General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI suggest that if you are worried about the NSA rather than the FBI...
... then you have managed to get the releases from the past few weeks exactly backwards. The NSA protocols are a good deal better than I had worried they were since 2008. The situation with the FBI is more troubling.
Then again DU at large doesn't seem to get that these are two very different things.
magellan
(13,257 posts)"NSA" covers the whole icky surveillance ball of wax to me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The turf war among NSA, FBI, and CIA never stopped and this notion of a monolithic "security state" is kind of silly.
Short version:
The NSA, as authorized by the 2008 FISA amendment, monitors the communications of suspected foreign threats to the US. Digital communication being what it is, in the process of doing that, they sometimes also end up monitoring the communications of Americans. As we found out, when this happens, they have to destroy the information unless certain criteria are met, some of which are IMO too broad, but I had thought since 2008 that they kept all incidental taps, which apparently is not the case. This process is primarily Internet-focused rather than telephony-focused, but most telephone traffic goes through the Internet at some point nowadays.
The FBI, in an unrelated and uncoordinated program, is collecting significant amounts of data about the phone communications of all Americans, and this mass cultural confusion about which organization is what seems to have let them bury that in the NSA news story.
magellan
(13,257 posts)2nd para:
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though the NSA does the legwork since they have the servers.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Does the NSA hold the intelligence it's collected from the telcos for ransom or does it let the FBI have it as needed?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...because dad was butt ugly
Autumn
(45,120 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Perhaps someone will enlighten us?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The bulk request from the US phone carriers was for the FBI, not the NSA. The NSA doesn't do bulk requests; it tracks specific communications profiles.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Bureaucratic infighting is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The NSA under certain conditions is required to forward evidence of criminal activity to the FBI (those conditions are problematic and I think should be tightened up). The FBI under broader conditions is allowed to forward evidence of foreign threats to the US to the NSA. But the FBI also considers many foreign threats to the US to be under its own jurisdiction.
There's not a monolithic surveillance state; there are several competing agencies trying to justify their budgets.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not sure why that particular story attracts so much attention; there are bigger datacenters being planned as it is, for both the public and private sector.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I heard it was to store records collected on American citizens.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)allows the NSA and FBI to have unprecedented cooperation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And, anyways, if we're to believe Snowden the NSA recognizes two primary sources of information on communications: data procured from providers by a warrant, and upstream tapping on the physical lines. That's why the kind of request the FBI is making wouldn't help them.
pscot
(21,024 posts)NSA are IT guys and airport gropers; ambitious amateurs. The FBI are pros; very smart cops, well steeped in wickedness.