N.S.A. Will Not Be Allowed to Keep Old Phone Records | Hacker News Reader

N.S.A. Will Not Be Allowed to Keep Old Phone Records

nytimes.com

144 pointsjeo123433 comments

GCHQ, meanwhile, is not restricted from storing or querying such a database should they obtain a copy. Further, the NSA is not barred from asking GCHQ to return queries against the content of databases they hold. Lastly, GCHQ would be wise to automate the servicing of such requests, as a cost saving measure.

So this restriction has the potential of slowing the NSA's phone record snooping by roughly one RTT across the Atlantic. A delay that could amount to as much as 0.15 seconds.

FVEY really is a neat arrangement. We can all circumvent laws about spying on our own citizens by having our closest allies do it. Hail Britannia, I suppose, except instead of owning the waves they now own the packets.

GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country. And yes, the scenario described is exactly what an intelligence officer would think, in order to handle the situation.

> GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country

Depends what you mean by small country. By land mass certainly, but that didn't stop them amassing the largest empire in history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire] and it's the 5th largest in terms of GDP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...]

For me, the GDP is the important part. Hacking, snooping, spying has always been less about national security than it has about power, control, money and greed. The interwebs has just provided new challenges whilst making it easier to collect data on the masses. Terrorism is the new excuse.

This article was also posted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818

It's old news under a new guise, and the collaboration is a long standing one.

Britain closest?

I think not. Canada is one of the five and is much much closer. GCHQ is in the news, but much of the cross-boarder legal fiction stuff happens via Canada. Britain controls the international routes two and from europe, but when it comes to domestic spying Canada is the much closer partner.

Mmm... I'd need a citation on that. CSE isn't just overlooked in the news, it's a much less powerful agency (about ~50% greater budget for GCHQ according to news sources.)

Additionally, every high level collaboration, according to news reports, involved GCHQ as the chief partner.

True. Though nothing new about this unfortunately. Duncan Campbell first reported about the reverse of this process happening under the Tatcher Government in the 1980s.

Yes, assuming the US lets the GCHQ store US information. I'd say its more likely AT&T, Verizon, et al. just provide a "Prioritized Law Enforcement" API and sell access to the Government.

This time.. THIS TIME they're follow the law and tell the truth. Because they have such a great track record.

Remember, this is the Administration that first claimed they weren't collecting anything, then they were but not on Americans, then they were but only for suspected terrorists, then they were but only for people connected to terrorists, then they were but only metadata. How dumb do they think we are to believe that story?

And - as others have noted - GCHQ probably has a copy of everything too so this is yet another paper tiger.

But will that actually stop them from doing it anyway?

It seems the NSA doesn't care about any laws it breaks domestic or international since there are no repercussions.

No, they care. When it was discovered that a target had once applied for citizenship, rendering him an USPER and thus off limits, Alexander had the man's file printed out, erased from the system, and then burned it in front of the entire NOC to make a point.

Yes, their procedural controls suck. Yes, "collect it all" is likely an illegal mantra. And if someone bad gets their hands on this data the result could be horrific. But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.

> But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.

And civil liberties groups and charities. And foreign businesses in allied countries. And allied politicians.

[citation needed]

Do you really have to ask after the last year or more of news?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-t...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveill...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz...

I mean, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I've got a pretty good record of everything leaked over the last year or so on my home computer.

Oh you mean an intelligence agency whose mission is foreign intelligence is gathering intelligence on foreign entities?

You just asked me for citations, implying that you didn't believe what I wrote.

I gave you citations/articles and you reply with basically

"Well, well... of course they do that!"

For what it's worth, when you said "Civil liberties groups and charities... and allied politicians" I thought you were referring to domestic organizations/persons.

Shrug.

You mean like spying on our own senators [1]?

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/1...

Is that a meaningful distinction?

To the law? Yes, a huge one.

It is to a pragmatic person like me, but I suspect it's not to you.

Aren't the ISPs now indemnified? If so, seems like a win for government, they can avoid FOIA's and such about data THEY are gathering.

And by 'will not be allowed to keep', they really mean transfer to a contracted 3rd party to 'delete' it, until it might be needed or become more legitimate to be keeping... during the next crisis.

And who is going to check that? On a rolling basis? May I please go there and check?

Why of course not, silly prole. YOU do don't get to check. It's way above your clearance. Just pay your taxes and shut up.

The word "Allowed" does not weigh much in the ears of NSA employees.

It's not enough. This says they have to purge the phone records on a rolling five year basis.

Collecting phone records without a warrant is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Weren't they already not allowed to collect them in a first place?

Yea, I believe that... not.

Wink wink, nudge nudge?

At least the French are honest, we are taking everything and there is nothing you can do about it.

...but they will anyway.

"Not allowed"... haha.

I don't use the phone. Pretty much ever. I want to know what's happening to my emails, online tracking etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com