Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Friday March 21 2014, @08:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-a-phone-is-tapped-and-no-one-hears-it-does-it-make-a-sound dept.

Fluffeh writes:

"National Security Agency documents released this week by The Washington Post gave a glimpse of an NSA program that allows the agency to capture the voice content of virtually every phone call in an unnamed country and perform searches against the stored calls' metadata to find and listen to conversations for up to a month after they happened. Bulk methods capture massive data flows 'without the use of discriminants,' as President Obama put it in January. By design, they vacuum up all the data they touch; meaning that most of the conversations collected by RETRO would be irrelevant to U.S. national security interests.

Of course, whether that capture can be considered monitoring comes down to semantics. In the NSA's reasoning, it's not 'surveillance' until a human listens in. And since most of the calls accessible by Retrospective are flushed from its 'cache' after a month without being queried, the NSA could argue that the calls have never been surveilled."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by chown on Friday March 21 2014, @06:12PM

    by chown (1227) on Friday March 21 2014, @06:12PM (#19398)

    And since most of the calls accessible by Retrospective are flushed from its 'cache' after a month without being queried

    Why would anyone believe this?

    Exactly, why would anybody believe this? If you believe any more that NSA does what it claims, then you're downright naive. But even if you do so, why would you believe they would flush things competently? That among the thousands of human hands that have access to this data, not a single one would consider using it in a way you wouldn't prefer?