doctorow — 2014-05-19T13:57:31-04:00 — #1
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-19T14:03:06-04:00 — #2
I guess this allows the analyst to validate their suspicions. I do not see discussion of what happens when the metadata based theories which 'justify' the mass surveillance are invalidated. I believe documentation which allows people to derive a batting average of some sort would be helpful to the public debate. Something hammer, something something nail.
jandrese — 2014-05-19T14:06:42-04:00 — #3
I wonder if they do the same thing in the Cayman Islands? They could have a potential treasure trove of blackmail material out of that.
mwiik — 2014-05-19T14:13:21-04:00 — #4
Oh, that's likely reserved for when congress demands reforms.
phasmafelis — 2014-05-19T14:39:33-04:00 — #5
Jeez, people, they're not recording your calls, they're just storing metadata*!
*"Metadata" has been defined to include recording your calls.
imb — 2014-05-19T16:16:22-04:00 — #6
Yeah, I guess they were being careful when stating that no one is listening to your calls. Maybe not in real time, but they save them for later.
I wish I could 'like' your comment a few times.
crenquis — 2014-05-19T16:48:51-04:00 — #7
The NSA are old school... When they say meta-data they just mean data that they will process after the other data.
In Greek, the prefix meta- is generally less esoteric than in English; Greek meta-, meaning "after" or "beyond", is equivalent to the Latin words post- or ad-.
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-19T17:19:02-04:00 — #8
some data is more meta than other data
llamaspit — 2014-05-19T18:10:06-04:00 — #9
Isn't it about here when some apologist steps in and says that this is all old news? That we knew this back in 2006, so no big deal?
imb — 2014-05-19T18:44:57-04:00 — #10
Especially if you happen to be talking about the NSA recording calls, while your call is being recorded.
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-19T21:43:48-04:00 — #11
ffabian — 2014-05-20T00:31:14-04:00 — #12
Nah, the usual USian apologist argues: "...but everyone spies"
Amusingly this argument is only valid when the US spies on someone else when the US gets spied on we get this:
"We must say, 'enough is enough,'" Holder said at a news conference.
Another revelation from the indictment was Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei being penetrated by the NSA. The telecom giant, the US has maintained, was an avenue for the China government's cyber-snooping.
Holder stated that it was not appropriate to compare Monday's indictments in Pennsylvania to the global spying capabilities of the US government disclosed by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. The US was engaged in intelligence activities. The Chinese spying on US corporations, he said, was "to gain commercial advantage."
"That is what makes this different," Holder said.
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-20T08:24:24-04:00 — #14
call restaurants someone else dislikes. they probably already know which ones you dislike.
doctorow — 2014-05-24T13:57:42-04:00 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.