
NSA surveillance program reaches ‘into the past’ to retrieve, replay phone calls - weu
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-surveillance-program-reaches-into-the-past-to-retrieve-replay-phone-calls/2014/03/18/226d2646-ade9-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html
======
rdtsc
Read foreign country as US here too.

Basically they can record everything and a constitutionally defined "search"
doesn't occur unless a human search and looks at the information.

Binney and other were talking about this even long before Snowden.

So what happens now, everything you do gets recorded, stored in their data
center and kept for decades. As soon as you do anything they deem suspicious
they might find you downloaded strange foot fetish porn when you were in
college and try to blackmail you.

~~~
res0nat0r
Evidence?

~~~
glitchdout
Here's your fucking evidence:

The FBI had access to the Boston bombers phone calls.

* [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec1...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-whistleblowers_08-01/) (important part at 2:10)

* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telepho...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston)

I'll quote the slip up of Tim Clemente, a former FBI agent:

> All digital communications are uh uh... There's a way to look at digital
> communications in the past. And I can't go into detail of how that's done or
> what's done but I can tell you that no digital communication is secure.

~~~
res0nat0r
The FBI is tasked with cases on US soil involving US persons.

~~~
glitchdout
How does that that give the FBI legitimacy to record phone calls of US
citizens?

~~~
res0nat0r
Ever hear about the mafia and RICO laws? It is 100% legal to listen to phone
conversations with a warrant. If you have evidence of wholesale FBI phone call
collection and eavesdropping I'd love to see it.

~~~
glitchdout
I already linked you the evidence in my previous post. Stop being purposely
obtuse. At this point you just seem to be part of another NSA program. [1]

I'll just quote the lead:

> The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate
> social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet
> conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

And more recently, GCHQ's JTRIG program. [2]

Again, I'll quote:

> (The core self-identified purposes of JTRIG is to) use social sciences and
> other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate
> outcomes it considers desirable

[1]: [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-
ope...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-
social-networks)

[2]: [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipula...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipulation/)

~~~
res0nat0r
That is illegal? I see propaganda every time I flip by Fox News.

~~~
res0nat0r
Stop downvoting what you disagree with....

------
rootuid
"At the request of U.S. officials, The Washington Post is withholding details
that could be used to identify the country where the system is being employed
or other countries where its use was envisioned"

Therefore there is no point to the article.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The status quo is then restored.

All this article is is chest-pounding by the US to warn potential competitors
in the global sphere of influence.

~~~
res0nat0r
What is wrong with that? The program described in the article is legal.

~~~
joshfraser
If it's legal, then we need to change the laws.

------
spikels
"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls," Mr. Obama said. "That's not
what this program is about."

It's about recording your calls to listen to later.

~~~
schoen
In this context, the troubles with that statement are "your" and "this
program".

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130729/12223823986/senat...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130729/12223823986/senators-
not-impressed-with-james-clappers-carefully-worded-responses.shtml)

------
qwerta
It says NSA only keeps 1 month of voice records. I think they store everything
for couple of years, perhaps indefinitely. Storing all that voice is very
cheap and is too juicy to let go. Also there were rumors about this recording
for the past 30 years.

GSM voice codec has rate 13 kbit/s. 6 billion people x 1 hour of talking per
day = 6e9 x 3600 x 13/8 = _35 TB /day_.

~~~
Spooky23
As with most newspaper articles that have government officials providing
material input, what isn't said is usually more important that what is.
(That's true in any context, not just NSA -- read stories about your local
Mayor and road projects with a critical eye too)

The article states nothing at all about retention.

------
noblethrasher
I posted this spreadsheet in another thread to give an idea of the cost of
storing all of the nation's calls.

I figured an annual cost of about $11 million.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqWtA_3af-R0dE5...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqWtA_3af-R0dE5hVGdZNUxkZlBYck83TkQ2NlJxQVE&usp=sharing#gid=0)

(the spreadsheet allows editing, so you all can play with the numbers).

~~~
cklaus
What does it cost to transcribe All VOICE calls ->TEXT for faster analysis,
apply DEEP learning to it, and apply a graph of Everyone bigger than Facebook
to these patterns?

~~~
PeterisP
The voice->text is inaccurate enough (especially because the many different
languages that can be used) so you have to keep the original recording and not
just the text; but yes, you can easily do things like "find all conversations
where the word 'nakamoto' is heard" with mass scale voice/speech analysis.

------
mladenkovacevic
I wonder if it's not Afghanistan, Iran or any of the usual suapecta but
actually Canada. We've got a puppet federal government submissive to US
demands.. A small number of large NSA friendly telcos that reach a large
majority of the population, and a large number of immigrants from all over the
world. Perfect testing ground for such a system.

~~~
cracell
Why not all 3 and throw in the US as well?

The goal is too record everything which means implementing programs like this
in as many countries as they can. Actually identifying which countries such
programs are currently operating in would be tricky without a leak. It's a
real shame this article didn't publish it.

~~~
poulson
This makes me wonder how Greenwald, Gellman, and Poitras come to a consensus
on what to hold back. Clearly they all have access to the data and it would be
possible (read: very likely) for them to disagree on what should and should
not be withheld.

------
D9u
Sadly, it seems that the majority have become inured to the offensive over
reach of agencies such as NSA, GCHQ, etc.

The only way to play it as if the _country where the system is being employed_
is your own.

Yes, I said it... I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the aforementioned
country is the USA.

