Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not sure what your point is? The issue in this case is the NSA's collection of so called phone record "metadata", or information about who called whom. They do not appear to store actual recorded phone calls (at least that we know of...). That would seem analogous to the post office storing metadata on letters (to/from/date), but not the contents. It is also analogous in that some argue that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such metadata.


I have to agree with the other poster. There are many indications that they are storing content


???[0][1]

I really don't mean to be rude, but how are we not on the same page about this?

"at least that we know of"?

They're not storing [terabytes of metadata]. They're storing [terabytes of content and metadata]. They're being accused of domestic widespread spying (seizing), not domestic widespread profiling (only search).

Perhaps I'm completely just not following, but is there something I'm missing?

[0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-fla...

[1]: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/greenwald-nsa-can...


Thanks for the links. I honestly have trouble remembering all the revelations at this point, given how many there have been!

However, those links still seem to imply that the NSA does not store the content of domestic phone calls. My point simply was that I believe the law is still crystal clear that the warantless collection and storage of the content of American's phone calls is unconstitutional, just as it would be illegal to x-ray the contents of letters. I can't imagine any court disagreeing. The fact that "metadata" on either may be legal under the third party doctrine or based on "reasonable expectations of privacy" is much less clear due to prior precedent, although I certainly agree with you that it should not be.

(Of course we also now know that the NSA has not been forthright about what they actually do, or what protections are in place to ensure that they can distinguish between domestic and international content. Indeed, it appears that with Internet content there is woefully deficient controls to ensure that domestic content is not stored. There is also another way they constantly chip away at privacy: arguing that there is not a 4th amendment issue until the content is searched, not merely indiscriminately stored.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: