworn to silence. So it's all good!

    2. Re:What court? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Who ever modded you down is liar, or an idiot, or both. I believe both.

    3. Re:What court? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      The non-kangaroo will probably be an ostrich with his head in the sand.

    4. Re:What court? by quenda · · Score: 1

      The non-kangaroo will probably be an ostrich with his head in the sand.

      That would be an emu with his head ... oh I see.

    5. Re:What court? by Checkered+Daemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks! But I've been around a while (check my number). I've had what I considered very important comments ignored, and had stupid wise-cracks modded way up. I tend to limit my comments to things I know a lot about. But this is the first time I've ever been called a troll. Makes me feel like a true member of the Slashdot community. };->

    6. Re:What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I registered once, about 12 years ago. I got banned by another user for crapping on Windows. By another user! For crapping on Windows! The slashdot abdication of responsibility for content via a user *moderation* system allows for those first past the post to control everything everyone who comes after them says. It is truly fucked. All user *moderated* sites turn into this kind of circle jerk. I will never register here again. ACs cannot be banned. The title "AC" alone tells you how fucked they are - ya, you're a coward for allowing some fuckwit to ban you from posting for saying something they do not agree with. Fuck that.

    7. Re:What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another user can't ban you. You got stoned and forgot your password.

    8. Re: What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. They're replacing lawmakers with judges so the laws on what they can and cannot spy-on are kept outside democratic debate.

      Uk is doing the same in 'Snoopers Charter'. A judge will decide what the collected data can be used for, no debates, no discussion. Parliamentary power usurped.

      The judicial rules should be judges determine probable cause rules have been met on EACH individual case, yet they examine CLASSES instead. Can the police use the data for drug searches? Judge says yes, so they search everyones private only speech to phish for probable cause.

    9. Re:What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My accoun Dr was banned when I said here I was going to go see what's on reddit. I'm free of the /. curse! :)

    10. Re: What court? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Awesome, the legal class gets the keys to the magic elevator along with banker-class.

      Congratulations.

    11. Re: What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, instead of a FISA court which actually had rigor (hence AC), any LEA can go shopping to their favorite court. This is not an Improve meant. It also means that the LEAs can get all of the data in their search instead of just the analysis. Win for those going fishing. Lose for you.

    12. Re:What court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Another user can ban you by downvoting a couple of your posts. Simple. Don't want someone's comments to be seen? Ban them. It's pretty fucked.

    13. Re:What court? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I tend to limit my comments to things I know a lot about. But this is the first time I've ever been called a troll. Makes me feel like a true member of the Slashdot community. };->

      I would consider you a member in good standing - you have a highly moderated post and don't seem to know much about the FISA court.

      What is the FISA court?
      Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

      You'll know you've stepped up your game when you regularly get modded down for posting factual, relevant material about the topic being discussed.

      --
      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
  5. which is how it was, billing data & subpoena by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is going back to how it used it used to be. The phone company had records of who called who for billing purposes. The government could subpoena that information, with a court order.

    Recently, when the government had all the information, that actually skipped the subpoena part - they already HAD the data, so they didn't need a court order to get it.

    Now the thing is to watch that they don't get 10,000 subpoenas per day, each covering a million people, from a secret court.

  6. and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the whole Snowden event, it was astonishing that at every single step, the NSA was caught lying to the American public.

    NSA: "We're not collecting anything about Americans."
    Snowden: Bullshit, and here's proof.
    NSA: "Well, we're only going after terrorists."
    Snowden: Bullshit, and here's proof.
    NSA: "Well, we're just collecting metadata."
    Snowden: Bullshit, and here's proof.

    etc. On and on it went. Those folks are sociopaths!

    There is ZERO credibility left. Absolutely none. In fact, that's probably not strong enough: they have actual negative credibility. Not just is any random thing they say as likely to be a lie as not, it's much more likely to be a lie than not.

    1. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah - it's probably true what they said: THIS particular program is being replaced by another. They claimed nothing more.

      The problem is that the dragnet surveillance they build is a WORLD WIDE distributed database. That means the stuff the Brits, Aussies, and Canucks collect goes into the same database as you Yanks collect. And guess what? Just as you have no qualms about mass snooping on those evil Foreigners, they have no qualms about snooping on you (turnabout is a bitch, ain't it?)! All this data goes into the SAME DATABASE and is accessible by ALL MEMBERS. So it's irrelevant that the NSA is not listening to you anymore - GCHQ, CSIS, and the rest are. If the NSA wants to listen to what you say without a warrant, they change your IP routing to bounce through Toronto, and presto - it's foreign communication that CSIS happily scoops up and places into the database all ready for the NSA to query. No warrant needed.

      That is the problem right now. The USA Freedom Act was a small step in the right direction, but it's a long walk yet to get out of this mess.

    2. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always a vast conspiracy isn't it?

    3. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There is ZERO credibility left. Absolutely none.

      Okay, great. So now what? It's not like to will affect the elections or anything. So what difference does "credibility" make?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there are good reasons for nations to have intelligence services, but ours has gone rogue and turned against its host country. The ideal "now what" would be:

      (1) We find those responsible and punish appropriately. That might be up to and including charges of treason and a lifetime in prison for the highest level in government and the NSA who authorized and created these programs, down to more minor fines and/or community service for people who built little pieces of them but didn't have the whole picture, or had legit fears about retribution if they spoke out. No exceptions - not even for powerful senators, US presidents past or present, and NSA directors.

      (2) We disband the current set of intelligence services entirely. Burn the organization to the ground.

      (3) We set up new intelligence services (they do have valid reasons to exist) with civilian oversight from a set of trusted privacy-valuing organizations such as the EFF. It isn't that they'd get to know or see all the operational details about which bad guy's phone we're tracking, but they sure as fuck would know the high level of what is being done, and would authorize, or not, any new program based on preserving civil rights of innocent people, both Americans and non-Americans. Anyone attempting to subvert or cleverly white-lie around this oversight would be subject to jail time.

      It's not perfect, sure, and needs some refinement. But that's where I'd like to see it go.

    5. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sometimes there's sufficient evidence that to deny a conspiracy is to be irrational.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Please do not set up the EFF for regulatory capture.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just read a story of how police in Canada are asking.for the publics help in a possible serial killer case. Through "investigating techniques" police have a conversation from a female victim's cellphone and need help identifying a man's voice. I can only assume all calls are recorded somehow and can be retrieved.

    8. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      re "So what difference does "credibility" make?"
      Global purchasing power. Re think that next bulk imported upgrade and consider an all local product at a different price factoring in security as been of value.
      Might need more power, cooling, be slower and not have a fancy bezel that complements the looks of the hardware but staff finally totally understand what they are
      buying in to and supporting.
      Experts can finally go to the top of their departments and show a list of junk encryption, bad standards, weak math, failed hardware imports and consider internal or
      better domestic options away from the expensive big brand that ships with trap door and backdoor junk over every version..
      The other factor is that a generation of crypto experts cannot say they did not know anymore, did not expect the scale and ability of domestic "collect it all" or thought the "legal" department or "legal protections" or "brand" or "private sector" would always be in place to protect from domestic "collect it all".
      Good crypto is now every experts problem to fix and get working to protect users, ideas, science, profit, local jobs, accounts, databases from a list of other competing nations reading everything for free thanks to decades of weak standards.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      As long as they have plausible deniability, they do not care much about credibility. In a true democracy, credibility would be important. It would affect their budget. In the real world, most of the power brokers are happy to go along with this BS, and mass surveillance means they usually have blackmail material against anyone with influence who tries to make trouble.

    10. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always a vast conspiracy isn't it?

      No. But it happens. This may be one of them.

    11. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Regardless of credibility - where is the jail time?

      Oh wait, that's for peons.

    12. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but ours has gone rogue and turned against its host country.

      You really don't understand the world very well since you somehow think the intelligence services are meant to serve you (or any other specific common citizen). At some point, all governments realize that a sufficient part of the populace are either stupid, violent, or miscreants of some type. It becomes necessary to suppress them and suppress outside threats to the stable functioning of the civil structure (businesses, government) in general. When someone (individual, group, or organization) becomes a threat to that established order, it must be put down.

    13. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. So we need a larger agreement about what is and is not OK to sweep up. It would be useful to see some kind of survey of privacy laws around the world.

    14. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could make cryptographers professionally responsible for any backdoors in their encryption. If they are found to have abused the trust so many placed in them, we punish them.

    15. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      Governments don't need an excuse to lie, the only reason any government tells the truth is when it is in it's own best interest.

    16. Re:and i should believe this... why again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely so.

      The entertaining bit will be when the worm turns, and the new kids on the block suddenly have the reins of power. The howling that will ensue about 'privacy expectations'...

  7. "bulk" phone by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    not cell or smart nor landline, but bulk.

  8. Um right. by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    First and foremost, I doubt the NSA had anything to do with this 'hopeful' news release.

    It appears like someone is more interested in placing a demand on the NSA to stop by this Sunday if you asked me.

    How's that working for ya?

  9. Re:which is how it was, billing data & subpoen by cstacy · · Score: 2

    Now the thing is to watch that they don't get 10,000 subpoenas per day, each covering a million people, from a secret court.

    Wasn't the previous idea that they had ONE subpoena, and it included everybody?

  10. Finding the needle by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't add more hay. This is good news (if even remotely true). I hope the governments of Australia and especially the UK take note. They are obsessed with adding as much hay as they can get away with.

    1. Re:Finding the needle by fnj · · Score: 0

      I hope the governments of Australia and especially the UK take note.

      The government of the UK is so primitive they don't even have a written constitution limiting their power. They still have a sovereign monarch, for god's sake. The monarch is head of state and commander in chief. The limitations on the power of the monarch consist nothing more than gentlemen's agreements and ordinary laws and procedural rules which could be changed at any time.

      Calling it a "constitutional monarchy" is an absurd lie, since there is no constitution.

    2. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hows that written constitution working out for you in providing a well defined boundary over
      which government shall not cross

      just curious.

    3. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only been a delaying mechanism, but at least it's been that. For example we haven't had our firearms confiscated yet.

    4. Re:Finding the needle by burtosis · · Score: 1

      When looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't add more hay.

      Of course not - you add more needles. Nothing makes entrapment easier and justification of the whole works. "Look we finally stopped a terrorist attack!" *holds up scrawny Muslim kid with a clock*

    5. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we seem to still have freedom of speech, and guns. Also we don't have cameras literally everyfuckingwhere. What would be dire overreach in America is just something a politician can propose in the UK.

    6. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like you're saying that is a good thing?

      Not sure if being sarcastic or just dense.

    7. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... free speech 'zones' anyway.

    8. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a good thing. Silence, Brit.

    9. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government of the UK is so primitive they don't even have a written constitution limiting their power

      The UK constitution is *unconsolidated*, and some parts are unwritten, but a large chunk of it *is* written and is thoroughly entrenched. Since the development of federalism in the UK, there are areas of competence exclusive to the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Parliament will not legislate in, and vice-versa. The Supreme Court of the UK (established by an Act in each of these assemblies as well as in the UK Parliament) is the highest adjudicator of issues involving issues involving devolution of power from the UK Parliament, and it can declare legislation passed by the UK Parliament without the consent of one or more of the assemblies to be unconstitutional (and thus unenforceable in courts). There is a sizable body of statute that the courts have held can only be altered by primary legislation dealing solely with the alteration of the statute.

      In short, there are clear amending formulas, directly comparable to those in other federal systems with amending formulas in their consolidated acts.

      Did you know that the U.S. has several important constitutional areas which aren't consolidated in the Constitution or even in federal statute? The rules governing the Houses of Congress, for example, including how the officers presiding over them are chosen (and indeed, that the president of the Senate does not actually direct the day to day business of the Senate and has limited personal power with respect to Senate business); the degree of freedom available to the electoral college; the general power of judicial review; the party election (primary) system; and so forth.

      The U.K. has a lot of that too. So do most countries that evolved from the English system, including the ones that are no longer constitutional monarchies.

      The limitations on the power of the monarch consist nothing more than gentlemen's agreements and ordinary laws and procedural rules which could be changed at any time

      This is a silly argument. The principle that one Parliament is not bound by its predecessor(s) is only notional and is generally a check on last-minute pre-election action by a government that is likely to lose a general election.

      Taken to extreme, the majority in the current Parliament could repeal the Statute of Westminster 1931 and subsequent acts with respect to its now-independent former colonies. That would do nothing more than shorten the life of the majority and cause some substantial diplomatic noise.

      Likewise, in principle, the Representation of the People Act could be repealed down to its roots, taking the Political Parties and Elections acts with them. Again, that would do little more than shorten the life of the majority in Parliament, legally speaking, although in practical terms it might set off a civil war, much like unilateral repeal of devolution.

      The campaign promise to erase the UK HRA is hot air. It is extremely entrenched (significant modification would require the assent of various non-governing parties in the constitutent nations, as well as the national assemblies, and also various treaty organizations such as the Council of Europe and the European Union), and UK courts have had years developing rules about how to deal with it and the ECHR, and that is unlikely to be overridable by simple statute.

      Finally, the UK has been stepping towards amending formula for highly entrenched statute that relies on plebiscites. Sure, it's not written down as a formal statement by the various parties, and it's not likely to be, but at some point recourse to referendum will be as much of a requirement in the UK as it is in Ireland (where it is actually in the Bunreacht) or in Denmark (which went the same direction during the 20th century, codifying some unwritten aspects (Parliamentism as the system of government), consolidating many written aspect

    10. Re:Finding the needle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, it is actually wrong.

      There are a lot of ways to easily get around being monitored through audio, specifically using keywords only you and your buddies know (no, not those obviously terrible TV and film examples, they are made to be obvious)

      Look at those wanks that attacked Paris.
      They could have easily created a pseudo language only they knew that could easily be used as keywords and sound like any average conversation even to the trained ear.
      Stuff like using a certain type of verb or weird sentence structure that could easily pass off as a weird character quirk, over exaggeration, anything could be used and would be invisible.
      They don't even need to use encryption to hide from this.
      These people already knew each other in real life.
      Hell, they could have been using long-distance walkie-talkies as well. Or CB.

      That is the worrying thing. And no amount of phone spying will actually help that, but it can still catch out the stupid people.
      Most people assume that all criminals are stupid, but fact is, only most of them are. There are still huge numbers of criminals, and terrorists, at large.
      These are people that still travel and communicate over long distances and have still evaded capture, not because they are magic, not because they use encryption, because they have developed systems to hide in plain sight.

      So, actually increasing the size of that haystack infinitely would help considerably.
      A human has issues with finding a needle in a large haystack. Computers don't. It is just a few extra hours for them. They don't care, they aren't conscious enough to have that feature.
      I know I am technically supporting the police state in this, but I am just stating facts. If EVERYTHING was monitored, it would increase the chances of finding these people. It won't STOP all crime, hell no, there are people that can snap on the spot despite a life of peace and calm. But it would still eliminate most well-planned attacks because most of them tend to use things that can easily be tracked if all information was actually tracked. (still won't defeat the keyword issue though, a proper system will never be identified by experts in those fields)
      Of course, there is zero chance of that happening because everyone will freak out at the privacy implications, and the biggest issue with it, the abuse of the system and data.

  11. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to know they'll stop doing that illegal thing they got caught doing. I trust they're not going to continue to violate our privacy in secret until they get caught again, like last time.

    PS Snowden did the Paris attacks.

    1. Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I'm not happy until every single member of all agencies and political parties in the US are lined up and executed.

  12. This will be politicized, but: by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    A presidential review committee concluded the surveillance regime did not lead to a single clear counter terrorism breakthrough that could be directly attributed to the program.

    Use your noggin' when you listen to candidates for office.

    If there were some examples of threats neutralized by this level of privacy invasion, wouldn't the proponents of the police state have trotted them out?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  13. Party affiliation by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    For those of you who think that voting Democratic is the lesser of two evils, note that the bill had strong bipartisan support in both the house and senate:

    Yea 303: 179(R) 124(D)

    [The USA Freedom Act] would make only incremental improvements, and at least one provision-the material-support provision-would represent a significant step backwards," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.

    Next up: the Trans Pacific Partnership. Let's all get together and vote for the party that does the least amount of damage to the American People! Yeah! That'll fix it!!!

    One reasonable way to get good government to vote against all incumbents. Whether it's a red or blue congress critter, they'll fall in line once they realize that they only get 1 term if they screw over the people.

    Another reasonable solution is to vote for non-insiders. Not Hillary, or Jeb or Chris or Marco.

    This year the choices seem to be between "experience" and "change". Which of those would be the best for Americans?

    1. Re:Party affiliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strong bipartisan support

      of course it did, and other bills like it, too. to vote against it would be political suicide.. allowing your challengers the opportunity to brand you as 'soft on crime' or 'terrorist friendly'

    2. Re:Party affiliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. This year there doesn't seem to be any choices, IMO.

    3. Re:Party affiliation by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Non Insiders? You can't run without being an insider. Hillary has been an "insider" since her husband was president, Jeb has been an insider since his dad was president, Chris and Marco have been in the Senate/House for at least 5 years. Which news network do you subscribe to again?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    4. Re:Party affiliation by easyTree · · Score: 1

      One reasonable way to get good government to vote against all incumbents.

      If you can get three people to collectively do something which is patently in their own interest, I will be amazed. Good luck with the billions.

  14. Re:which is how it was, billing data & subpoen by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Only it's not the same as back then, as companies now get paid for handing over the records.

  15. The Next NSA Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We officially need to track the phone calls of human beings. The group of people of planet Earth. For a time period from now until we tell you to stop."

  16. Bulk surveillance, what is it good for? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see:
    Paris: all attackers known in advance. Warnings provided to French government. Not using encrypted communications.
    Boston: Specific warnings provided to US authorities. Probably not using encrypted communications (the NSA and others would have made this claim, so by default, we can assume the opposite)
    9/11. Most, if not all attackers already known to FBI/CIA. Again, we can assume that no encrypted communications were involved.

    In other words, the bulk surveillance has no value in preventing terrorist attacks. If so, what is it for? Blackmailing politicians? Blackmailing the wealthy and powerful?

    The NSA/FBI/CIA: price for failure: more resources. More power. More everything. One could almost imagine that there is a strong incentive in letting a small number of terror attacks take place.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Bulk surveillance, what is it good for? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      The NSA/FBI/CIA: price for failure: more resources. More power. More everything. One could almost imagine that there is a strong incentive in letting a small number of terror attacks take place.

      Using that logic, it's better to be both the disease and the cure.

      *Hmm*

    2. Re:Bulk surveillance, what is it good for? by IronChef · · Score: 1

      > If so, what is it for? Blackmailing politicians? Blackmailing the wealthy and powerful?

      Time and again we see that anything they have the *capability* to do, they *are* doing. This includes the CIA spying on Congress.

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that time, but what's to say that similar things aren't still happening? Merely their assurances, and how much are those worth?

      Based on what we know about bulk data collection, our intelligence apparatus does seem to have the *capability* to influence the the legislative and executive branches in inappropriate ways. Based on their past behavior I feel like we can't just dismiss that possibility as crazy.

      There's nothing so special about America that we cannot suffer from corruption, and we have built the technological toolbox to enable it.

      I feel like a lunatic writing this down, but "they" truly could be manipulating our elected officials.

    3. Re:Bulk surveillance, what is it good for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "could be manipulating"? How do you think campaign contributions and defense contract sourcing works?

  17. Bulk phone surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't end by Sunday.

    I ain't sayin' how I know.

  18. Oh, Really? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Prove it. Prove to me that bulk surveillance ends Sunday.

    If you trust this, you're a fool.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Oh, Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't really prove something like this - you can't prove a negative.

  19. Where are the NSA apologists? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't you be posting about how "all countries' security services do this", and "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, so the surveillance does not affect you"? Do your surveys show that people no longer lap up that BS any more?

  20. Translation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    We found a cheaper, more efficient way to keep you in line, citizen.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case it probably means they found something more expensive, so that more tax dollars will flow into suppliers that have payed of politicians.

    2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, more likely, a sexier, even more costly, and even more useless way to collect -everyone's- dirty laundry.

  21. Sadly... Every Country in the World by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    I hate to be the practical one, but...

    Every country in the world spies on its civilian population extensively and lies about it.

    If you don't like it, your only practical option is to start your own country. Which will then also be spied on by every other country in the world.

    So good luck with that.

    1. Re:Sadly... Every Country in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as EVERYBODY is doing it, I guess that makes it okay for our government to do it!

  22. Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    They did use the metadata in the hunt for the Boston Bombers, if you remember. The FBI basically admitted it while edging around talking directly about the classified database of phone calls and when they were made.

    Also, the primary incentive-based reason people at our intelligence agencies don't deliberately allow significant attacks (at least on US soil) in that they would get lined up against the wall and shot if anyone found out. It may still happen occasionally, but if it does... their colleagues probably find out and kill them. Or at least send them into early retirement. It usually wouldn't help PR or the country to admit it had happened.

    Most people in intelligence wouldn't do it anyway because of morality, but the people who would still have strong incentives not to do it.

    1. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure there is nothing in those redacted pages of the 9/11 report suggesting that US tax money went to saudi royals who bankrolled terror attacks against the US. I'm just as sure ongoing US efforts to undermine Soviet, and then later Russian influence in central asia haven't lead to the creation of well armed anti-american terror groups. Even if the attacks on the US aren't directly ordered by americans, american intelligence operatives have more than enough blame. Turning around and taking their miserable policy failures and using it as an excuse for tyranny at home is absolutely inexcusable.

    2. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      They did use the metadata in the hunt for the Boston Bombers, if you remember. The FBI basically admitted it while edging around talking directly about the classified database of phone calls and when they were made.

      No, actually, I don't remember any reference to the use of bulk metadata being useful in the hunt for the bombers. I did find one link that stated that the bulk collection was actually a hindrance, because there was too much data to soft through.

      Also, the primary incentive-based reason people at our intelligence agencies don't deliberately allow significant attacks (at least on US soil) in that they would get lined up against the wall and shot if anyone found out

      So why hasn't someone been lined up against the wall for the Paris attacks? The security services had enough information. It doesn't take a direct order to allow something to go ahead, merely that resources are focused elsewhere, leading to the "unfortunate" consequence of a successful attack.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      No, actually, I don't remember any reference to the use of bulk metadata being useful in the hunt for the bombers. I did find one link that stated that the bulk collection was actually a hindrance, because there was too much data to soft through.

      If you look at the documentaries, it's very clear that the FBI was sorting through the bulk metadata. IIRC they were looking for a cell phone call made at a certain time in order to trace the caller.

    4. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the documentaries, it's very clear that the FBI was sorting through the bulk metadata. IIRC they were looking for a cell phone call made at a certain time in order to trace the caller.

      The issue is not whether the data was searched, the issue is whether the search produced actionable information. The only reference I can find suggests that it was actually a hindrance.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Curious. The whole point of collecting the "metadata" in advance was for prevention purposes. To pre-empt these kinds of attacks. Since that didn't happen, why collect the data in advance. Once they had a probable suspect, they could have gotten a warrant and started searching that data as soon as they had a lead on who committed the act. It seems like the existing system of obtaining a warrant and doing it the standard way would have had the same results.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    6. Re:Hunting Terrorists / Getting Shot by easyTree · · Score: 1

      absolutely inexcusable

      Implying they must justify their actions to be allowed to continue.

  23. Re:which is how it was, billing data & subpoen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From what I understand there still isn't an actual court process involved (subpoena), they can access the information whenever they want the only difference is it is stored in phone company databases instead of their own. I don't know if there are any third party observers which have been able to point out any real changes brought about by the USA "Freedom" Act. The only possible advantage is that they can't lie quite as effectively about accessing the records because those requests are processed by a third party. However I doubt that that will provide any meaningful oversight as they'll still throw out the "national security" excuse if anyone tries to challenge the legality of it all.

  24. NSA pretends to end phone surveillance by Sunday by nickweller · · Score: 2

    Corrected headline ...

  25. Oh man, I couldn't stop laughing! by NRAisFreedom · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right... Absolutely no credibility morons!!! Oh, and politicians have no credibility either. You all have proven over and over again that you cannot be trusted.

    1. Re:Oh man, I couldn't stop laughing! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Hint: it doesn't matter if they can be trusted. They do what they like when they like and we're never going to know.

  26. "Sunday" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmwaha...MWAHAHA....MWAHAHAH (filter don't use so any caps because Slashdot is a whiny little SWJ's bitch of a site so I can't continue laughing ironically at how "sunday" will never happen")

  27. Re:which is how it was, billing data & subpoen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those of us who work in telco have been aware of this coming for a while now. We've already hired people to deal with the increase in warrants. I'd say that this is a step in the right direction.

  28. And... by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

    what new policies are in place to insure such an egregious violation of constitutional rights never happens again? What people were fired? And what assurance do the people have that this type of data-mining isn't just passed off to another agency?

    Let's be clear here: not that much would have changed without certain revelations. It isn't enough to be caught with your hand in the cookie jar to simply say you won't do it again. I want a clear informed law that states some ass will be ground into dust if anyone tries this bullshit.

    Anything short of that is just playing possum until it happens again.

  29. Lies and deception. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flying pigs, blue moons, etc.

    In notice just how few replies there are to this. I wonder if most people feel like me, which is that the NSA have so often deceived and misled that communication with them is impossible. They say stuff, we don't - can't - believe a word. There is no communication. We of course still pay for the whole thing, since tax is mandatory and impossible not to pay, and if you were to manage it, you'd be in the slammer for years. This isn't freedom.

  30. The "Freedom Act" ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Ah, those kooky Congresscritters and their whimsical / ironic names for laws and such.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:The "Freedom Act" ... by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 1

      What's next. the "Keeping International Terrorist Threats Effectively Neutralized" act? Bonus points if it lets the government rule by decree but everybody votes for it anyway because of the name :)

  31. The NSA has the same credibility as the police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA, CIA, FBI and other government agencies currently enjoy the same credibility that state and city law enforcement do: absolutely none.

    At every level, law enforcement has proven that they are immune from consequences and that the law does not apply to them. There exists no oversight and no checks on law enforcement's power (including the NSA, CIA and FBI). Warrants at this point are a technicality: has anyone even heard of a case where a judge or a court denied a warrant when requested by law enforcement?

    The standard operating procedure for all of these groups seems to be:
    1. Determine if they are guilty via gut feeling
    2. If they are guilty, use every trick in the book to establish guilt (illegal wiretapping, stingray devices, rubber-stamped search warrants, parallel reconstruction, coercion, etc)
    3. Call everyone who disagrees with such overreach a criminal, a terrorist and a lowlife

  32. Perfectly believable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The important clause is 'or groups'. So they just need one court order per telco every 6 months. It should reduce the the workload of the FISA court dramatically.

  33. Well, that won't last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it needs is any kind of attack that might be intepreted as a terrorist attack, including something set up by any of the agencies, even if it's not real, and "people will be demanding" the surveilance back. It's just a matter of media game.

  34. And email, and urls and location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That cyber security data exchange bill just passed. The isps have all the same data and a lot more for sale. So yeh this particular program ends, but the basic 'collect all bulk data/fail to stop terrorists/demand more data' nonsense continues.

    Take a look at what your smartphone is sending. You can't even refuse Google your location trail in the latest version.

  35. Smoke and mirrors by moonlandingchap · · Score: 1

    This may well be true and the NSA might be ending spying on it's own populus, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they have just subcontracted the work out to a foreign company (that the NSA probably own or setup) to do the work for them from outside the borders. Just like they are doing with the internet metadata.

    The people we most need to fear are the ones making laws to suit them selves, that let them fund sceret projects for everything from nuclear war to hacking the phone calls of a 7-11 manager because he has a beard and prays to the east.

  36. vess by Vessarion · · Score: 1

    Of course they will .... :D ROTFL...

  37. Lol by easyTree · · Score: 1

    "USA Freedom Act" - the name alone is enough to make you concerned.

    They may as well just come out and say "we're about to fuck you over, please look over there for a moment..."

  38. Re: which is how it was, billing data & subpoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You,of course, deliberately understood wrong. In the bulk collection system, the NSA collected the data, but would not do any analysis without a court order, and once ordered, they would do the analysis and give the analysis to whichever domestic agency got the order. Now, our dear leader has given us much more privacy in a system where every domestic LEA can get all of. The metadata trivially, with minimal court oversight, and they can go shopping to either get the least oversight or to minimize the footprints of the scope of their operations. This is, of course, deliberate , to give them much more collection and less oversight.

  39. Shutting down a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously though, what are they renaming or rebranding it as?
    Because the odds of them no longer violating our privacy are 0 / .

    So. Is it a new "program" that's exactly what they're doing but has a different acronym?
    Are their people simply going private to even further suck away our taxes and claim "proprietary data" against any attempt to find out what abuses they've added to their mountain?

    What is it?

  40. And we will know it's true because? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    We'll know it's true, because they've never broken the law, violated the Constitution, or been insubordinate before, right?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  41. Re:Change! We'll see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Black Jesus has to say about this right Lloyd?

  42. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one will ever be held accountable for this treason. Can some big shot lawyer sue these treasonous bastards out of existence?

  43. American kangaroo courts by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    court order = rubber stamp

  44. And who presented this new policy? by treczoks · · Score: 1

    Mr. James Clapper, best known for lying to the congress.

  45. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Instead analysts must now get a court order to ask telecommunications companies"

    LOLOLOLOL