SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the gov't-appointee-fights-for-the-people dept.
The appointment of a FISA Court amicus to argue on behalf of the American public -- part of the surveillance reforms contained in the USA Freedom Act -- seems to be working out pretty well. FISC judge Michael Mosman appointed Washington DC attorney Preston Burton to examine one issue facing the court: whether the NSA can retain the bulk records it collected under Section 215. According to the new limitations, the NSA must immediately destroy any records that are not "foreign intelligence information." Unsurprisingly, the NSA is reluctant to begin this purge.
There are a certain amount of records the NSA must retain as they are part of ongoing lawsuits against the government. The NSA has stated that it's impossible to separate the phone records relevant to the lawsuits from the rest of the collection.
Burton -- in his response to the government's response to his original amicus brief -- doesn't find the NSA's claim of limited technical capabilities believable. In his first brief, he asked the following question:
Why has the government been unable to reach some stipulation with the plaintiffs to preserve only the evidence necessary for plaintiffs to meet their standing burden? Consider whether it is appropriate for the government to retain billions of irrelevant call detail records involving millions of people based on, what undersigned understands from counsel involved in that litigation, the government's stubborn procedural challenges to standing- a situation that the government has fostered by declining to identify the particular telecommunications provider in question and/or stipulate that the plaintiff is a customer of a relevant provided.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:48PM
Not true. We have developed impressive science to consume extremely large datasets to provide predictive analysis of people's behaviors, intent, etc. How else can the NSA predict that John Smith will be at 123 Main Street on Friday with Bob speaking about politics? This is technology long worked on. Over 15 years ago the Justice Department was developing systems to predict relationships from just phone meta data, and the science has greatly evolved.
While that might be a REAL THING, the probability of it working seems to be diminished in direct proportion to the amount of noise data included in the "take".
Since they were essentially taking it all (including the much denied full text / recordings), they have made their job impossible, as indicated by the mad scramble going on in San Bernardino and Paris etc.
All indications are that their trove is thusly useful only for figuring out details after the fact, when their algorithms can be given a few starting point hints. It will never be predictive in nature without human input.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by physicsmajor on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:59PM
The machine learning community has consistently shown that more data is better data. The central limit theorem basically underlies this, and that has incredibly robust support.
Assuming this data is innocent is both dangerous and demonstrably false.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:43PM
You are Joe Government. You have a tip, a hunch, just some damned nagging feeling that Willy Swift is up to something, and you should know more about Willy Swift. So, Joe, you enter some search parameters in the NSA's search engines, and you find some "incriminating" metadata on Willy. It tickles your hunch, so you hook up to all the surveillance infrastructure you can access. You get a voice print, and facial recognition matches on Willy, and you track his metadata, and at the same time, you get a secret warrant to actually intercept his phone calls. (Yeah, I know, no warrant necessary, just phone a local police chief to track Willy with his cell phone intercept equipment that your agency sold to him.) Everything about Willy is accessible to you.
You, Joe, don't have to sift and filter all that data. All you have to do is enter Joe's vital statistics into the most powerful computing system in the whole damned world. You don't have to stay up for six days without sleep to keep an eye on Willy. The computers do it for you.
And, oh yea. FISA. You don't have to disclose your capabilities, or even your interest in Willy. Willy's ass is going to be yours, and no one can do anything about it.
Remember the Stasi? Do you suppose that every German who ever disapeared at the hands of the Stasi was breaking a law?
Maybe the only reason you, Joe, got interested in Willy, was that you saw him with a girl that you're interested in.
Can't happen, huh? Convince me, Joe Stasi Government. Convince me.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Sunday December 13 2015, @12:51AM
It has been done, is being done, and will be done. That is why the whole apparatus needs to be burned to the ground. They have shown their powers are useless in preventing the very thing they claim it is for, which is to stop terrorism. The only thing it will be useful for is to persecute their opponents. We have ample evidence from the SS, KGB, Stasi, and any other flavor of secret police the world has produced to show that is true.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:10AM
You are damned right it's been done. Murphy's law - if it can happen, it will happen. You know it, I know it, millions of Americans know it - but Joe Government is still babbling about the limitations of - uhh - geez, I really don't know where any of these limitations he speaks of come from. The NSA and the intelligence communities recognize no limitation to their powers, and none of us knows the limits of their technology. I mentioned above the most powerful computer system in the world - but none of us on the outside knows how powerful that thing is. We can only guess.
We have no assurances that all of our computers aren't already compromised.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:04PM
You mean that's an actual prerequisite and consideration for the government and military industrial complex to do something?
They're asking for more, despite all the apparent failures. Either they're crazy, or there are successes we just don't understand.
Your point is taken though. For all appearances, its effectiveness is less than research and theory would indicate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.