7 ms·

"pieces of telephone data" is not very specific but it could mean "x called Y at T for D seconds". And it's over a period of nearly a month. Many people do phon

by eis 13y ago

"pieces of telephone data" is not very specific but it could mean "x called Y at T for D seconds". And it's over a period of nearly a month. Many people do phone calls at least once a day. So 70M records for a population of 66M is not unrealistic for widescale surveillance. What the number makes clear though is that it can't be for targeted terrorism-suspect surveilance. Unless you have something like a million suspects in France. And in any case they should ask the french authorities/spies for help if they want to know something about french residents. I wonder how the USA would react if other governments started openly surveilling US citizens/companies/politicians. That'd be one fun thing to watch.

mercurial 13y ago
To be faire, the "openly" part was entirely unfortunate as far as the NSA is concerned, they were really happy when "openly" was "secretly".
- eis 13y ago
  Absolutely. But as a reaction the others could do it openly and then be astonished when the US government objects :) I think either this or getting as much seperated/independent from the US will have any kind of proper effect. Though I fear nothing really will change since the other countries have spy agencies as well which they want to keep. So a few "outrageous!" will be communicated to the media and business as usual continues.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
I read oelmekki's comment as putting the number of monitored calls in context, not questioning its correctness.
- eis 13y ago
  Yea, I think one can read it either way. What I was trying to point out, is that the number makes it clear what the surveillance is about (and that's nothing related to terrorists).
- oelmekki 13y ago
  Indeed, it was purely factual. Of course, I'm not implying every french was spied on - it won't make sense since a good part are just kids. But when your records count for a country exceed their population, you can't be expected to only watch a few bad guys, that's a sign of massive surveillance - or strategic surveillance over tactical surveillance, as Assange would put it.

by eis 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago

To be faire, the "openly" part was entirely unfortunate as far as the NSA is concerned, they were really happy when "openly" was "secretly".

eis 13y ago
Absolutely. But as a reaction the others could do it openly and then be astonished when the US government objects :) I think either this or getting as much seperated/independent from the US will have any kind of proper effect. Though I fear nothing really will change since the other countries have spy agencies as well which they want to keep. So a few "outrageous!" will be communicated to the media and business as usual continues.

andyjohnson0 13y ago

I read oelmekki's comment as putting the number of monitored calls in context, not questioning its correctness.

eis 13y ago
Yea, I think one can read it either way. What I was trying to point out, is that the number makes it clear what the surveillance is about (and that's nothing related to terrorists).
oelmekki 13y ago
Indeed, it was purely factual. Of course, I'm not implying every french was spied on - it won't make sense since a good part are just kids. But when your records count for a country exceed their population, you can't be expected to only watch a few bad guys, that's a sign of massive surveillance - or strategic surveillance over tactical surveillance, as Assange would put it.