Can someone clarify a point about the NSA story?

[brooklynite]

Is Verizon providing phone RECORDS (e.g. John Smith called 212-555-1234 on March 18), or are they providing RECORDINGS of actual calls? If the former, I think the "worry about what you say on the phone" comments are out of place.

[metalbot]

1. It is not the recordings

Simply the transaction logs.

Edited to add: which isn't ok either.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. CDR's

Call Detail Records.

Not content. Impossible to record content. Just like impossible to capture content of every single text message.


The concepts of either are insane to me.

[alc]

9. capturing every text message is pretty easy

At least it was 10+ years ago when I last worked with SMS gateways and not much has changed. SMS messages are meant to be stored-and-forwarded as needed. If I remember right, your phone may send to Verizon -your provider -which sends to a 3rd party which sends to AT&T - my provider -which sees I'm roaming when I connect hours later and sends to a 3rd party which sends to Sprint which sends to my phone. Any of those stops could save a copy or forward to the NSA along with the next stop. For wiretaps, the functionality is already there to save or forward copies (same with calls).

It's not difficult to record or forward a copy of every call, but the storage would be outrageous. SMS doesn't have the storage problems. The NSA could easily provide Verizon all the storage they need to hold a day's worth of texts and forward them every night. I calculate 1.2TB/day of storage from 6 billion messages/day across all carriers (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/tech/mobile/sms-text-message-20). I've bought 5TB of storage over the last year for about $300. The NSA has put equipment in AT&T data centers to collect data and could certainly capture and store every text message.


I wouldn't be at all shocked to find out that carriers are capturing all text messages for data mining. There are legal limitations on what they can do but keywords could show the best way to upsell an individual and aggregate analysis would give them very valuable information to sell to companies (e.g. "lots of people are texting 'Chick-fil-a sucks' today" is something chick-fil-a or kfc would pay for) From my dealings with carrier business people they have certainly thought about this and probably built it. It's a matter of how far the lawyers will let them go. And everything can go through 3rd party equipment ("for carrier interoppability&quot if lawyers won't let the carrier do it directly but will let them take a cut from a 3rd party.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. It's not possible

And I'm in the industry today.

And that's NOT what the Fed Gov is demanding of ALL the carriers. Just records.

[OnyxCollie]

14. This guy's in the industry, too.

http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf

My name is Babak Pasdar, President and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation. I have given this affidavit to
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself as the legal director of the Government Accountability
Project, without any threats, inducements or coercion.

I have been a technologist in the computer and computer security industry for the past nineteen years
and am a "Certified Ethical Hacker" (E-Commerce Consultants International Council.) I have worked
with many enterprise organizations, telecommunications carriers, as well as small and medium sized
organizations in consulting, designing, implementing, troubleshooting, and managing security systems.
This statement is to make a record ofmy concerns about the privacy implications for our society from
what I personally witnessed at a major telecommunications carrier, as summarized below.

What I know:

• I know I saw a circuit that everyone called the "Quantico Circuit."

• I know that all other sites had store numbers or affiliate numbers. The "Quantico Circuit" was
the only site being migrated that had such a unique name.

• I know that it was a third party connecting to the client's network via the "Quantico Circuit."

• I know everyone was uncomfortable talking about it.

• I know that connecting a third party to your network core with no access control is against all
standard security protocols, and would fail almost any compliance standard.

• 1 know that I was a trusted resource. During the project, I at all times had access and control
over the communications to the most sensitive of the organization's systems. This included
their sales applications, billing systems, text messaging and mobile internet access, including email
and web. I even had a client badge for entry to the building and access to facilities.

• I know the client had Network VCRs situated at various locations throughout their data centers.
These devices collected and recorded all network communications and had the capacity to store
them for days, possibly weeks.

• I know that many of the organization's branch offices and affiliate systems did not have that
unfettered access, because I instituted the controls.

What is likely, based on normal industry practice:

• A third party had access to one or more systems within the organization.

• The third party could connect to one or more of the client's systems. This would include the
billing system, fraud detection system, text messaging, web applications. Moreover, Internet
communications between a mobile phone and other Internet systems may be accessed.

• The client could connect to one or more of the third party's systems.

• The client's Data and Cell networks are interconnected.

• It is unlikely that any logging was enabled for any access to the Quantico circuit, because the
client's technical experts suggested that this was not enabled. They were tentative in even
discussing the subject. Even if logging was enabled the logging system was so inappropriately
sized that it was useless.

What is possible due to consistency with known facts but for which I don't have proof:

• The third party may be able to access the billing system to find information on a particular
person. This information may include their billing address, phone number(s), as well as the
numbers and information of other people on their plan. Other information could also include
any previous numbers that the person or others on their plan called, and the outside numbers
who have called the people on the plan.

• The third party may be able to identify the Electronic Security Number (ESN) of the plan
member's phones. This is a unique identifier that distinguishes each mobile device on the
carrier's network.

• With the ESN information and access to the fraud detection systems, a third party can locate or
track any particular mobile device. The person's call patterns and location can be trended and
analyzed.

• With the ESN, the third party could tap into any and all data being transmitted from any
particular mobile device. This would include Internet usage, e-mails, web, file transfers, text
messages and access to any remote applications.

• It also would be possible in real-time to tap into any conversation on any mobile phone
supported by the carrier at any point.

• It would be possible for the third party to access the Network VCR devices and collect a variety
of information en masse. The Network VCR collects all communications between two systems
indiscriminately. It would then archive this information making it available for retrieval on demand.
The third party could access the Network VCR systems and collect all data
communications for single mobile device such as text messaging, Internet access, e-mail, web
access, etc. over some period of minutes, hours, days or weeks. The same can be done for
communications of multiple, many or even all mobile devices for some period of minutes,
hours, days or weeks.

• Even if the client did not provide specific login and access for the third party to one or more of
their systems, without any access controls it is possible for the third party to leverage
vulnerabilities to "compromise" the client systems and obtain control or collect sensitive
information.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. I can't say what I do

I'll be fired - but I trump that guy. I can tell you that I'm a liason to S.O.S. and Fed Law Enforcement (Including Customs Border Protection).

He only wrote possibility. He didn't say xyz company does this all the time today on behalf of Fed Gov Agencies.

Because he knows it's a lie.


Where's the jobs bill?

[OnyxCollie]

25. "Because he knows it's a lie. "

He didn't say that because he doesn't have proof. He did say that it was possible.

If you claim to be a person of high authority, and you use cheap rhetorical fallacies like straw men, it tells me that you are not to be trusted.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I'm not a person of high authority

:lmao: I'm even honest that I work for the Evil Empire! :rotfl:

But you put something out there as 'fact' when he only said possible.

Because you have ONE MASTER IN WIRELESS.

It's not fed gov my friend. It's wall street. It's not possible for us to have had a historic year last year (financially) AND to have devoted 1/3 of our man hours, overhead, and head count to capturing, maintaining, and archiving that data.


If you sit with pencil pushers around here - you'd know - you better give us money to do it. Because we are in the business of getting our 20 and 30 and 40 K annual bonuses. This activity he outlined doesn't get any employee to bonus because 1/3 of us would not be able to do our jobs.


He said 'possible'. Did he create the system? Because with that kind of knowledge he could be very well working for a fraud ring.

Two can play your game.

And how do I know YOU Are not a FRAUDSTER Cheat? Or working for Fed Gov? How do we know you can be trusted? Because you can follow my blog to my twitter here. I'm the real authentic angry black woman! Who are you? Come out come out whoever you are.

[OnyxCollie]

29. Uh, okay.

It doesn't look like you are backtracking at all. Really.

So, besides yourself, which other posters here are shills for the government?

[JustAnotherGen]

27. Thanks - was razzing you

And teasing in my first response.

But I think I just figured out how the criminals break into the wallet and myaccount features.

Copying and pasting that info. I'm thinking we can track back to those specific programs. Then stop this shit where dirtbags take over accounts and steal 17Million in equipment for us.

[janlyn]

28. Not sure about impossible.

I worked for Alltel and we were given company cell phones for personal use.2 employees were reprimanded for sending nude pics via text message. So what is being sent can be tapped. The technology is definitely there.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Re: Worry what you say on the phone

You are correct.


Same as when some soon to be bitter ex husband calls up the Wireless providers and ask for the content of the content of their divorcing spouse's text messages. He has to go to her and side load/download them.


The carriers don't have the bandwidth, time, or obligation to record calls and text messages.

Family court alone would cripple them from ever providing their services.

[FarCenter]

4. Call detail plus cell tower, handset identifier, etc. for wireless.

Wired line calls would only be the calling, called numbers and datetime and duration of call.

Wireless calls involve a lot more data -- consider roaming handsets.

But the content of the call or the text or the data are not included (at least I don't think so, although text is done over the signaling channel used for call setup and management, which accounts for the 140 character limit).

[SlimJimmy]

5. You are correct. Call data to and from, location, and duration. (nt)

[JaneyVee]

6. Not recording phone calls, only patterns of calls.

[OnyxCollie]

7. Patterns of behavior are good enough for drone "signature strikes."

The US doesn't even know who it's killing, but they know suspected terrorists get together in groups to plot their next attack on America (or celebrate the naming of a baby.)

[MineralMan]

8. This particular issue only has to do with call data, not call contents.

Government agencies, however, do have the capability of collecting call contents, though. Warrants are required, in most cases, although there are exceptions to that rule, as well.

Whether agencies like the NSA are actually recording the contents of communications is not actually known. The classification of that, if it were happening, would be very high, indeed. The capability for it, however, does exist, and those who are communicating things that would catch the interest of government agencies should probably be aware of that capability. For the rest of us, it's probably not a matter for much concern, frankly.

You may have noticed that the FBI and Secret Service sometimes visits people who have threatened, say, the President. They do that, however, after alert people notify them of the threats. I haven't seen them do that when communications other than public are used to voice such threats. That, to me, indicates that there is not wholesale, efficient monitoring of actual contents of communications. Instead, if someone voices some sort of thread on Facebook or some website, someone else is sure to notify the authorities.

There are countless thousands of warrant-driven wiretappings going on all the time, though. Of that, I'm certain.

[FarCenter]

10. Is a warrant required for breaking the over-the-air encryption or installing a trojan?

Besides asking the carrier for the content, the other alternatives would seem to be:
A. intercepting the cellular or WiFi signal and breaking the crypto, or
B. compromising the user's terminal by injecting a trojan.

Of course these require more work, and a knowledge of the target.

[MineralMan]

12. I don't have any information on those issues.

So I'm unable to offer a concrete answer.

I would not be surprised, though, if those options are available to certain agencies. However, such activities are expensive and time-consuming, so I wouldn't expect that they would be used, except in specific situations where the value of the information warranted the cost and human resources.

Legally, a warrant would probably be required, except for cases involving international intelligence. Legality, however, only comes into play when the information would lead to disclosure of the information in a court of law. Intelligence operations are often done without expecting to appear in a court of any kind. But, I'm not involved with any intelligence agency these days, and my time involved was over 40 years ago, and at a low level. So, I can't write with any real, current knowledge. I do make some assumptions, which can be discarded, if you wish.

[sabrina 1]

16. This particular issue became a huge issue for Democrats when Bush was caught doing it here on DU.

And among all Americans who respect the freedom from government oppression that the laws then in place, forbade. Then Bush got the law changed to make spying on the American people legal, going back retroactively to get the Telecoms off the hook from the prosecutions they were facting.

We still had the remnants of Democracy at that point and Democrats at least were fighting the rapidly deteriorating democracy under Bush. Now it's astounding to see a few democrats repeating what republicans were saying back then. 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about'. Totally missing the point which was expected of republicans.

How sad that we lecture the rest of the world on democracy and have no longer any clue what it feels like to live in one.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes. Government access to individual's data

is always something worth watching. I first became aware of the issue in the 1960s. While in the USAF, I spend some time stationed at NSA headquarters at Ft. Meade. What I was doing there remains classified.

I've been following it ever since. I don't approve of much of what has transpired with regard to the subject. What I have noticed, though, is that approval by Congress has been forthcoming throughout that time for increasing the amount of monitoring whenever new technology arrived that enabled additional monitoring.

Because of that simple, continuing fact, it became clear to me that the situation would not change. In fact, data monitoring is bound to increase in its sophistication and scope. It has done so steadily, and that's unlikely to change in the future.

Since I left the USAF in 1969, I've had nothing whatever to do with any sort of intelligence work. I didn't have much to do with it even while in the USAF. I was just an enlisted guy going where I was sent. However, I have followed the changes ever since that time fairly closely. Since I have had a career that was largely based on writing about technology, it has been fairly easy to follow, and I've been an early adopter of technology since the early 1980s.

As I've often said, I deal in realities, not generalities. On this subject, the reality is quite clear. Monitoring of communications not only is continuing but is becoming more and more prevalent. I see no sign at all that there is any will on the part of either the electorate or the elected to alter that growth. I see the same, small minority of politically conscious people protesting that growth, but I don't see a change in the overall attitude about it. Since we are a representative republic and elect our legislators by popular vote, I don't see any likelihood that this attitude will change in the future, either.

Today, this is news. A week from now, something else will be news. In November, 2014, some other thing will be news as people head to the polling place. And what is current then will determine the makeup of Congress once again. In any case, the current trend will continue, with regard to data monitoring. It will continue to increase.

Reality.

[sabrina 1]

21. That is not accurate. The law forbidding spying on the American people which remained in place until

Bush was caught doing it and Congress saved the perpetrators from prosecution, was passed after Nixon whe the public and even some realistic Conservates were rightfully shocked by the spying that was revealed. Ford airc, signed a law into place forbidding such spying.

So no, the public has NOT accepted it. Congress has ignored the public which is what needs to be fixed. Back when the law requiring that a warrant was necessary passed, Congress was responsive to the people. That is not that long ago.

Since then, the money in politics has increased and as a result we do not have a Congress that is responsive to the people, it's function, as the very controversial FISA Bill demonstrates, is to protect those who are funding them.

But in no way does that translate into any kind of acceptance by the people. OWS is proof of that and will only grow as more and more the people realize that their own Congress is more responsible for taking away their freedoms than any terrorist could dream of.

Apathy never accomplished anything, and I find these apathetic 'it's the reality' comments here on DU to be offensive frankly. Now we will be even more motivated to restore the stolen freedoms we blamed only Bush for. Now we know were were naive to think it was just the Republicans. Knowledge is power. We didn't have enough knowledge as to just how our government worked regarding the money that controls it, back when we thought that just electing Democrats was enough to stop the destruction of rights.

I know people, in my own family actually, who are in the military right now, one of them in AF intel. He is as concerned about the destruction of our rights as we are.

The real reality is that we on the left were far too trusting of those we thought would fight to stop this slide into totalitarianism.

But there are a few great Democrats such as Ron Wyden who has been fighting hard all these years to inform the people and who has seen the danger and been outspoken about it, all along. But then his family knows the danger of these policies, having fled the Third Reich during WW11. He knows that the people have to be vigilant and that apathy is not an option when the first signs of the destruction of rights appear.

[MineralMan]

22. Yes. That law, however, did not apply to the FBI.

It did apply to the CIA, NSA, and some other intelligence entities. It was mostly followed, too. Even in the 1960s, though, it did not apply to international communications, even when one party was a US citizen. You can check.

What was done that ignored that law, I don't know. It wasn't my area at all. I don't even know if anything was done outside of the law.

But, the FBI can, did, and does investigate Americans in the US. That's not even illegal, and wiretap warrants have been commonplace for the FBI for a very long time.

On the other issue, the "public" is a very large entity. It's pretty hard to speak for it. I wouldn't even attempt to do so. I find out what the public wants every couple of years. Until then, I hear a lot about what some tiny minority of the population wants or doesn't want. Those minority groups are quite vocal, and they often feel that they represent more of the population than they actually represent.

[sabrina 1]

23. The FBI investigating SUSPECTS of crime is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with

this. And the FBI was able to go to the FISA Court, under the law, to obtain a warrant. THAT law is the one Congress changed to protect Bush's warrantless, indiscriminate wire-tapping of us US Citizens who were not suspected of any crimes. Warrants were required and hardly ever refused when the FBI was able to establish its reasons for asking for them. You are talking about something that has zero to do with what Bush did and later Congress to its shame, to CHANGE all of that 'law' stuff.

The law forbade indiscriminate, warrantless spying/wire-tapping of innocent people NOT suspected of any crime.

What was done that ignored that law, I don't know. It wasn't my area at all. I don't even know if anything was done outside of the law.

Well that is strange, since it was such a huge issue, big enough that it nearly lost Obama the election when he went back on his promise to oppose the new FISA Bill designed to, unbelievably make legal what was illegal and voted for it.

That law was violated by Bush when his administration was caught using the Telecoms, without any warrant, to spy indiscriminately on all of their customers. It generated so much outrage that is hard to believe you missed it, especially being a Democrat.

It dominated the upcoming election as an issue and for people like me, long time supporters of Obama, it became difficult to defend his vote on that egregious Bill which has now resulted in what is going according to the latest reports.

I find it hard to understand how any Democrat missed what was one of the most important issues of the Bush years. The scandal that erupted when his illegal spying was revealed, in the NYT. The even worse scandal when instead of applying the law, Congress moved to PROTECT the perpetrators by passing a RETROACTIVE law to save them from all the law suits and compensation the victims of the spying were entitled to under the law.

That was the beginning of the awakening of Democrats to the fact that restoring the rights taken away by Bush's gang of war criminals, was going to be far more difficult than just 'electing Democrats'. But we did it anyhow, with promises from Dems like Leahy and Conyers that if we took all three branches we would begin to start restoring the rights taken away, including that disastrous FISA Bill.

Those minority groups are quite vocal, and they often feel that they represent more of the population than they actually represent.

Um, no, this was the entire Democratic Base of the party including many elected officials, AND some even on the Right who understood the implications of these illegal actions. All of DU and even some right wingers who finally realized that their party was acting against the people, every Civil Liberty organization was involved in the fight to preserve the law then in place. But Bush won.

Bush called the majority of people who opposed his policies 'small focus groups' also. You might want to avoid diminishing the numbers of people who actually do care about the Constitution and the Law in this country. It brings back bad memories of when we were trying to get rid of him.

I don't know. It wasn't my area at all. I don't even know if anything was done outside of the law.

That is odd, considering what a huge issue it was at the time. However, I hope I have brought you up to date on this most important and well documented right here on DU, issue. And I would hope that Constitutional issues, Bush's illegal activities, Congress' rush to protect him from prosecution will become your area as it has always been to most Democrats at least and even some rational Conservatives.

[arthritisR_US]

11. Call data to and from only, no content.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. Call detail records for Verizon Business customers

That's what we know about, anyway.

[sabrina 1]

17. Time to dump Verizon. But who can be trusted not to cooperate with spying on the people?

We do have a right, don't we, to demand to know what records they ARE keeping on people.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. I'm under the full assumption that AT&T is providing the same data

And I don't believe that any major telecommunications company can be trusted.

We have a right to know why the government feels they need this information, but we don't have any advocates in government. Those like Ron Wyden who appear to oppose such measures are constrained from saying anything about it by the same law that made this spying legal. We have no friends on the inside.

[OnyxCollie]

19. Is Qwest still around?