
U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls - zt
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_UIS_20130606
======
joelrunyon
What happened to this being the most transparent administration "committed to
creating an unprecedented level of openness"[1]?

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOp...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment)

~~~
derefr
I would presume that "openness" refers to actions initiated by the
administration itself. Already-established, long-running initiatives of
autonomous sub-departments, even if they do fall under the purview of the
executive, probably aren't included, since the administration isn't actually
making any choices in how these programs are run, just letting them continue
to run as they always have.

~~~
mtowle
You would presume that now, yes. Nobody who was presuming that when he said
it, however, made much of an effort to speak up.

Sort of like how "everybody knows" it was Congress's fault campaign promises
X, Y, and Z didn't pass, yet at the time, nobody stopped to ask how much these
promises can mean if the position he's campaigning for isn't capable of
fulfilling them in the first place. "I presume by 'guarantee' he meant he'd
try his best, since obviously the POTUS can't even introduce laws anyway. And
as a former Constitutional law prof., I'm sure Obama knows that." Oh, super.
Thanks.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
"Nobody who was presuming that when he said it"

That problem lies with the voters, and the candidates are not going to change
their behavior until the voters own up to their responsibilities.

Voters prefer to be told these little white lies about great intentions,
rather than be bothered to apply basic knowledge of our federal gov't that
should have been gained in junior high school. Voters whine and complain that
it is the politicians fault, but voters' own behavior reward that which they
claim to dislike.

~~~
mtowle
I don't disagree, but at the same time, by the nature of the system, people
aren't capable of behaving in a way that rewards what they like. "Vote-
signals," if you will, are as noisy as human communication is capable of
being.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
In public policy circles, it is understood that the reason that controversies
even exist is always because the issue involves trade offs between competing
important values. (Those issues that do not involve difficult tradeoffs are
sooner or later resolved, and then forgotten because the solution is
acceptable as the status quo.)

IMHO people are trying to hard too get what they "like", too often looking for
a simple magic bullet, when they should be in a conversation with their
elected officials about what tradeoffs are reasonable in light of our values.
We should elect people who ask us to be uncomfortable at times, but for well-
thought out reasons.

Our politicians are acting highly rationally, in the context of the incentives
the voters offer. "Voting the bums out" is not going to change anything, until
the voters opt to build a better kind of electorate. The first step is
diagnosing the actual problem, rather simply believing that the problem is
always Team Them.

~~~
mtowle
Public policy circles can (and will) think whatever they find soothing. The
rest of us continue to roll our eyes inwardly, just as one does when listening
to Tolkein fans debate whether the Eagles should've merely flown the
Fellowship to Mt. Doom. (I say this not as a beltway outsider but as a man who
grew up 7 miles from Langley, went to the Pentagon for TYKTW Day, and who
lives and works in the area to this day.)

I get what you're saying. Politics is a choice between the unpalatable and the
disastrous. Duh. Of course the Eagles should just fly them there.

What Tolkein geeks and policy wonks alike force themselves to ignore _in order
to_ have these mine vs. yours logicality debates to begin with is that the
premise of their debate is a fantasy world. "If we want blank, we should vote
blank" tacitly assumes that voting blank and persuading others to vote blank
can sway the outcome of an election. Any thinking individual can see
immediately that this is untrue.

------
stfu
I, for one, am already looking forward in what ways the Obama administration
is going to hunt down the leaker of this document. Because - how should a
government function without having a basic level of secrecy? Oh irony...

On the other hand the leak probably came even from the administration itself.
After they pretty much got away with intimidating political opponents and
spying on unfavorable reporters, why not unload a few other skeletons from the
closet.

Worst case scenario Jon Stewart is making a 5 minute skit out of it and with
twinkle in his eye moving back to bashing some more convenient subjects.

------
samstave
The U.S. is openly storing any packet that traverses any wire it can field
signal from.

Quantum Tapping:

The loophole is that they are not 'tapping' any communication until the moment
when they actually observe/listen to it.

~~~
rdtsc
Yes presumably even with voice they can still store it. Only when a human
examines (sees the data on their screen, listens to the audio) then only it is
considered that a "search" has occurred.

So let's assume that there are these scumbags and all they want to do is spy
on everyone and there is this pesky Constitution still getting in their way,
what is the strategy to eliminate the "annoyance"?

The strategy is two-pronged:

1) Don't have statutes of limitation on data gathered in a search warrant. So
say you commit what someone thinks is a crime at 99 years of age, they get a
search warrant for your data and now legally they have access to all your data
since the day you were born.

2) Store _everything_. Presumably this is what the new NSA complex is Utah is
for.

Sure enough you'd become inconvenient at some point. Let's say you spend a
night too many with the Occupy crowd or your kid installs LOIC and now a
search warrant is executed. The emails you sent 10 years ago now appear and
well, who knows you might have written back then, but pretty sure it can be
made to stick.

Now of course you would be offered a deal. Maybe collaborate or just get
scared enough of them to never step outside and never touch a computer again,
well they win in that case as well.

Good luck to everyone.

~~~
einhverfr
You can't "store everything" for the simple reason that feeding all the
traffic back to Utah would be prohibitive. The thing is, though, this is not
any real comfort because _it doesn't matter._

The reason we have the 4th Amendment is to keep general warrants like this
from being issued, and to help retard the "show me the man and I will find you
the crime" (to quote a member of the Stalin regime) from taking root here, or
at least to make it more difficult.

The problem is, for the worst abuses to occur they don't _have_ to store
everything. They just get general warrants like this, inspect packets, filter
"interesting subsets" out and send those back to Utah. So I think the actual
strategy is two pronged, in a different direction, and both worse and more
economical:

1\. Vague laws that people can be easily prosecuted for[1] particularly when
it comes to terrorism. Bonus points for allowing military enforcement of
domestic law.[2]

2\. Get general warrants that let them target whoever they want without
recourse, which is what is going on here. Better yet, let's get retroactive
immunity for any accomplices and make sure it is all really above the law.

The end result is the same, of course. The difference is that the above
strategy takes a lot less time, resources, money, people, and hardware to pull
off.

[1] See Harvey Silverglate (civil liberties atty, veteran of the EFF, ACLU,
and FIRE), "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"

[2] This is a trend, particularly when it comes to defining terrorism but has
been going on since at least Clinton. Note that Clinton asked Congress
unsuccessfully for a terrorism exception to Posse Comitatus. See Kopel, David
(former Colorado Assistant Attorney General). "No More Wacos"

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> "show me the man and I will find you the crime" (to quote a member of the
> Stalin regime)

The sentiment precedes Stalin. In the 1600s, Cardinal Richelieu is said to
have warned, "Show me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men
and I will find something to have him hanged."

------
jpdoctor
> _highly classified court order_

Boy does that sound like a concept which needs to die. Justice does not tend
to occur behind closed doors.

~~~
mindcrime
Indeed. There is, as far as I can tell, no reason for this order to be secret
at all, since it's so indiscriminate. I can understand (grudgingly) the
argument for sealing the court order during an active investigation, since you
don't necessarily want to tip off the suspect that you're "onto them". But if
you're saying "give me everybody's data" then it won't be tipping anybody off.

And weighed against the idea that our government, which _we_ created, to
_serve us_ needs to be almost 100% transparent in order to be accountable _to
us_ , I just can't see any reason for this being kept secret.

If We The People are to police our government, we need to know what it's
doing. And when it does something wrong, we need to smite it mightily.

~~~
DanBC
In theory the secret stuff is given oversight by politicians. You elect the
politicians, so that's the weak link to oversight by the people.

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but I'm aware that GCHQ / CESG / etc have
pretty rigorous scrutiny.

I'm not disagreeing with you, btw. Far too much stuff is classified as top
secret or secret when it just doesn't need to be.

~~~
mindcrime
_In theory the secret stuff is given oversight by politicians. You elect the
politicians, so that's the weak link to oversight by the people._

In theory, yes. I, for one, don't consider that an acceptable form of
oversight / accountability. We need to be able to see inside the box, and know
damn near everything that's going on, end to end. There is, IMO, _very_ little
which truly needs to be classified: Launch codes for the nuclear missiles,
things of that nature. Most of the rest, not so much.

------
JonSkeptic
>The order was marked “TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN,” referring to communications-
related intelligence information that may not be released to noncitizens. That
would make it among the most closely held secrets in the federal government,
and its disclosure comes amid a furor over the Obama administration’s
aggressive tactics in its investigations of leaks.

The author not only wrote the article about this, but also put in the
classification of the document source. Salt in the wound. I can't help but
feel that such a detail may have been included as a response to recent events
regarding members of the news media and their treatment at the hands of the
government. It very much seems that the honey moon is over.

~~~
Nelson69
The clear and obvious question here is if it's "just metadata" and isn't
really spying, then why is it secret at all? In fact, why don't we broadcast
to the terrorists that we do this and wish them luck attacking us without the
aid of electronic communication.

The secrecy only makes it look like something illegal. (And there is no doubt
in my mind that it is against the spirit of American law, if not the letter)

------
AYBABTME
What do people expect? It's either that or open war mongering. This
administration doesn't want to be seen as a militaristic one, but the world
doesn't stop being what it is because voters get tired of wars. So something
has to give. More drones, expanded secret ops, more information gathering.

I don't like the idea of being spied on, not at all. But from a security
perspective, I understand the need for better information. I'm kind of playing
Devil-advocates, but it's naive to expect your government to provide you
safety, lifestyle, freedom, without having to play behind the scene - or
openly fight oversea - when the rest of the World lives a completely different
story.

~~~
mindcrime
_But from a security perspective, I understand the need for better
information. I'm kind of playing Devil-advocates, but it's naive to expect
your government to provide you safety, lifestyle, freedom, without having to
play behind the scene - or openly fight oversea - when the rest of the World
lives a completely different story._

OK, for starters, let's assume that "national defense" is a proper and just
role for government, and even be charitable and allow that "some" secrecy is
necessary. Now, how does any of that argue for allowing the government to
record call record for _everybody in the US_? What is wrong with having them
identify an individual, or small group of individuals, that are suspected of
$WHATEVER, and then go get a warrant, and then ask for the data? I mean, by
casting a net so wide, it's obvious they're collecting a TON of data on people
that aren't involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever... why should we be OK with
that?

And that aside, to the extent that this is about the "War on Terror", ask
yourself this: How many people in the US have ever been killed as a result of
a terrorist attack? Over _all time_ the number is on the order of a few
thousand. Now every single one of those was tragic, yes, and I certainly don't
want to diminish the importance of every single life... but when you look at
the big picture, cancer, AIDS, car crashes, accidental slips and falls in the
bathroom, accidental drownings in ones own swimming pool and even "being
beaten to death by a cop" outrank "death by terrorism" in terms of scale. And
is anybody seriously suggesting we should allow the State nearly unlimited
power in the name of fighting accidental slips and falls, or drownings, or any
of those things? No? Then why should we do it for terrorism?

And finally, shouldn't we consider that people like Ron Paul have a point,
that a lot of the hatred for the US is probably "blowback" as a result of our
aggressive, meddlesome foreign policy? Maybe one of the best ways to ensure
security for our nation is to have a strong military - _at home_ \- and trade
freely with everyone. After all, it seems to be far less common for strong
trading partners to attack each other. Free trade, and less meddling in the
affairs of other sovereign nations, would - IMO - be more effective at
protecting us, than allowing the fracking NSA to grab call logs
indiscriminately.

~~~
irishcoffee
> How many people in the US have ever been killed as a result of a terrorist
> attack? Over all time the number is on the order of a few thousand.

Maybe because they're doing a much more effective job than we realize. Also I
don't think you accounted for Pearl Harbor.

> And finally, shouldn't we consider that people like Ron Paul have a point,
> that a lot of the hatred for the US...

I think this is common misconception. I do not think the vast majority of the
world hates the US. I'd be curious to see facts about this.

~~~
mindcrime
_Maybe because they're doing a much more effective job than we realize._

Maybe. Unfortunately there's no real way to say. I mean, if I offer you a
"tiger proof rock" and say that it protects against tiger attacks, will you
accept as evidence, the fact that I've never been attacked by a tiger?

 _Also I don't think you accounted for Pearl Harbor._

No, I didn't. I don't think most people put that under "terrorist attack", as
it was an overt action by an organized nation-state as part of an active
military strategy. The Japanese weren't just trying to "sow terror", it was a
tactical objective to weaken the US Navy so they wouldn't be able to impede
Japanese objectives in the Pacific during WWII.

 _I do not think the vast majority of the world hates the US. I'd be curious
to see facts about this._

I don't think the argument is that the majority of the world hates us
(although it might be fair to say that a majority aren't terribly _fond_ of
us), but rather that - of the groups which are actively engaging in terrorist
attacks directed out way - those groups are motivated by our foreign policy. I
admit this view is not without controversy.

~~~
chimeracoder
> No, I didn't. I don't think most people put that under "terrorist attack",
> as it was an overt action by an organized nation-state as part of an active
> military strategy.

Also, Hawaii at the time was not even a state.

The US actually hasn't fought a war on it's own soil since 1812.

(It HAS had numerous terrorist attacks on _foreign_ soil, however - the Beirut
barracks bombings in 1983 would be but one example. In fact, 9/11 was not
really an isolated incident, but the next progression in a number of terrorist
attacks against the US. It just happened to be the biggest one and the first
one on US soil (not counting the failed 1993 WTC bombing)).

------
qwertzlcoatl
The War on Terror is taking more and more victims. Chasing this phantom is
getting dangerously close to an Orwellian Paradise.

As Terry Jones said, "How do you wage war on an abstract noun, it's like
deciding to bomb murder".

~~~
josefresco
I would argue that terrorism is less abstract than murder. Also, the US "war
on terror" is about terror that specifically relates or effects the US making
it an even more specific classification.

~~~
betterunix
It is not specific enough to _end_. Typically, wars end in either victory or
defeat, but in the "war on terror" there is not even a clear definition of
either.

------
uvdiv
Previous discussion (5 hours old, still active):

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5829442>

------
butner
No checks and balances here... at least any that aren't classified and are
transparent to the public. A Tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson might refer to it.

~~~
uvdiv
Checks and balances are functioning perfectly. Congress voted for Patriot Act
§215, President Bush signed it into law, President Obama and his congress
reauthorized it, and the courts did not overturn it. The law has sat on the
books, _very_ publicly, for more than a decade, and has offered myriad
opportunities for citizens to debate and challenge (an example: [1]). The
broader issue of NSA dragnets is probably one of the top 20 political issues
in the US, making regular headlines since 2005 (if you include foreign
dragnets, 1995 [2] or earlier).

Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action.

[1] [http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-
technology...](http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-
and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215)

[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy>

~~~
mtgx
There's no real oversight, and they are using "secret Courts" and "secret
interpretations" even of these obscure and very vague laws.

~~~
_delirium
It isn't really particularly obscure or vague. The Patriot Act authorizes
exactly this (and many other things), explicitly and openly.

------
salimmadjd
AFAIK, Amdocs processes most of the carriers billing, aka metadata. Many of
Amdocs systems are based in Israel. So, does NSA need court ruling to get
metadata from an Israeli company? Seems like it might be another convenient
way to go around the constitution.

------
Vivtek
Oh, who could possibly have predicted this?

Why is everybody so surprised? I literally do not understand this.

~~~
flyinRyan
What I don't understand is sentiment like yours. We shouldn't bring this up
because "everyone knows already"? No, we should be shouting this from the roof
tops and do everything we can to make people mad enough about it to act. What
is your solution? Sit back and look smug while the world falls apart around
us?

~~~
Vivtek
Some of us have been shouting for the rooftops until hoarse for the last
decade and more. Suddenly everybody's reacting (and I don't mean everybody
here - I mean the New York Bloody Times) like this is the very first time this
has ever come up.

~~~
flyinRyan
Good. Our only hope is that one of this "just discovered today!" waves is big
enough to affect actual change. Your initial statement only serves as a "shut
up and move along". How do you imagine that helps anything?

It may be cool to say "I knew this already" but I'd rather be less cool and
have something done about this.

~~~
Vivtek
I'd say rather that _you took it_ as a "shut up and move along". Others
didn't. So it may have been a less than perfectly effective expression of my
intent, but that's as far as I'll go.

------
shmerl
Well, it's not a surprise, but at least now there is a solid evidence. What
can the public do about it though?

~~~
alan_cx
Loads. But the real question is, what _will_ the public do about it?

I suspect nothing what so ever. They are scared witless by terrorists and if
you guys are like the UK, paedophiles. Oh, and of course, it wont happen to
them, although, as we see, it already is.

------
Cieplak
If you don't like this, call your representatives in congress, and tell two
friends about it.

------
bas
Is this actually "news" (i.e. new information)? Ever since the secret room
business in 2006 (about events in 2003 or earlier), the handwriting was on the
wall.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A>

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/att_assisting_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/att_assisting_n.html)

~~~
taproot
No but be careful. People round here dont seek to be informed of such.

------
forgotAgain
You're not being paranoid if they're really out to get you.

------
Aloha
I've never considered call detail records to be particularly private. That's
all this is.

~~~
Thrymr
This is a _big_ difference from established law enforcement practice in that
regard. Normally a prosecutor needs to issue a subpoena to the phone company
to get your individual records, regarding a specific investigation. In this
case, the government gets every record from all Verizon customers for the
period in question. No, you would not expect that privacy would protect your
records if you are specifically under investigation. But you might (certainly
before the PATRIOT Act, if not before this revelation, unless you were a
conspiracy nut) expect that government agencies don't have free reign to
browse your records for no predefined purpose whatsoever. The potential for
abuse is too huge and obvious.

We seem to be well past all that now.

~~~
Aloha
Maybe its because I work in the telecom industry, I'm used to CDR's being all
over the place, easy to get, export as text even, and not particularly
private. It's always seemed to me that what you say on the call is far more
important than who you are calling.

------
kunai
Since everything is out anyway, and since everyone else has iterated on this
point several times now, all I have to say, is:

 _FUCK YOU, BIPARTISAN, CORRUPT, DICKISH, TYRANNICAL, WORTHLESS PIECE OF
SHIT._

 _FUCK YOU, GOVERNMENT._

------
josh2600
*Edit: nevermind.

------
volume
do they use Netezza or Greenplum for this sort of thing?

------
jordan_clark
Even taking it a step further - If monitoring my phone calls about my kid
being sick and puking in the back seat of my car keeps me safe from assholes,
be my guest. Listen away.

~~~
pekk
If you read any news story about this from any newspaper, you will see that
the issue is records of who called whom for how long, not full transcripts of
all your calls.

However terrible and indefensible that is, let's start by addressing reality
instead of imagination

------
kfcm
What a bunch of whiners.

It's not as if you don't hand much--if not all--of the same information over
to marketing departments, app makers and ad companies when using a smart
phone.

~~~
phdp
Marketing departments won't come crashing through my door dressed in a police
uniform.

~~~
kfcm
You've never heard of RIAA, MPAA, et al?

What happens when marketing departments realize they can use the data freely
given to them to target people to blackmail and extort, rather than just flash
ads at and try to sell to?

"For a monthly recurring fee of just $XX, conveniently and discreetly billed
to your credit card, you can prevent this information from being sent to
[spouse||significant other||law enforcement||employer]."

Or company will be founded--if not already--to buy bulk data and develop
reports and profiles on individuals and groups, with law enforcement and the
intelligence community as the primary customers? Sign up and buy a
report/profile for $25-50.

