6 ms·

N.S.A. Will Not Be Allowed to Keep Old Phone Records

144 points by jeo1234 11y ago

higherpurpose 11y ago
Wink wink, nudge nudge?
sschueller 11y ago
But will that actually stop them from doing it anyway? It seems the NSA doesn't care about any laws it breaks domestic or international since there are no repercussions.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  No, they care. When it was discovered that a target had once applied for citizenship, rendering him an USPER and thus off limits, Alexander had the man's file printed out, erased from the system, and then burned it in front of the entire NOC to make a point. Yes, their procedural controls suck. Yes, "collect it all" is likely an illegal mantra. And if someone bad gets their hands on this data the result could be horrific. But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.
  - ionised 11y ago
    > But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats. And civil liberties groups and charities. And foreign businesses in allied countries. And allied politicians.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - NullCharacter 11y ago
      [citation needed]
      - ionised 11y ago
        Do you really have to ask after the last year or more of news? http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-testimony/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-t... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveillance-two-human-rights-groups-illegal-tribunal http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveill... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted-aid-agencies-german-government-eu-commissioner http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted... http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_spying_on_humanitarian_groups_like_unicef_medecins_du_monde.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz... I mean, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I've got a pretty good record of everything leaked over the last year or so on my home computer.
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        Oh you mean an intelligence agency whose mission is foreign intelligence is gathering intelligence on foreign entities?
        ionised 11y ago
        You just asked me for citations, implying that you didn't believe what I wrote. I gave you citations/articles and you reply with basically "Well, well... of course they do that!"
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        For what it's worth, when you said "Civil liberties groups and charities... and allied politicians" I thought you were referring to domestic organizations/persons. Shrug.
- raintrees 11y ago
  Aren't the ISPs now indemnified? If so, seems like a win for government, they can avoid FOIA's and such about data THEY are gathering.
kardos 11y ago
GCHQ, meanwhile, is not restricted from storing or querying such a database should they obtain a copy. Further, the NSA is not barred from asking GCHQ to return queries against the content of databases they hold. Lastly, GCHQ would be wise to automate the servicing of such requests, as a cost saving measure. So this restriction has the potential of slowing the NSA's phone record snooping by roughly one RTT across the Atlantic. A delay that could amount to as much as 0.15 seconds.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Yes, assuming the US lets the GCHQ store US information. I'd say its more likely AT&T, Verizon, et al. just provide a "Prioritized Law Enforcement" API and sell access to the Government.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  FVEY really is a neat arrangement. We can all circumvent laws about spying on our own citizens by having our closest allies do it. Hail Britannia, I suppose, except instead of owning the waves they now own the packets. GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country. And yes, the scenario described is exactly what an intelligence officer would think, in order to handle the situation.
  - kamjam 11y ago
    > GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country Depends what you mean by small country. By land mass certainly, but that didn't stop them amassing the largest empire in history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire] and it's the 5th largest in terms of GDP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...] For me, the GDP is the important part. Hacking, snooping, spying has always been less about national security than it has about power, control, money and greed. The interwebs has just provided new challenges whilst making it easier to collect data on the masses. Terrorism is the new excuse. This article was also posted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818 It's old news under a new guise, and the collaboration is a long standing one.
sneak 11y ago
...but they will anyway.
wickedlogic 11y ago
And by 'will not be allowed to keep', they really mean transfer to a contracted 3rd party to 'delete' it, until it might be needed or become more legitimate to be keeping... during the next crisis.
meddlepal 11y ago
Yea, I believe that... not.
callesgg 11y ago
The word "Allowed" does not weigh much in the ears of NSA employees.
supergeek133 11y ago
"Not allowed"... haha.
ommunist 11y ago
And who is going to check that? On a rolling basis? May I please go there and check?
- wmeredith 11y ago
  Why of course not, silly prole. YOU do don't get to check. It's way above your clearance. Just pay your taxes and shut up.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
jackreichert 11y ago
I don't use the phone. Pretty much ever. I want to know what's happening to my emails, online tracking etc.
happyscrappy 11y ago
At least the French are honest, we are taking everything and there is nothing you can do about it.
caseysoftware 11y ago
This time.. THIS TIME they're follow the law and tell the truth. Because they have such a great track record. Remember, this is the Administration that first claimed they weren't collecting anything, then they were but not on Americans, then they were but only for suspected terrorists, then they were but only for people connected to terrorists, then they were but only metadata. How dumb do they think we are to believe that story? And - as others have noted - GCHQ probably has a copy of everything too so this is yet another paper tiger.
dudul 11y ago
Weren't they already not allowed to collect them in a first place?
Zikes 11y ago
It's not enough. This says they have to purge the phone records on a rolling five year basis. Collecting phone records without a warrant is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

144 points by jeo1234 11y ago

Wink wink, nudge nudge?

But will that actually stop them from doing it anyway? It seems the NSA doesn't care about any laws it breaks domestic or international since there are no repercussions.

s_q_b 11y ago
No, they care. When it was discovered that a target had once applied for citizenship, rendering him an USPER and thus off limits, Alexander had the man's file printed out, erased from the system, and then burned it in front of the entire NOC to make a point. Yes, their procedural controls suck. Yes, "collect it all" is likely an illegal mantra. And if someone bad gets their hands on this data the result could be horrific. But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.
- ionised 11y ago
  > But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats. And civil liberties groups and charities. And foreign businesses in allied countries. And allied politicians.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - NullCharacter 11y ago
    [citation needed]
    - ionised 11y ago
      Do you really have to ask after the last year or more of news? http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-testimony/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-t... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveillance-two-human-rights-groups-illegal-tribunal http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveill... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted-aid-agencies-german-government-eu-commissioner http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted... http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_spying_on_humanitarian_groups_like_unicef_medecins_du_monde.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz... I mean, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I've got a pretty good record of everything leaked over the last year or so on my home computer.
      - NullCharacter 11y ago
        Oh you mean an intelligence agency whose mission is foreign intelligence is gathering intelligence on foreign entities?
        ionised 11y ago
        You just asked me for citations, implying that you didn't believe what I wrote. I gave you citations/articles and you reply with basically "Well, well... of course they do that!"
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        For what it's worth, when you said "Civil liberties groups and charities... and allied politicians" I thought you were referring to domestic organizations/persons. Shrug.
raintrees 11y ago
Aren't the ISPs now indemnified? If so, seems like a win for government, they can avoid FOIA's and such about data THEY are gathering.

kardos 11y ago

GCHQ, meanwhile, is not restricted from storing or querying such a database should they obtain a copy. Further, the NSA is not barred from asking GCHQ to return queries against the content of databases they hold. Lastly, GCHQ would be wise to automate the servicing of such requests, as a cost saving measure. So this restriction has the potential of slowing the NSA's phone record snooping by roughly one RTT across the Atlantic. A delay that could amount to as much as 0.15 seconds.

fweespeech 11y ago
Yes, assuming the US lets the GCHQ store US information. I'd say its more likely AT&T, Verizon, et al. just provide a "Prioritized Law Enforcement" API and sell access to the Government.
s_q_b 11y ago
FVEY really is a neat arrangement. We can all circumvent laws about spying on our own citizens by having our closest allies do it. Hail Britannia, I suppose, except instead of owning the waves they now own the packets. GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country. And yes, the scenario described is exactly what an intelligence officer would think, in order to handle the situation.
- kamjam 11y ago
  > GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country Depends what you mean by small country. By land mass certainly, but that didn't stop them amassing the largest empire in history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire] and it's the 5th largest in terms of GDP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...] For me, the GDP is the important part. Hacking, snooping, spying has always been less about national security than it has about power, control, money and greed. The interwebs has just provided new challenges whilst making it easier to collect data on the masses. Terrorism is the new excuse. This article was also posted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818 It's old news under a new guise, and the collaboration is a long standing one.

sneak 11y ago

...but they will anyway.

wickedlogic 11y ago

And by 'will not be allowed to keep', they really mean transfer to a contracted 3rd party to 'delete' it, until it might be needed or become more legitimate to be keeping... during the next crisis.

meddlepal 11y ago

Yea, I believe that... not.

callesgg 11y ago

The word "Allowed" does not weigh much in the ears of NSA employees.

supergeek133 11y ago

"Not allowed"... haha.

ommunist 11y ago

And who is going to check that? On a rolling basis? May I please go there and check?

wmeredith 11y ago
Why of course not, silly prole. YOU do don't get to check. It's way above your clearance. Just pay your taxes and shut up.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

jackreichert 11y ago

I don't use the phone. Pretty much ever. I want to know what's happening to my emails, online tracking etc.

happyscrappy 11y ago

At least the French are honest, we are taking everything and there is nothing you can do about it.

caseysoftware 11y ago

This time.. THIS TIME they're follow the law and tell the truth. Because they have such a great track record. Remember, this is the Administration that first claimed they weren't collecting anything, then they were but not on Americans, then they were but only for suspected terrorists, then they were but only for people connected to terrorists, then they were but only metadata. How dumb do they think we are to believe that story? And - as others have noted - GCHQ probably has a copy of everything too so this is yet another paper tiger.

dudul 11y ago

Weren't they already not allowed to collect them in a first place?

Zikes 11y ago

It's not enough. This says they have to purge the phone records on a rolling five year basis. Collecting phone records without a warrant is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment.