Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdkl95 | Hacker News Reader

> It's not in anything that's been leaked

Yes, it has been, though the exact nature of that "data" depends on your interpretation, and "everyone" is obviously only and approximate value. The NSA has even admitted to collecting most telephone records under the "phone metadata program".

They also keep a sliding-window capture of data that includes a "full take" of the backbone in some areas. This was still being deployed at the time the leaked documents were written, so the coverage is variable, but we can assume it's only increased. Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd.

View on HN

Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd.

You're the NSA, trying to gather information foreign agents in the United States. You have access to some firehose of network packets, some of which may include communication between such agents and their home nations, but most of which is purely domestic. You also lack the technology to pull the needles out of the haystack in real time.

Why is it "patently absurd" to retain a window of such data for long enough to identify the communications of interest and discard the rest? Is there an alternative?

> Why is it "patently absurd" to retain a window of such data for

He said it was "patently absurd" to pretend that they haven't "captured" any data until someone searches for it.

> long enough to identify the communications of interest and discard the rest?

I have no reason to think that they wouldn't keep all of it, forever, period. Or at least retain a long enough window to render this statement pointless.

> Is there an alternative?

Old fashioned police work? Only gather data with a warrant?

He said it was "patently absurd" to pretend that they haven't "captured" any data until someone searches for it.

Fishing trawlers don't capture everything they catch: Most of it gets thrown back. This is all semantics, but without more context for the word "capture" (like, why it wouldn't be legal to capture data you'll never look at), I don't think it's patently absurd to read the term in a way that makes reasonable intelligence work possible.

What if they only buffered the data for a few seconds while picking out the "good stuff"? A few hours? Where is the line?

I have no reason to think that they wouldn't keep all of it, forever, period. Or at least retain a long enough window to render this statement pointless.

If you think the NSA has no effective oversight and is lying to the FISA court or the President about what it does and doesn't do, you have bigger problems.

Old fashioned police work? Only gather data with a warrant?

The NSA isn't a domestic law enforcement agency. You're thinking of the FBI.

> What if they only buffered the data for a few seconds while picking out the "good stuff"?

That's not what they do. They keep it. Indefinitely. That's the whole point- If they find a terrorist, they can back-search and find everyone he has communicated with.

> If you think the NSA has no effective oversight and is lying to the FISA court or the President about what it does and doesn't do,

This is an outright fact, and if you think it's not true, then I don't know what I can do for you. Is there an opposite-of-conspiracy theorist, someone who believes any outlandish theory that supports the status quo? Just bizarre.

http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

That's the problem, where is the line? Because there barely seems to be one. Shuffle a few laws around and whoops, authoritarians in power have infrastructure to do as they please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com