Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

William Binney: NSA Records and Stores 80% of All US Audio Calls

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the must-use-a-good-compression-algorithm dept.

Privacy 278

stephendavion sends a report at The Guardian about remarks from whistleblower William Binney, who left the NSA after its move toward overreaching surveillance following the September 11th attacks. Binney says, "At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the U.S. The NSA lies about what it stores." He added, "The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control, but I’m a little optimistic with some recent Supreme Court decisions, such as law enforcement mostly now needing a warrant before searching a smartphone." One of Binney's biggest concerns about government-led surveillance is its lack of oversight: "The FISA court has only the government’s point of view. There are no other views for the judges to consider. There have been at least 15-20 trillion constitutional violations for U.S. domestic audiences and you can double that globally."

cancel ×

278 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433067)

Seeing as this would be petabytes of data every month, it should be easy enough to find out if the NSA is purchasing enough storage to accomplish something like this. Where's the proof of that?

Re:Uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433107)

Seeing as this would be petabytes of data every month, it should be easy enough to find out if the NSA is purchasing enough storage to accomplish something like this. Where's the proof of that?

You really think that a toilet seat costs $300? Hidden accounting, false companies and undisclosed contracts.

Re: Uh (4, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433225)

We are also only talking about 12,000 hard drives per year with appropriate spares to account for that recording capacity. That is certainly quite doable. That also wouldn't take up that much space... 36 disks per 4u server and we are also only talking about 36 cabinets, accounting for switching, cable management, and the like. That doesn't seem that far outside the realm of possibility, from a space, monetary, power, network capacity or logistics standpoint.

Re:Uh (5, Informative)

spike_gran (219938) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433137)

NSA has purchased enough storage for this apparently.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]

Archive.org has estimated the amount of memory required to store all phonecalls.

http://blog.archive.org/2013/0... [archive.org]

Re:Uh (1)

dave562 (969951) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433165)

Want to guess who their storage vendor is?

Hint... they are a three letter agen^H^H^H.. company.

Re:Uh (4, Funny)

Lazere (2809091) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433493)

OCZ?

Re:Uh (5, Insightful)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433519)

EMC?

Re:Uh (5, Informative)

dave562 (969951) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433563)

Yes, EMC.

Oddly enough, the correct answer was down modded to 0. Good to see that the NSA is actively working to keep the details of their operations in the dark.

For those of you who want to get in on the publicly sanitized version of the technology, have a look at..

http://www.emc.com/campaign/gl... [emc.com]

Re:Uh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433141)

Their huge datacenter which was bragging about storing Exabytes.

Re:Uh (5, Interesting)

dennis_k85 (828582) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433171)

I worked on equipment back in the 90's that could plug into a telephone switch, and record all call going through it,It was not for the NSA but I have no dought that is where it ended up. Dennis

Online storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433187)

They store the calls in the last 25% of porn files -- no one ever gets that far anyway.

Re:Online storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433261)

Speak for yourself. That's the best part.

Re:Uh (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433325)

Are those petabytes compressed or uncompressed and if compressed, at what quality?
Would they keep the recordings real-time accessible or on backup media?
Petabytes of uncompressed telephone-grade audio would boil down to less than one backup tape a day easily.

Re:Uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433825)

Ask Google, Amazon, and the other "cloud" providers.
Disk spaces is cheap and getting cheaper when one purchases in volume.

I'm shocked! (4, Funny)

Scottingham (2036128) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433071)

SHOCKED!

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433113)

Don't worry, we're working on getting the other 20% so please be patient.

--No Such Agency

Re:I'm shocked! (1)

JavaLord (680960) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433585)

The other 20% are probably the ones they aren't storing on purpose at their master's behest.

Re:I'm shocked! (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433755)

Actually I'm surprised at this. This is one of those few things that were worse than I expected, along with the NSA sabotaging NIST standards, treating all Linux users, cipherpunks and privacy advocates as extremists, and targeting human rights organizations.

80% of all calls in the US!? This is madness. This is computer-powered McCarthyism on crack.

Global constitutional violations? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433079)

Furriners don't have our constitutional rights.

We need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433091)

Someone to stand up for the constitution and throw everyone involved in this in prison.

Re:We need (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433153)

We should elect a Constitutional scholar to be President so he can change this for us.

Re:We need (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433263)

People expected a Constitutional scholar to follow and protect the Constitution. Instead, what we ended up with was someone who was very well wise to how to work out all the loopholes. Yes, I know you were joking, and I enjoyed it, I'm just pointing out the rather sad state of affairs.

Realistically, I'm not sure things would be much better if we had a different president. Even Ron Paul, who would assuredly do his damnedest to actually set things right, would be one man against an army of criminal, power-hungry scum. Still, I'd rather take a man that tries over a man that supports this evil.

Re: We need (-1, Troll)

Redbehrend (3654433) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433517)

And global warming is a myth!

Re:We need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433743)

People expect Congress to do its job. Making laws and acting as a counterbalance to the executive branch's power.
Unfortunately Congress is out to lunch at Milliways. So we bet our hopes on criminals that shit all over the Constitution.

Thank you William Binney (5, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433097)

I saw Mr. Binney speak at the HOPE conference in 2012. I remember a conversation with my parents where I relayed what I learned from him to them, and they thought I was buying into some conspiracy. When Snowden broke into the news, they asked me how I had known so far ahead of time.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about Binney's whistle-blowing in the wake of the Snowden revelations. He has been sounding the alarm for many years now.

Re:Thank you William Binney (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433181)

Not even the media contacted me when I sent anonymous tips concerning Stingray capabilities, and I worked on the project. It's way worse than people imagine, but people don't want to listen to what some anonymous coward says. Nobody is going to listen without hard evidence, but providing hard evidence (like Snowden did) means the end of your life as you know it.

Re:Thank you William Binney (2)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433439)

Not even the media contacted me when I sent anonymous tips concerning Stingray capabilities, and I worked on the project.

How could the media have contacted you when you sent in the tip anonymously?

~Loyal

Re:Thank you William Binney (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433641)

(I'm a different AC)
He could have included a public key with the tip.

Re:Thank you William Binney (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433457)

and this is only about NSA, when you look what other thinks are happening on the other side, you will probably end up with a lot of grey hair almost instantly

Re:Thank you William Binney (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433193)

Media suppression. "Self"-censorship. Because if you speak up, your own dirty laundry will be aired for the public to see and no one will ever trust anything you say.

Re:Thank you William Binney (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433209)

The difference between a conspiracy that exists, and the conspiracy that actually happens can be tested simply:

Would an uninformed idiot think it's actually a good idea to do?
If yes? It's probably happening.
If no? Find a new theory.

It's not that idiots run everything. But idiots get involved in every piece of decision making, somehow.

Re:Thank you William Binney (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433277)

It's also idiots that believe this stuff is true.

Re:Thank you William Binney (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433329)

I get why you'd express that sentiment. It's certainly plausible that this information isn't fully accurate.

Media (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433451)

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about Binney's whistle-blowing in the wake of the Snowden revelations. He has been sounding the alarm for many years now.

Because the media is incompetent. The days of investigative journalism like Woodward and Bernstein are loooong gone.

There's no money in it.

You know where the money is? Look at Fox News. Their content is where the money is - political punditry.

Fluff.

MSNBC, CNN, and everyone else is also to blame. Fox News at least - or Rupert anyway - had the balls to say it upfront.

I watched 60 Minutes the other week, and just shook my head at how they turned to shit. CBS used to be the best.

The people - you people included - just want to watch "news" that reinforces what they believe - not the facts. Sure, facts are shown but put in a way to match the World view of the audience.

Re:Thank you William Binney (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433845)

Binney has been sounding the alarm on this stuff for thirteen years and counting. He isn't the only one, and Snowden won't be the last.

I hate to say it, but the show's over, Bill. Nobody cares, America doesn't care. The terrorists and the government (two sides of the same coin) have already won. They'll get their total control and for all intents and purposes they already have it.

It's easy to see where this is all going to lead, especially once labor becomes largely unnecessary. By no later than 2050 free society worldwide will be figuratively and perhaps even literally dead. If a future of unfathomably brutal, near-fully automated totalitarianism doesn't appeal to you, then your way out is your choice. (I personally plan on sticking around just long enough to see how the shit hits the fan, if only for the small gratification of knowing that I was right.) Resistance is already impossible in monitored populations like ours. Soon, that will be the globe.

Why 80% (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433115)

If you're wondering why it's only 80% instead of 100%, it's because he's talking about all calls made everywhere. He says that 80% of the fiber in the world runs through the US, so 80% of the calls in the world are recorded. In other words, the NSA is recording all calls that go through the country.

Incidentally, didn't Obama announce some changes he was going to make to fix the NSA? Have any of those been implemented?

Hard Drive Production (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433173)

It's pretty simple to figure out that figure is bullshit.

Re:Hard Drive Production (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433283)

Yes, if you cannot do basic arithmetic, it is.

Re:Why 80% (1)

Meshach (578918) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433201)

Or is it that 80% are actual audio calls and the rest are just meta-data?

Re:Why 80% (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433235)

That's not what the article says......if it's not coming through the US, it's hard to get the meta-data (at least, just as hard as getting the audio).

Re:Why 80% (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433273)

Incidentally, didn't Obama announce some changes he was going to make to fix the NSA? Have any of those been implemented?

Unlike some other countries, the US has no experience what it is like to live under Fascism. The NSA is intent on changing that.

Re:Why 80% (5, Interesting)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433607)

It's really only a matter or time before some President or intelligence chief realizes that he has every email and phone call sent or received, and website visited, of every one of his political opponents--all right at his fingertips. And even if he doesn't have the balls to use it openly, it would be easy enough to use it in secret.

It may have already happened.

Re:Why 80% (-1, Troll)

Hey Bud - (3743081) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433887)

"Unlike some other countries, the US has no experience what it is like to live under Fascism. The NSA is intent on changing that." No, The Islamic Empire is intent on changing that. You can thank the NSA for slowing them down. Eventually it won't be enough, though. If government surveillance efforts are ended, jihadis will find it much easier to plan and carry out bombings and beheadings near you. You may be sputtering: "But ... But ... Islam is a religion of peace!!!". Sure it is. Especially during ramadan, when Muslims become increasingly pious, and take their religion more seriously, especially when their Imams remind them that their religious obligation under the Quran is to kill the kuffar. Check out the Ramadan Bombathan scorecard at http://www.thereligionofpeace.... [thereligionofpeace.com] Watch the mod score of this post. It will descend to -2 or so, as Islamic agents find and dispose of it.

Re:Why 80% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433275)

His proposed changes did not negatively impact the NSA at all. Instead, it put harsher penalties on whistleblowers.

Embarassing, isn't it, when this country supports government corruption and instead attacks the ones that bring their criminal ways to light?

Re:Why 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433281)

Incidentally, didn't Obama announce some changes he was going to make to fix the NSA? Have any of those been implemented?

Not yet. Once that number does get up to 100%, we can be sure Obama's changes have been implemented.

Re:Why 80% (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433337)

I would love it if Obama or congress would "fix" the NSA but that will never happen. They just don't seem to have the balls for it.

Re: Why 80% (2)

Redbehrend (3654433) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433571)

JFK tried to fix it and look what happened!

Re:Why 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433425)

Mod parent up. Title is misleading, as it implies that only 80% of US audio calls are recorded. The article suggests that it's actually 100%.

Re:Why 80% (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433515)

Incidentally, didn't Obama announce some changes he was going to make to fix the NSA? Have any of those been implemented?

Uh, after the continued revelations by whistleblowers here, I'm just curious. What exactly is your basis for believing anything Obama says on this matter?

And no, that's not just political snark I'm throwing around here, I'm being dead serious. You think they're ever going to declassify enough of this to even get through the lies, much less any changes that are (not) made?

Not bloody likely.

Re:Why 80% (1)

harrkev (623093) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433621)

Hey, Obama promised "Hope and Change." Isn't that what we have here? Admittedly, Bush started this -- probably. Or maybe he inherited the seeds from Clinton or earlier -- who knows how far back this trail goes? But Obama has had almost 6 years to fix things. Instead, under his watch, things have gotten worse.

In Obama's defense, I do not know if Romney would have done things any differently, but I suspect we would probably still be here even if he had won.

Re:Why 80% (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433651)

He says that 80% of the fiber in the world runs through the US, 80% of the calls in the world are recorded.

That has to be complete and utter bullshit. Why would a domestic call be routed through a country on the other side of the world, just because there happens to be fiber optic cables there? And all domestic calls outside of the USA account for just 20% of the total? I doubt it.

Re: Why 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433733)

Lol, people still believe what Obama says?

Re:Why 80% (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433849)

Incidentally, didn't Obama announce some changes he was going to make to fix the NSA? Have any of those been implemented?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

He's a liar, and a fraud.

Spock: 'member (4, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433127)

Right after 9/11, in the heat to Get Those Guys and their network, the NSA went into vast recoding depositories to track back conversations, actual recorded calls. They admitted it and it kind of blew by in the moment.

Am I the only one who remembers this?

Re:Spock: 'member (4, Interesting)

paysonwelch (2505012) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433233)

There are a lot of things that can only be remembered. I remember there was an announcement a day or two after 9/11 that all data was now being routed through government servers. That didn't surprise me but it's like they flipped a switch so they were ready for it.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433485)

if they made an announcement and you remember it then there would be a record of it somewhere, news article or blog entry or something.

Re:Spock: 'member (2)

gewalker (57809) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433549)

Remembering it is not enough. Lots of people "remember" Johnny Carson and Rachael Welch (or Gabor or someone else) petty their cat while visiting Johnny and when asked,"Would you like to pet my pussy?" Replied yes if you get that cat out of the way.

Supposedly censors allowed this to pass because the potentially offending word was actually ok because it can and did refer to a cat.

Never happened. If you think about censorship as it was have been in the 70's they would never have allowed this. Though her supposed comment was not offensive and could have theoretically passed (still highly doubleful), there is not way that Johnny's response would have been allowed.

Yet, many people "remember" this event just fine. They were watching Johnny. They add details, they were watching with Mom or Dad who refused "to explain" it. Yet it never happened.

Truth is becoming harder and harder to prove with modern technology. People watched the planes running into the 2nd tower on live television. Yet, the technology exists to edit realtime video to make this possible as a cover story. Eyewitness accounts are unrealiable. Deja vu is something that happens because of a glitch in the matrix.

Re:Spock: 'member (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433855)

Yar, one of the interesting things from 1984 was the massive amount of work spent on doctoring or destroying sources of 'unpopular' information. The Soviets were also masters at retouching photographs (in the 40's and 50's!)

Now none of that is really needed.

There's so much information out there, and it is so easy to (intentionally or not) draw false equivalencies between what's real, and what's fake, that the truth just kind of gets lost in the noise. It makes the 'big lie' infinitely easy for anyone who wants to claim something preposterous, and can get people to parrot the party line.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

dave562 (969951) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433243)

I missed that. Any references still around to it?

The 9/11 piece of info that sticks around in my mind is the "second crash site" in Pennsylvania. The site where the tail of the plane landed.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433497)

what does that mean pennsylvania. a plane did go down there.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

dave562 (969951) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433687)

When 9/11 was happening in real time, there were multiple news reports of TWO crash sites in Pennsylvania. There was the primary crash site, and then a secondary site a couple of miles away. At the secondary site, it was mentioned that the tail of the plane was found there.

After the first or second day of reporting, that story was squashed and never brought up again.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433721)

if there was a second crash site wouldn't have there been a hole in the ground that people noticed? can the govt cover up something like that?

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433753)

Any real time coverage of any big event has numerous reporting mistakes. No news.

Re:Spock: 'member (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433817)

Makes sense, the plane could have broken up on impact and the area where the tail landed was initially thought to be a second crash site. It was found to be part of the same plane, and the fact that the plane's ass landed some distance away is hardly newsworthy.

Well, yeah.... (2)

moehoward (668736) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433139)

Duh.

LoL... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433179)

Guy with institutional knowledge that is thirteen years out of date asserts facts that we know he can't back up, skirting around technical details that he's never been qualified to understand. I'd put down good money that he doesn't even have a grasp of how much data that would constitute, and how much that would cost.

This guy routinely makes these grandiose statements that have little basis in reality. Sure, he might have seen papers and proposals for such far-reaching programs, but the government has been losing money by the truckload since he left his position... it's a completely different world now than it was a decade ago. Slashdot might as well post stories from The Lone Gunmen.

Re:LoL... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433247)

I'd put down good money that he doesn't even have a grasp of how much data that would constitute, and how much that would cost.

How much would it be? Serious question. Phone audio compresses very well, after all.

Re:LoL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433367)

Large sums of money, any way yo slice it: if you're applying intense compression algorithms to such a huge magnitude of audio streams in real time, then you're just shifting your investment from storage to processing power and electricity. A hybrid approach of storing data in raw format to be queued for compression as capacity allows would be more cost effective, but you risk data loss if your back end can't keep or catch up, so you'd still realistically be putting huge sums of money into raw storage capacity.

Re:LoL... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433423)

Of course, but how much money? We already know that the NSA has huge amounts of money and storage. Besides, audio going over the telephone is already compressed horribly.

Re:LoL... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433307)

You really do not live in this world. Huge phone-audio archives are easy to do, small and cheap. Ask Avaya for example.

Re:LoL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433309)

Guy with institutional knowledge that is thirteen years out of date asserts facts that we know he can't back up, skirting around technical details that he's never been qualified to understand. I'd put down good money that he doesn't even have a grasp of how much data that would constitute, and how much that would cost.

Yeah. Except that's not at all true. If you paid attention at all, you'd know who he is, and how long he's been saying that the NSA has been spying on us all, and how they were doing it. Funny how it all turned out to be true, huh? But no, I'm sure he made it all up!

You wouldn't happen to be an NSA shill, would you?

Re:LoL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433461)

I do know who he is; I posted specific information relevant to his career. Did you even read that quote you posted? He has zero idea of what he speaks, and the desire of folks like you to believe him is all the "proof" that exists...

Yeah, I have worked for some of these agencies that only go by acronyms; not the NSA specifically, but we did quite a lot of work for them. Their leadership is just as incompetent as the rest of the government, and they're wholly incapable of keeping a conspiracy of this magnitude under wraps. Snowden should have shown you that.

Bottom line: the info this guy has is either well over a decade out of date, or not first-hand.... in either case, why would anyone put stock in it?

Re:LoL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433787)

Oh, you post specific information relevant to his career? Lets take a look then. About the only thing I can find of the sort in your post:

This guy routinely makes these grandiose statements that have little basis in reality.

Yes, very specific indeed. And with the abundant facts you provided, it is very hard to debate with you on that matter.

in either case, why would anyone put stock in it?

He's saying things we already know to be true and have evidence of. I'll take that over your rambling nonsense, especially after you have admitted to support their corruption.

Re:LoL... (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433333)

You're just wrong. In fact, we now have proof (Snowden revelations) that things carried on at the NSA pretty much exactly like he said it would. I think you also underestimate how much compression can be applied to telephone conversations. They are, after all, mostly "dead air". In addition, speech is very predictable. The phone companies take advantage of this to fit many conversations over lines of surprisingly modest bandwidth. Since the NSA is directly connected at the backbone (their secret ATT closets are well documented), they don't even have to do the compression themselves. They can just log the packets.

Speech to Text (4, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433207)

Step 1. Collect all audio
Step 2. Convert speech to text
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit

The IT guy and geek in me gets all excited thinking about all of the cool technology that they are leveraging.

The civil libertarian in me shudders knowing how easily they are able to contextualize and analyze the communications with the intent of subverting public discourse.

The cynical part of me is starting to believe that the average American really does not care because they are so conditioned that they have zero desire to enjoy any sort of true freedom. As long as they have access to shopping malls, housing and alcohol / caffeine / prescription drugs, they will be content.

Re:Speech to Text (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433285)

The real question is how much they want for the phone numbers and call recordings of every single, moderately-attractive woman in the world, and then how much they want to get my name on the list of every single, moderately-attractive man in the world... hey, the NSA could open up a pretty profitable side business like this.

Re:Speech to Text (1)

gewalker (57809) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433573)

What makes you think they don't monetize this already. How else do you get funds needs for black projects.

Re:Speech to Text (1)

aaron4801 (3007881) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433407)

If their speech-to-text engine is anywhere as "good" as Google Voice, this is a colossal waste of time and money, civil liberties be damned.

Blackmail? (4, Insightful)

stoicfaux (466273) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433221)

If the NSA can track people's movements, track who comes into contact with them, or just flat out records their phone calls, how many of our local/state/federal politicians, policy makers, law enforcement members, bureaucrats, bankers, CEOs, etc., could be blackmailed based on such information?

Next question. Who controls the NSA?

Re:Blackmail? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433311)

Next question. Who controls the NSA?

Answer... NO ONE ..

Re:Blackmail? (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433313)

Nobody. The NSA is beginning to be what the GeStaPo was in the 3rd Reich. Of course _they_ were loyal to the Fuehrer, but the NSA does not even have that much oversight.

But terr0rist don't use cell phones! (2)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433269)

How come everyone forgets that Atta and his buddies did not trust cellphones as far back as 911. Now I am sure they are even more paranoid about their use.

Re:But terr0rist don't use cell phones! (5, Insightful)

aaron4801 (3007881) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433445)

Anybody who claims this is all about terrorism is either lying, ignorant, or both. Control = Power, and if you can't take control, you get people to give it to you by scaring them with visions of explosions and death.

No one cares, so why does it matter? (5, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433341)

So what if the NSA stores your data? Who cares if it's "Constitutional"? The Constitution is just a piece of paper and doesn't mean a damned fucking thing because even if some uppity people over at the ACLU or EFF make a case out if it, it will be discarded under the veil of "National Security" Face it, the USA is a Police State. AND YOU WONT DO A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A WEAK POWERLESS WAGE SLAVE WHO VALUES YOUR SUV, JOB AND GADGETS OVER "LIBERTY" and look to someone else to fix the things you don't like. So I don't see why anyone should care -- because no one cares and nothing will be done. Perhaps these articles get posted because people like bitching about how powerless and helpless they choose to be in their pathetic existence as peons of the wealthy elite whose interests the NSA serves.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433435)

Wrong pronoun. Don't you mean "we"?

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433481)

people like bitching about how powerless and helpless they choose to be in their pathetic existence

Wow, you really nailed that one, but it didn't seem to sink in.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433511)

Perhaps we're waiting to see how the next two election cycles play out before we jump to torches and pitchforks? We haven't had an election since the Snowden leaks came out. Let's see to what degree domestic spying becomes a campaign issue.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433639)

Dianne Feinstein will still be elected. The gay people in her district will not vote for anyone else.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (1)

fulldecent (598482) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433861)

Fast forward... election results: a democrat or republican will win

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433553)

There was the rancer in Neveda that got the government to back down with some help.
There are town protesting and making busses full of illegals to turn around and not dump the kids off.
Judicial Watch is getting information on "lost emails" at the IRS where Congress is unable to.

Yea, people are starting to see if you stand up against them you can win. As it becomes more common it will be even more effective. I actually think the Feds have already lost, now its just a matter of time.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433649)

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Legal matters just interest me and any commentary I make written, verbal or otherwise should not be construed as legal advice.

There is a famous saying that has been attributed to various people; "There are four boxes of liberty; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and finally the ammo box. Please use in that order."

Though to be perfectly honest I don't believe armed insurrection would be very fruitful nor do I advocate one but law is an interest of mine so the point you bring up is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is so important and its apparent the powers that be recognize just how dangerous an armed populace is.
If you read the Declaration of Independence, while not a legal document in itself it was a letter to King George and does give us insight into the mindset of the founding fathers, it asserts the right of revolution in stating that government derives its power from the people and consequently it is the right of free men to overthrow their own government.

In fact if I recall correctly this historical context was considered extensively by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) during the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in determining the meaning of the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

Though a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its worthwhile to note there are some interesting thoughts about this right of revolution regarding the American Civil War if you want to do some research but I won't delve into that.

Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (1)

gewalker (57809) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433699)

Your point is well taken. Here is one suggested action. Try to wake up the sheep, enough to actually make a difference. Post the article to facebook. Here is how I posted it to my account.

I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, but our gov. is getting really out of control and scary. This is in my mind a pretty credible source. http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com] -- that does not guarantee that is in fact true, but I believe that it is.

Clearly there are other ways. Write / call the appropriate politicians, etc. You know more possibilities, no need for me to rant here.

Here's what I've learned (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433395)

Not from this disclosure specifically, but ever since 2001, I've learned one important thing: we've underestimated what has actually been done. Remember those stories years ago about secret data centre taps that were tied into major fibre/international cable telecommunications hubs [wikipedia.org] in places like San Francisco? Imagine what *could* be done with that! Imagine if that is one example of what is tapped at every ingress/egress communications point in a country. That was way back in 2006. No, no, that's paranoia. And there are legal protections that would prevent it.

All implemented. Everything. The sky's the limit. Billions and billions of dollars to do it? Here's the cash. Even the legal protections have been circumvented by using ridiculous legal tricks such as collecting everything. As long as nobody looks at it or no citizens are specifically "targetted", that is somehow fine and not mass surveillance? It's not a "search"? It's like going into every house in the country and passively photographing and recording everything there, but as long as nobody looks at that vast database unless there's some token cause, it's not a "search". It's like some kind of bizarro quantum mechanical legal theory where unless it is observed, the collected data exists in a legal limbo that doesn't make it a search until actively searched.

No, it is mass surveillance. And no matter how much you trust the people doing it, the results of that search are just sitting there waiting to be abused.

NSA & Aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433415)

bitches, there is nothing you could do, we are on the other side now

I do not mind them recording my calls (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433501)

I do not mind them record my calls, if they give me tax breaks, pay part of my phone bill, or let me use the recording myself. Isn't this the Google model anyway?

Of course they are (3, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433593)

I have been posted before there is simply no way the NSA could have use for even the most conservative estimates for there storage capacity in that Utah data center unless they are or were planning to keep the content.

Maybe time to switch to.. (1)

monkeyFuzz (3398671) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433763)

silent phone or get a blackphone?

Wilford Brimley is listening to my phone calls? (1)

Huge_UID (1089143) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433843)

Was the thought in my head as I glanced at the headline...

Liar (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47433865)

Liar... Fraud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Impeach him. Can we retroactively impeach Bush as well?
Scum, the lot of them.

yakov smirnoff might say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47433877)

"in soviet union, KGB spies on ordinary citizens! in United America States of Freedom... NSA spies on ordinary citizens! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>