Here's another massive database of phone records!
http://www.whitepages.com/1063/person
I guess they're spying on us.
http://www.whitepages.com/1063/person
I guess they're spying on us.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NSA building massive database of phone records
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
just a different take on the issue
copied from Kim du Toit's blog (www.theothersideofkim.com). Those of you familiar with Kim know he is very pro-RKBA (I think he beleives it is mandatory to K&B) and generally a conservative as opposed to being a liberal. Anyhow - he presents some thoughts I have not heard elsewhere.
stay safe.
skidmark
copied from Kim du Toit's blog (www.theothersideofkim.com). Those of you familiar with Kim know he is very pro-RKBA (I think he beleives it is mandatory to K&B) and generally a conservative as opposed to being a liberal. Anyhow - he presents some thoughts I have not heard elsewhere.
stay safe.
skidmark
Database ClueBat
Kim du Toit
May 12, 2006
9:25 AM
I don?t know much about a lot of stuff, but I know a great deal about databases and how to use them?and I especially know a great deal about how to manage usage of terrabytes of data. In a past life, I ran a customer database of grocery purchases (those annoying little loyalty cards that most supermarkets use to collect your data).
Just so we?re all clear on this concept: the average supermarket carries about 40,000 different items (called stock-keeping units, or SKUs), and the average supermarket processes about one million transactions (sometimes called ?baskets") a year. The chain I last did this for on a full-time basis had just under 300 stores, and a database of about 3 million active customers ("active" defined as anyone who shopped with us at least once over the past six months).
A lot has been written about how these programs intrude on people?s privacy, and how this means that your shopping purchases can be tracked. Allow me to reassure you: almost nobody ever looks at a single customer?s item purchases?there are just too many items, and too many customers.
What I did was design ways to make data management easier?it?s what I still do?and I always operated on the 80:20 principle (that 20% of the people will account for 80% of the activity).
Which meant that I ignored 80% of all customers? information. I was only interested in those people who spent a lot of money with us (the 20%), because the data showed that not only did those people account for 80% of sales, they accounted for about 98% of our profits.
And the reason I only looked at that group was that if I could effect a change in their behavior (get them to spend a little more each week, for instance), the effect on the entire business was disproportionate to the effort involved.
More to the point, in all that time, I can count on two hands the number of times each year that I ever looked at any single customer?s purchases?and even then, it was to check the data, or for a merchandising purpose. Here?s an example: suppose the buyers decided that a particular item wasn?t selling, and they decided to discontinue ("de-list") the item in favor of one which was selling more, or to give the slow item?s shelf space to an existing best-seller. Good, sound merchandising.
However, if that item was being bought by our best customers, then I would argue for the item to be kept in stock, because if the customer didn?t find it at our store, she would go and find it somewhere else and we could, potentially, lose that ?best? customer to our competitor?which was our biggest nightmare.
Mostly, however, I looked at groups of customers: people who shopped regularly at the Deli department, or people who bought hot dogs but not buns, or people who visited the stores more than x times per week, or people who spent more than $400 every time they walked through the door. All that, to decide on what promotions to offer, or how to design new promotions, and so on. At the time I was doing this, by the way, I was one of about (maybe) a half-dozen people in the United States who actually knew what they were doing, and that only because not only had I been in the supermarket business for 20 years, but because I was also a data geek?the two characteristics combined were not common in the grocery business at the time, and still aren?t that common even today.
So, to sum up: I had to collect sales across a combination and permutation of 300 (stores) x 1,000,000 (transactions) x 40,000 (items) x 3,000,000 (customers) each year, just so I could look at small groups of customers? data. It was a process which was so massive, and so complex, that very few organizations could even begin to manage it?and many still can?t. But I had to collect it all, so that I could look at just a little?there?s no way to collect just a little data because in the beginning, you don?t know what?s important and what isn?t.
Which brings me, finally, to the topic du jour, that of the NSA collecting call data from the phone companies.
Of course, there?s been a lot of bloviating from the Terminally Stupid about how the NSA is ?trolling? and ?invading privacy? by collecting the phone data of millions of citizens. Well, it?s not that simple, although the Evil Ones would like it to be.
For a start, the NSA is collecting only a couple of pieces of information: the originating phone number, and the destination phone number, and (probably) the date of the call, and (maybe) the call?s duration (although I can?t see why this would be important, but that?s the nature of the beast).
The reason they?ve been collecting this data since 9/11 was because someone at NSA was being really, really smart: if terrorists are communicating by phone, it?s possible to establish linkages between numbers, and install pattern-recognition software to collect those linkages. And the reason that this was a smart thing to do is a simple one: the phone company doesn?t store this data beyond (maybe) a few years?the amount is just too massive to hold forever?and lest we forget, we?re coming up on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 already.
Note that none of this requires any names, nor the content of the calls?that would be the privacy of the thing, and that?s where it seems that the NSA, if they?re telling the truth, has been quite circumspect.
But what this data gives the smart analyst is that when you establish that (357) 243-3006 belonged to Abdul El-Bomba, who received a call from his brother Aziz, a known member of Hezbollah in Syria, you now have the ability to focus only on all the calls Abdul made and received, to see who was calling him and whom he was calling. That would be a couple hundred calls, out of the (literally) tens of billions of records you?ve collected.
Here?s the Big Clue for the Clueless: if you don?t collect all the data, you can?t narrow the search at all. And it?s only once you?ve established that Abdul is a Bad Guy that you ascertain his number, and the numbers of his correspondents, and their names. Most of the calls will be innocent: the dry cleaners, the gas company, the liquor store, whatever.
But out of the couple hundred calls, you may find five that are to Mohamed Semmteks, and to Tariq Pilota, who are also terrorists, and whose calls you can now start investigating.
So from tens of billions to a couple hundred to five. And in these cases, it?s NOW when you, as the investigator, can get a warrant for a wiretap so you can start listening to actual content, which, out of all the data mentioned so far, is the only part protected by the First Amendment.
That?s how to do it?and more importantly, that?s the only way to do it when you?re starting from scratch.
As far as the vast majority of us are concerned, there?s not much to worry about. Nobody at the NSA is interested in the call you made to your Mom, or even to the call you made to your mistress. Don?t kid yourself: you?re not that interesting.
Just as I was never interested in whether Betsy Smith bought Tide or Tidy-Cat.
But I have to tell you, I am really glad that someone at the NSA was doing their job, and began to collect the data a long time ago?because otherwise it would now be gone, and we?d be behind the curve, just as we were on 9/10/2001.
gc,
Oh, come on now. What's your phone number? You can tell us. It's not like we're going to drag you off in the middle of the night and deny you due process or anything. We're just a bunch of folks online. So what's your phone number? What phone numbers did you call yesterday?
What you're seeing right now is alot of obfuscation & arrant "the dog ate my homework" garbage. Don't be fooled. Force still equals mass times acceleration and phone records still require a warrant.
Oh, come on now. What's your phone number? You can tell us. It's not like we're going to drag you off in the middle of the night and deny you due process or anything. We're just a bunch of folks online. So what's your phone number? What phone numbers did you call yesterday?
Excuse me? Accessing phone records (that is, a list of who called who when) requires a warrant. Was a warrant issued for this? No? Then it's illegal. I'll hold my ground on this one and continue screaming "illegal" because the law is on my side. 18 USC 2703 (c)its legality is uncertain pending more specific information
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service–
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.
(c) Records concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service.--
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--
(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2). (more specific information)
What you're seeing right now is alot of obfuscation & arrant "the dog ate my homework" garbage. Don't be fooled. Force still equals mass times acceleration and phone records still require a warrant.
I work for the DoD. I had to sign up for a computer system that handles medical information. I then had to sign up for a HIPPA course to get a HIPPA certificate. This covers the transmisssion of medical data over electronic media.
Your phone number is one of the privacy items a medical health care provider can get in trouble over, because it identifies you. He can get in legal trouble if he or his staff gives it out unintentionally or even if he good intentions when he did it.
Mr. Alaska says that he trusts the goverment more than some people. Well that governemnt staff is made up of people who have done things that amaze me for a little bit of money. Lets call them criminalocrats. With that much information whats to keep some of these bad apples from misusing it?
Your phone number is one of the privacy items a medical health care provider can get in trouble over, because it identifies you. He can get in legal trouble if he or his staff gives it out unintentionally or even if he good intentions when he did it.
Mr. Alaska says that he trusts the goverment more than some people. Well that governemnt staff is made up of people who have done things that amaze me for a little bit of money. Lets call them criminalocrats. With that much information whats to keep some of these bad apples from misusing it?
Well that governemnt staff is made up of people who have done things that amaze me for a little bit of money. Lets call them criminalocrats. With that much information whats to keep some of these bad apples from misusing it?
???? One (or a few) bad apple equals they're all a bunch of crooks and should not be trusted ????
How about one kook with a gun equals all gun owners are kooks and should be outlawed?
Be careful with how wide a stripe you paint with that brush.
Dean
Lets call them criminalocrats.
Let's not, because you're presuming widespread guilt. I'm not happy about this either, and want it investigated, but starting from a position whereby you assume that the government is populated heavily with criminal types isn't going to strengthen your case or mine. That seems to be your implication.
The "electronic communications" services you cite are defined in 18 USC 2510(12)(A) as specifically excluding "any wire or oral communication."by Go/27:
I'll hold my ground on this one and continue screaming "illegal" because the law is on my side. 18 USC 2703 (c)
Please cite a law that applies to telephone calls rather than using the internet.
That's a tacky diversion that I thought would have been beneath you. I have already stated that I think the government's program is wrong. Do you think your question will browbeat me to label the program illegal on an emotional basis as you have done?by Go/27:
What's your phone number?
http://www.nysun.com/article/32651
Dialing and the Democrats
New York Sun Editorial
May 12, 2006
No sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for years been nominated to head the CIA than USA Today rushed out details of our efforts to use technical means to find terrorists using the phones. And no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.
Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.
President Bush struck exactly the right notes yesterday. "So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," Mr. Bush said. "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country." If he seemed calm about the latest disclosures, we can't help wondering whether it's because he recognizes that when Americans go to sleep at night, they're less worried about the "danger" that the government is looking for terrorists than they are about the danger that terrorists are looking for them.
This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.
Dialing and the Democrats
New York Sun Editorial
May 12, 2006
No sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for years been nominated to head the CIA than USA Today rushed out details of our efforts to use technical means to find terrorists using the phones. And no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.
Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.
President Bush struck exactly the right notes yesterday. "So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," Mr. Bush said. "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country." If he seemed calm about the latest disclosures, we can't help wondering whether it's because he recognizes that when Americans go to sleep at night, they're less worried about the "danger" that the government is looking for terrorists than they are about the danger that terrorists are looking for them.
This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.
???? One (or a few) bad apple equals they're all a bunch of crooks and should not be trusted ????
How about one kook with a gun equals all gun owners are kooks and should be outlawed?
Be careful with how wide a stripe you paint with that brush.
Dean
So what about those files J Edgar maintained on people like Martin Luther King and those tapes that were passed around? The files he maintained on others?Let's not, because you're presuming widespread guilt. I'm not happy about this either, and want it investigated, but starting from a position whereby you assume that the government is populated heavily with criminal types isn't going to strengthen your case or mine. That seems to be your implication.
to say that it has not happened and can not happen is simply to stick your fingers in your ears and go nah-nah-nah.
Do you think your question will browbeat me to label the program illegal on an emotional basis as you have done?
No, I expect to force you to acknowledge that a person's phone number and calling habits are indeed *private* information. Either that or I expect you to divulge your phone number and call history since it's public.
Which is it?
[edit] As you have thus far declined to provide me with the information, I can conclude that you agree with it being private[/edit]
I have already done so twice before.No, I expect to force you to acknowledge that a person's phone number and calling habits are indeed *private* information.
For the third time, the government's program is wrong, but that does not automatically make it illegal.
Alright, let's try it this way:
Title 18, part I, Ch. 121 "STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS"
ss2701
Which specifically points to 2703, 2704, and 2518.
and more specifically 2709
Which says that the FBI may request individual records *in writing* and by name.
Every possible access by the government of oral communications or transaction records *specifically* calls for a warrant. No matter how you slice it, they have no authorization to do this.
Title 18, part I, Ch. 121 "STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS"
ss2701
Which specifically points to 2703, 2704, and 2518.
and more specifically 2709
Which says that the FBI may request individual records *in writing* and by name.
Every possible access by the government of oral communications or transaction records *specifically* calls for a warrant. No matter how you slice it, they have no authorization to do this.
I never said that it was illegal because it's wrong. It's illegal because it's *illegal*. FISA says you can't do this. The '34 communications act says it's illegal. The entire relavant US code says it's illegal. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution says it's illegal. The judiciary consistently rules that it's illegal.
Why? Because it's ILLEGAL!
In fact, the only thing I *haven't* seen is any basis for the argument that it is legal. The president says it's legal, but it's not within the purview of the executive branch to interpret the law.
Do you have anything that supports the notion that this program is supported by any law anywhere? I'd love to see it.
Why? Because it's ILLEGAL!
In fact, the only thing I *haven't* seen is any basis for the argument that it is legal. The president says it's legal, but it's not within the purview of the executive branch to interpret the law.
Do you have anything that supports the notion that this program is supported by any law anywhere? I'd love to see it.
I have already done so twice before.
Then do you acknowledge the fact that government access to private information requires a warrant?
Chapter 121 deals with "electronic communication" (not "oral communications" as you suggest). The definitions for Chapter 121 (which are in Chapter 119) specifically exclude "any wire or oral communication." [18 USC 2510(12)(A)]Every possible access by the government of oral communications or transaction records *specifically* calls for a warrant. No matter how you slice it, they have no authorization to do this.
gc,
I'm lookin' at 121 right now. That's the title. "Wire communications"
And since we're talkin' phone records and not the calls themselves, they're wire communications.
So let's quit playing semantic games here and get to the point: What basis do you have (if any) for saying that this program might even be possibly legal?
I'm lookin' at 121 right now. That's the title. "Wire communications"
?wire communication? means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce;
And since we're talkin' phone records and not the calls themselves, they're wire communications.
So let's quit playing semantic games here and get to the point: What basis do you have (if any) for saying that this program might even be possibly legal?
why even bother with the constitution and oversight committes?any surprise that we have these things to begin with,constitional law and oversight committes that oversee how things are being done to insure such actions doesnt violate freedoms and constitutional laws, and that is what makes us different than other countries.
gathering phone data..monitoring email transmissions..financial records..gun buying habits.sure its a great tool to catch a terrorist or would be thug but there should be oversight to insure we are not heading down the same path as some other countries.checks and balances.that is why we have a constitution and it should never be taken for granted,lest things get out of check.
just because I havent done anything illegal nor have I anything to hide from uncle sam, doesnt mean I want other countries as well as my own, data mining private information at will.who knows where it will end up or what it could be used for.
gathering phone data..monitoring email transmissions..financial records..gun buying habits.sure its a great tool to catch a terrorist or would be thug but there should be oversight to insure we are not heading down the same path as some other countries.checks and balances.that is why we have a constitution and it should never be taken for granted,lest things get out of check.
just because I havent done anything illegal nor have I anything to hide from uncle sam, doesnt mean I want other countries as well as my own, data mining private information at will.who knows where it will end up or what it could be used for.
gdm,
Beyond that, we have already seen the things it can be used for. We've been down this path before.
It's not just this administration we've got to worry about (although I am very personally worried), it's the precedent this is setting for future administrations.
Everybody needs to consider this possibility:
We *will* have more Democrats in the White House in the future. We *will* have external threats to our security in the future.
Put those 2 together and tell me: Just how much access would you want Hillary Clinton to have to your personal information? Or better yet, President Feinstein?
Because whatever you authorize George W. Bush to do you're also authorizing her.
Beyond that, we have already seen the things it can be used for. We've been down this path before.
It's not just this administration we've got to worry about (although I am very personally worried), it's the precedent this is setting for future administrations.
Everybody needs to consider this possibility:
We *will* have more Democrats in the White House in the future. We *will* have external threats to our security in the future.
Put those 2 together and tell me: Just how much access would you want Hillary Clinton to have to your personal information? Or better yet, President Feinstein?
Because whatever you authorize George W. Bush to do you're also authorizing her.
exactly my point.what happens now and has happened in the past sets precedent for what will be "allowed" to slide in the future.the constitution was written to put a check on this and many other things,As much as it makes sense to do,it still isnt right without oversight....lest we get more warrantless searches that are more violating than previously would be thought of as "unconstitutional" and "extreme".In other words, if its ok today..more could be ok tommorrow.Any data could easily be used against anyone for any reason,any time.
without someone stepping in and monitoring this behavior, whats to say anyone anywhere couldnt start doing the same?
without someone stepping in and monitoring this behavior, whats to say anyone anywhere couldnt start doing the same?