Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 407 posts

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#201

Post by mpyne »

paulsutter wrote: post #146
dbbolton wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were obtained without a warrant, wouldn't they be inadmissible as evidence, especially if they were being used in an inculpatory rather than exculpatory manner?

The government lawyers' opinion is that they can later get a warrant to access the data, long after it was recorded (see the whole discussion on "collect" meaning to take a book off the shelf and read it). They also seem to think it's ok to datamine the recordings as long as it's done anonymously.

And in fact I'm willing to bet that explains the divergence of opinion that the Senator noted in the linked story.

He probably was told in his classified briefing that NSA could record and collect phone calls without a warrant.

Mueller, on the other hand, would be talking about actually tapping into that data, which would need a warrant.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that you can record a phone call without a warrant just because it's using VoIP or some equivalent instead of a physical wiretap, but it does sound similar to the other arguments that have been made to collect data for later analysis by warrant if necessary.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#202

Post by cpleppert »

moxie wrote: post #166
zmmmmm wrote: post #109

There's something sick and wrong in the semantics of how the laws have been interpreted here. The authorities seem to have decided that they can record anything they want, any time they want. The legal boundary is only crossed when somebody listens to the recording. So it is fine for them to slurp up every bit of data they can tap into and then retrospectively figure out which bits they were authorized to listen to (…

Here is the video clip from General Alexander's congressional testimony three days ago, where he stated this was not happening: http://youtu.be/ZmBAxEWxDFs?t=1h29m50s It's not clear to me whether they were sworn in for this hearing or not, but if this new report is true, then this seems to be at least the second documented case of an exposed lie about the scope of surveillance during congressional testimony. The firs…

He might be interpreting the claim as being that Snowden could do that, which is, of course, false.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#203

Post by cpleppert »

trevelyan wrote: post #168
tptacek wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For fuck's sake. So you don't just disagree with (1) and (2), but with the whole thing. Why not just say that? Yes, to whatever extent that slide deck said NSA has direct access to the servers that run Google Mail, I am arguing with the slide deck.

Two days ago you were arguing with a slide deck. At this point, you're also arguing with a NSA brief of Congress and numerous public statements by members of Congress. Swearing at me isn't the solution in any case. If you want to stop taking flack on HN, you should stop attacking the credibility of whistleblowers on the rhetorical basis that you know more about what the NSA is doing than the NSA does.

The NSA brief to congress wasn't referring to PRISM at all. Telecommunications interception != PRISM.

The slide deck was always very ambiguous. But it was very interesting that it said that analysts should use both methods (PRISM and interception)

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#204

Post by marshray »

samstave wrote: post #197
zmmmmm wrote: post #109

There's something sick and wrong in the semantics of how the laws have been interpreted here. The authorities seem to have decided that they can record anything they want, any time they want. The legal boundary is only crossed when somebody listens to the recording. So it is fine for them to slurp up every bit of data they can tap into and then retrospectively figure out which bits they were authorized to listen to (…

We need to hear what the NSAs version of listening is. Do algorithms parsing streams count as listening? Or only when a human sees it/hears it?

Does it matter?

Just the copying and storage of the bits today is laying the groundwork for any imaginable abuses in the future.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#205

Post by mpyne »

tptacek wrote: post #178
trevelyan wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two days ago you were arguing with a slide deck. At this point, you're also arguing with a NSA brief of Congress and numerous public statements by members of Congress. Swearing at me isn't the solution in any case. If you want to stop taking flack on HN, you should stop attacking the credibility of whistleblowers on the rhetorical basis that you know more about what the NSA is doing than the NSA does.

No. You're making an unfounded assumption, which is that the interpretation Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman took of that slide deck --- an interpretation Snowden appears to share --- is also what NSA believes to be the case about their access to Google's servers. It does not follow logically that because one interpretation of an NSA slide deck is that they have direct access to the servers operating Google Mail th…

Sounds like you're not familiar with the rules of Calvinball, friend.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#206

Post by zrail »

temp9251 wrote: post #199
kunai wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not stereotype teenagers. I am merely fifteen years old, and if you take a look through my comment thread you may find more insight than you expected. Yes, most in my generation are shallow and passive; but that doesn't mean all are. There are some intellectuals on the fringes.

I'm 20 now, and I think I'm smart. When I was 15 I did as well, but now I think I was pretty stupid at the time. No doubt the pattern will continue at 25.

This pattern continues to at the very least 29.

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#207

Post by Nrsolis »

st0p wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in the semantic argument. Emily Bazelon called The Guardian out this week on the Slate political podcast, as have many others; this is now a mainstream criticism of how The Guardian reported the story. Either way: the original notion that NSA had direct access to the servers that actually operate Google Mail has been found to be unsupported by the evidence published thus far. I call this out contin…

So what? The NSA is harvesting data on an unprecedented scale. It might be legal but it is definitly unethical. Whether the initial reports were 100% accurate or not is irrelevant. What does matter is that this now out in the open and hopefully something changes.

So the reporter says there was an elephant in the room, but instead of an elephant, it was two donkeys. The reporter gets it wrong, but what about the two donkeys? What the hell are they doing in that room?

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#208

Post by tptacek »

gojomo wrote: post #196
tptacek wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A graf from Greenwald's original story: When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications of…

The 1st sentence seems fine: the companies have no practical way to withhold consent. The phrasing "directly and unilaterally seize " seems exaggerated given the preponderance of current revelations and denials, but if Prism includes other not-yet-revealed acquisition methods, might still be substantially true. After all, the denials you're relying on are from company leaders who also said they've never heard of Pris…

The companies can withhold consent simply by not consenting. Both NSA and the company then have to appear before a federal court and argue the case; a court then orders one side or the other (obviously: virtually always the company) to back down.

It bothers people that the USG virtually always wins these cases. But I think it shouldn't bother people as much as it does, for a couple of reasons:

* It's also the case that state governments win most attempts to get Title III wiretaps; in those cases, it's because getting a Title III wiretap is an expensive process that involves a shitload of paperwork, and prosecutors don't waste the time going for them unless they're sure they're going to win. It appears easier to get a FISA directive upheld, but it's not free.

* It's what you'd expect to see happen if the USG was only using FISA to conduct foreign surveillance, which, while I wouldn't take NSA's word for it, is not at all hard to believe; what is the motivation for them to set up a paper trail with the FISC of doing something else?

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#209

Post by mpyne »

grandalf wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the average American would be less concerned about direct access to Google Mail than they would about the NSA having the ability to listen to everyone's phone calls ?

I think the opposite, which is why I think the story is evolving to minimize the gmail access being done.

Perhaps it's evolving closer to what the truth actually was the whole time?

Re: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

#210

Post by tptacek »

mpyne wrote: post #205
tptacek wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You're making an unfounded assumption, which is that the interpretation Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman took of that slide deck --- an interpretation Snowden appears to share --- is also what NSA believes to be the case about their access to Google's servers. It does not follow logically that because one interpretation of an NSA slide deck is that they have direct access to the servers operating Google Mail th…

Sounds like you're not familiar with the rules of Calvinball, friend.

That comment made this whole thread worthwhile.
Post reply on HN