• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NSA's data mining explained

ValkyrieofHouston

Golden Member
If this is a repost my apologies and just lock the thread. Just read this now...

This to me is some very disconcerting news...

FAQ Capitol Hill politicians reacted angrily this week to a new report about how the National Security agency is involved in not merely surveillance of phone calls, but also an extensive data mining program.

"We need to know what our government is doing in its activities that spy upon Americans," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania vowed to hold hearings to get to the bottom of how the NSA's data mining works and whether Americans' privacy rights were affected.

To answer some questions about the program and how it likely works, CNET News.com has created the following list of answers to frequently asked questions. Keep reading.

Q: What new information came out this week?
USA Today published an article on Thursday that said AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth turned over records of millions of phone calls to the National Security Agency. These are not international calls--they're apparently records of all calls that those companies' customers made.

Two things are worth noting. First, based on the newspaper's description, contents of phone calls were not divulged. Second, customers' names, street addresses and other personal information were not handed over.

Q: When you say records of phone calls were turned over, what does that mean?
That's a reference to "call detail records," or CDRs, which are database entries that record the parties to the conversation, the duration of the call and so on. This appears to include local phone calls and not just long-distance calls.

CDRs are stored in massive telephone company databases. Cisco Systems' Unified CallManager lets customers use SQL queries to dig up information about each call. Those internal databases have either been opened up to outside queries from the NSA or (more likely) duplicated and handed over to the NSA on a regular basis.

Q: If the NSA has my phone number, can it get my name and address?
Yes. The NSA can cross-check other databases to obtain that information. Many commercial data vendors, such as Yahoo People Search and LexisNexis' People Locator, do just that--and count many federal agencies among their customers.

Q: How about cell phones?
It would be a bit more difficult. There's no central directory for cell phones, for instance. And there's not much information that can be gleaned about owners of disposable cell phones who happened to buy them with cash.

Q: How is this different from what we knew before?
A series of disclosures, starting with The New York Times' report in December, outlined how the NSA conducted surreptitious electronic surveillance of phone calls and e-mail traffic when one party was outside the United States.

The president and other members of his administration have stuck to that claim--saying that domestic phone calls were not part of the dragnet. In January, for instance, Bush assured Americans that "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

The latest revelation is different. It says the scope of the NSA's efforts is far broader than listening in on a few hundred conversations. Instead, the vast majority of Americans have probably had information on their phone calls turned over. (Another difference is that the contents of the conversations was not divulged, at least as far as we know.)

Q: When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was testifying a few months ago, he seemed careful to specify that he was talking only about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Does that mean he knew about the phone data mining effort and refused to reveal it earlier?
It seems likely, but we don't know. During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in a subsequent letter to senators, Gonzales' careful wording seemed to imply that there may be additional domestic surveillance programs beyond the one revealed by The New York Times. (Testifying before senators, Gonzales referred to that program as "the program that the president has confirmed.")

But Gonzales later reassured concerned politicians that the administration is not currently conducting any additional domestic surveillance programs, Rep. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Washington Post in a March interview. Of course, Gonzales could have been parsing his words carefully--and might eventually claim that data mining is not surveillance.

Q: Now that the NSA has this mountain of data, what is the agency doing with it?
The two-word summary: data mining. That's a loose term that generally means directing a computer program to sift through large amounts of data in hopes of extracting previously unknown information.

In theory, useful patterns can emerge and future terrorist plots could be thwarted. In practice, though, The New York Times has reported that FBI sources say many of the tips provided by the NSA led to dead ends.

Q: What other data mining efforts has the NSA been involved with?
Details are classified, of course. But a few hints have become public, and we know that the NSA has funded or been otherwise involved in dozens of programs in the past.

To continue reading the rest of this article click here: Continue to article
 
If you aren't calling terrorists there's nothing to be worried about. But you're worried? I'm starting to think you're a little red and by that I mean you prefer a hammer and sickle to a hamburger.
 
Originally posted by: Amplifier
If you aren't calling terrorists there's nothing to be worried about. But you're worried? I'm starting to think you're a little red and by that I mean you prefer a hammer and sickle to a hamburger.



Maybe you need to go back and take a look at what the communist did to their people... this is a gradual process. They instilled fear in the public and tried to justify thier violations of peoples privacy of rights... and essentially that is what is happening in this country now. We are the sheep blindly following along. They used fear tactics and it worked. You need to get a grip and wake up at what is really happening here.
 
FYI - The collection of calling patterns is perfectly legal as ruled by the Supreme Court almost three decades ago. Link

The NSA apparently has not collected the actual content of the phone conversations, just the numbers dialed. That distinction is key in determining whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable government searches and seizures.


The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."
 
Yes. The NSA can cross-check other databases to obtain that information. Many commercial data vendors, such as Yahoo People Search and LexisNexis' People Locator, do just that--and count many federal agencies among their customers.

So you're worried about the NSA having the records but not Yahoo or LexisNexis? If you're a taxpaying US citizen The Government already knows where you live how much you make your address and just about everything else about you. I'd be more worried about some disgruntled geek working at Yahoo or a Credit Agency than the NSA.
 
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.. it's sad really.

Supreme Court - 1979. It is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."
 
Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
Originally posted by: Amplifier
If you aren't calling terrorists there's nothing to be worried about. But you're worried? I'm starting to think you're a little red and by that I mean you prefer a hammer and sickle to a hamburger.



Maybe you need to go back and take a look at what the communist did to their people... this is a gradual process. They instilled fear in the public and tried to justify thier violations of peoples privacy of rights... and essentially that is what is happening in this country now. We are the sheep blindly following along. They used fear tactics and it worked. You need to get a grip and wake up at what is really happening here.

Is anyone actually afraid here?

Are you? I am not.
 
I love how the members of this board don't believe there is anything the government could do that is wrong.
 
Go in the other thread, a full on discussion is already taking place.

Q: What new information came out this week?
BTW: That article that came out is the exact same one that came out weeks ago. The reporter is gunning for a pulitzer, but doing nothing but rehashing old information.

If you let paranoia and the idea that the evil govt is out to get you run your life, you're going to live a very sad life.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.. it's sad really.

Supreme Court - 1979. It is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

I don't see anything about data mining in there though.
 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how the members of this board don't believe there is anything the government could do that is wrong.

If Bush asked them to jump off the Verazano's bridge they would.
 
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.. it's sad really.

Supreme Court - 1979. It is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

I don't see anything about data mining in there though.

I don't see anything in the constitution outlawing data mining either.

The data they are collecting (phone numbers) and how they are collecting it (through the phone companies) is perfectly legit per the Supreme Court as long as the content of the calls is not recorded without a warrant.
 
Originally posted by: Amplifier
If you aren't calling terrorists there's nothing to be worried about. But you're worried? I'm starting to think you're a little red and by that I mean you prefer a hammer and sickle to a hamburger.

AHAHAHA, that's the way the commies ran the USSR.

Maybe YOU'RE the one who's a little 'red'.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.. it's sad really.

Supreme Court - 1979. It is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

I don't see anything about data mining in there though.

I don't see anything in the constitution outlawing data mining either.

The data they are collecting (phone numbers) and how they are collecting it (through the phone companies) is perfectly legit per the Supreme Court as long as the content of the calls is not recorded without a warrant.
That isnt true. The data they are collecting still requires legal authority (Warrant), according to news reports the NSA didnt get that authority.

The Supreme Court ruling you are referencing was trumped by the Patriot Act. This is something that even President Bush argued previously while defending allegations of not using FISA courts. It was OK then to ignore previous case law, and now it isnt?

 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how the members of this board don't believe there is anything the government could do that is wrong.

You do know that pretty much every government is corrupt in some way, right?

There is far more going on behind the scenes than you or I will ever know about. Of course the government makes mistakes, and often large ones. What would you rather the government do, not monitor any of the phone calls taking place? Go through tons of paperwork and authorization just to tap a suspected terroists phone line?

 
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.. it's sad really.

Supreme Court - 1979. It is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.


"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

I don't see anything about data mining in there though.

I don't see anything in the constitution outlawing data mining either.

The data they are collecting (phone numbers) and how they are collecting it (through the phone companies) is perfectly legit per the Supreme Court as long as the content of the calls is not recorded without a warrant.
That isnt true. The data they are collecting still requires legal authority (Warrant), according to news reports the NSA didnt get that authority.

The Supreme Court ruling you are referencing was trumped by the Patriot Act. This is something that even President Bush argued previously while defending allegations of not using FISA courts. It was OK then to ignore previous case law, and now it isnt?

Link?
 
Meh, I'll start to worry when the government mandates tracking chips and surveilance in every aspect of my life, you know because I "might" be a terrorist.
 
Wiretapping is one thing. This is arguing for the sake of argument. Abraham Lincoln was a worse violator of the Constitution than Dubya will ever be.
 
what i dont like about that is how bendable the terms "terrorist"/"terrorism" are.

It's TYPICAL for a fascist or communist gvt to use terms like those for "enemies" of a country/government...this SADLY also includes dissidents or just people in the opposition. (See china).

It's NOT a far step from a REAL terrorist coming from some extremist camp killing innocent people to someone just voicing his opinion ("iahte bush, i hate this government)...etfc....where do you draw the line ?

So..if someone in "free" america states he hates bush and the government - he could very WELL be in some database under "borderline terrorist".

What do you wanna do ? Listen in to/collect data from millions of calls and then "preventive" lock up all people who have a "dangerous" opinion ?

Does anyone even realize how far off this is AGAINST the basic american principle and right of free speech..and that ths SAME methods are and have been used in....well former soviet union, china, cuba etc....its just the level it is brought to and how far you're willing to go down in your definition of what is "a terrorist".

Even more pathetic when people then excuse this actions and even solidarize with 'em "for the sake of america" - ignorant that they're only supporting methods which they (as americans !!!) shouldn't support AT ALL.
 
from the other thread

This is a matrix that outlines the type of electronic information and how the government needs to go about obtaining the information. The "records" that are important to this issue fall under the, "Real-time interception of non-content information." I suggest reading that.

According to news articles, when Qwest was approached by the NSA to hand over the information, Qwest asked them for a warrant, Qwest also asked for a letter from the AG office stating that the request was in compliance with current law. The NSA could not oblige the request with a warrant or letter. So Qwest didnt give them the info (among other reasons...but I am condensing here..)

here is that article.

If all of this is true, someone needs to ask the government WTF!?
 
Back
Top