5 ms·
The article is evidence of the capability. And if you look at other leaks you see a clear pattern of them vacuuming up all the data they possibly can. Then tak
by cracell 13y ago
The article is evidence of the capability. And if you look at other leaks you see a clear pattern of them vacuuming up all the data they possibly can.
Then take into consideration their budget and various data centers and it seems that they are capable of doing this at any scale desired.
So they've shown the desire and capability. It's not direct evidence but it's pretty strong.
- res0nat0r 13y agoSure, but collecting and recording phone calls of US citizens is illegal and there hasn't been any evidence of this happening. Metadata of who you called and when has never been protected by the 4th Amendment so we can head that off...
- bigiain 13y ago"Illegal" in the same way that saying "No" to congress when the real answer was "Yes" is. Then later explaining that iw was "the least possible untruthful answer". The NSA have twisted their use of language - to try and claim that "recording phone calls of US citizens" isn't an illegal act until a human being listens to one of those recordings. I'm 99.999% sure that a "jury of peers" would not interpret the law that way. (Which might be why the need "special courts" without juries…)
- res0nat0r 13y agoThere is no evidence of the NSA recording phone calls of US citizens, that is just speculation.
- rbcgerard 13y agoAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.
- res0nat0r 13y agoAbsence of evidence is not evidence.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 13y agoThe NSA doesn't have to record phone calls of US citizens. They just get one of the other Five Eyes countries to do it for them, in a quid pro quo arrangement that circumvents the inconvenient rule of law in several places at once. You're carrying water for some seriously un-American people. The only reason you're not upset about it is that it doesn't seem to be affecting you, personally, at the moment.
- rdtsc 13y agoThat is a very good point, this might not have been explicitly said (or I just didn't read about it yet) but I just kind of assumed it works this way. We spy on your people we spy on our people and then we share if we find something interesting. Other countries also might not have the same supposed privacy guarantees in their constitution so it doesn't even have to be symmetric (say Australians somehow spy both on us and their citizens).