Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA Collected Americans' Phone Records Despite Law Change, Says Report (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sweep-under-the-rug dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. National Security Agency collected more than 151 million records of Americans' phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk phone records, according to an annual report issued on Tuesday by the top U.S. intelligence officer. The report from the office of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was the first measure of the effects of the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which limited the NSA to collecting phone records and contacts of people U.S. and allied intelligence agencies suspect may have ties to terrorism. It found that the NSA collected the 151 million records even though it had warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to spy on only 42 terrorism suspects in 2016, in addition to a handful identified the previous year. The report came as Congress faced a decision on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the NSA to collect foreign intelligence information on non-U.S. persons outside the United States, and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

15 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? by kilodelta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been going on even before that. The metadata of a call is of course calling, called, date, time, duration and in the case of mobile phones location. You can put together a fairly comprehensive case with just those.

  2. Re:Clapper blatant lies to Congress by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He was in charge. No repercussions. That's all you need to know.

    Laws and the consequences for breaking them are for the poor and unconnected.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  3. Including Trump's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "But Trump is lying when he says Obama was spying on him!"

    - Said someone who hasn't heard of Edward Snowden

  4. Shocking, but not at all surprising by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Things like this seriously undermine the credibility of anyone who claims that the US is still a 'nation under the rule of law'.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  5. Start bringing charges against people. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there are no repercussions for agencies that break laws then they will just continue breaking them. If you allow agencies to continue breaking laws then your government loses credibility. Governments without credibility are prone to upheaval and a loss of the rule of law.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  6. consequences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And people will be going to prison for this in 3, 2, 1....

    Shit. Let's try again. Like any other person violating the CFAA they will be held accountable in 3, 2, 1....

    Shit, still nothing. How about violations of the 4th amendment? 3, 2, 1...

    Nope.

    Well, I guess that's that. they are truly above the law.

  7. This, and we know it still happens by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.

    We were right, they were dishonest. Nothing new in terms of Government abusing power, and nobody should be surprised that the more we give them the more they abuse.

    Since the hardware is already in place to copy all traffic to the NSA, law changes which impact collection of data would have to tackle that particular issue. Good luck with that. ISPs and Telecom providers get paid massive tax dollars to provide the service, so you know that they won't complain.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:This, and we know it still happens by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.

      We were right, they were dishonest. Nothing new in terms of Government abusing power, and nobody should be surprised that the more we give them the more they abuse.

      Since the hardware is already in place to copy all traffic to the NSA, law changes which impact collection of data would have to tackle that particular issue. Good luck with that. ISPs and Telecom providers get paid massive tax dollars to provide the service, so you know that they won't complain.

      Well said. I would just add that beyond the practical privacy concerns of people actually snooping on other people for illegitimate purposes there is an important principle of constitutional law that the government is required to have a specific warrant to perform a search. And that making copies of data and in fact scanning that data in the first place to see if it is relevant to a variety of ongoing surveillance activities is itself a search.

      It isn't merely the potential for search of the data without warrant after the government has collected it that is the issue. In fact if the data was legally collected and the government has it, then why shouldn't it be available for any legitimate investigation? Any legally collected data should be available to investigators. The problem is that it isn't legally collected data.

      If it were just a practical privacy issue then you are already exposed to numerous companies that are collecting, analyzing, storing your communications for a variety of purposes that you might not want to specifically agree to, but might be somehow covered in a customer agreement.

      The other big thing that I see as unconstitutional is that the government is effectively not allowing companies the option of an enforceable contract with their customers that it will require a specific warrant to divulge their communications to the government. The big telecoms got that as legal cover, but also to head off competitor companies marketing privacy as something they could legally deliver.

      In the US, at least, privacy in your communications against unconstitutionally broad government surveillance isn't an option companies can even offer their customers and business partners because the agreement is made legally unenforceable with no opportunity to seek damages for contract violations against telecom providers under the Patriot Act. I should be allowed to provide customers with a privacy agreement in return for compensation that if I violate it would allow them to seek damages in court.

      So the government is unconstitutionally interfering in what should be a lawful privacy contract between telecoms and their customers and business partners.

  8. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what allows Susan Rice to "unmask" US citizens: using the power of the state against its citizenry.

  9. Re: Can we stop denying the obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance".

    Republicans where after Obama on this because he KNEW what he was saying wasn't true when he said it, but the bill had to pass so it was about PR over truth.

  10. Re: Can we stop denying the obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are trying VERY hard to normalize Trump's behaviour, so yes they will say it's exactly the same as with other Presidents. Except that it's not.

    Honestly, I did not foresee the rise of Trump muppets here on SlashDot every day since he got elected, gaslighting and pushing their alt-right bullshit.

  11. why does congress even bother? by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The NSA is clearly going to do whatever they feel like doing, laws be damned.

    Congress needs to take a break from legislation and focus on enforcement for awhile. Then once the NSA is back to actually following the laws they pass, then get back to legislating. Until then, you're just wasting your time passing new laws. Don't renew their inch, they're just going to laugh at you and take another foot. If you're not going to hold them accountable, at least show them the "power of the purse" - cut their funding so they simply can't afford to keep breaking the law.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump's allegation was that he was specifically wiretapped at the orders of Obama. Not that his conversations were swept up in a dragnet.

    Because no one ever uses the President's name to refer to the action of an administration?

    No, because Trump specified it himself. "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory." He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  13. Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's been going on even before that.

    It has been going on for a long time. But here is the thing, Obama made campaign promises to start ripping the system down, and instead, as revealed by several cases, used it to spy on Americans and Journalists. And that makes him actually worse than GWB who did a lot of it. At least we knew what we were getting with GWB, Obama ended up being a backstabbing weasel.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  14. People's morality != Government's by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no doubt that some highly moral people join the NSA with the idea that they can be a good guy. Just like most cops join the force to protect and server their community, and most military people join to serve their country and protect our Constitution.

    The immorality at the higher levels breaks the delusion,and people either conform to a morality they disagree with to maintain a job or they leave.

    All absolutely normal human behavior, well documented, and full of historical references.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.