Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Privacy Communications Government United States

NSA Collects 200 Million Text Messages Per Day 287

ilikenwf writes "A new release from the files obtained by Edward Snowden have revealed that the NSA collects millions of text messages per day. These are used to gain travel plans, financial data, and social network data. The majority of these texts and data belong to people who are not being investigated for any crime or association. Supposedly, "non-US" data is removed, but we all know that means it is sent to a partner country for analysis, which is then sent back to the NSA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Collects 200 Million Text Messages Per Day

Comments Filter:
  • Re:1963: JFK says (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @03:58PM (#45978953)

    Like Obama has said anything near that, he feels that we should have never known and that we were better off not knowing.

  • Re:Any evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @03:59PM (#45978967)

    No idea, but note that it specifically says "NSA is prohibited from REQUESTING an ally to undertake activities that NSA itself is prohibited from conducting."

  • Re:1963: JFK says (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:06PM (#45979061) Homepage Journal

    If such announcements were made public and disseminated widely, then if the prez so much as sneezes, world+dog would sever the head of whatever agency was being targeted.

    Ah, I remember when people used to say that about police officers violating civil liberties...

  • Re:Any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:11PM (#45979103) Homepage Journal
    That don't seem coherent with the fact that the NSA sharing raw intelligence information with Israel [], you know, before analizing it and determining if they can or not conduct some activities on them. Then the allies don't have that limitation, of course. But, you know, if they can lie even to the congress [] without consequences, why they would tell you the truth?
  • Re:Releases (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duranaki ( 776224 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:31PM (#45979321)
    Me too. It seems to work like this: Release A. Wait for government to say, "Okay. Sure. We did A. But that's it." Then, release B. "Okay. Sure. We did A and B. But that's it." It really makes the government look bad to have to revise its denials all the time. Plus, the slow release helps fight the "Look! Shiny!" defense. If you released everything at once, they could then distract us with a couple scandals and the media would never go back to this issue.
  • by csumpi ( 2258986 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:54PM (#45979539)
    You have missed just about every point.

    This information released piece by piece is the most ingenious idea from Snowden and friends. If they released it in one batch it would be forgotten in two weeks because of the Attention Span of Knuckle Heads.

    Here your post is an exact proof of that. You must have missed those leaks about the RSA being paid to allow easier breaking of their encryption, Mac webcams recording without the light on, NSA's private backdoor into iPhones, or Apple's logo on many of the documents. So you say iMessage? I would not be the least bit surprised if NSA had access to that, too. Especially after all the favorable decisions handed out by the government to Apple recently.

    And you're blaming a newspaper? Because they are doing the job of journalism as they are supposed to? They are the bad guys here? Come on man.

  • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:56PM (#45979565)

    Just state it the way that we all know how it is. They don't remove anything.

    Yes they do. It is just that in NSA lingo "collect" means "analyze". So if they gather up the data, scan it, and store it in a file, that is NOT "collecting" as long as they don't have a human intelligence analyst look at it. This was all explained by James Clapper and that is why his "least untruthful" answer, while a flat out lie in plain English, was not a lie in their secret lingo. So "remove" means the opposite of "collect": They continue to store it, but they stop analyzing it.

  • Re:Any evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bucc5062 ( 856482 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <2605ccub>> on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:57PM (#45979571)

    The problem with that commentary is that is establishes a premise that what the NSA was doing was "legal" and in the interest of national security. It would seem those two issues are in doubt. More and more information has come to light showing that the PRISM program did little to nothing to effect or stop Islamic Terror actions in this country. The foundation that the program was within the bounds of the Constitution are also very uncertain with a few high placed parties indicating it was not.

    Sen. Wyden may have been grand standing a little, but Clapper had an opportunity to either plead the 5th if he wanted to protect the program or tell the truth. The question was clear and since the fact of PRISM was already known, Clapper would not have revealed anything more then the surface. In the end, he lied to protect, not this precious program, but to protect his own ass. A lie first followed by dissimulation (lie, confuse, forget) was and is the political way to not get fired (or arrested) assuming you are "To Big to Fail"

  • Re:Pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @05:16PM (#45979743) Homepage

    I'll bet $100 that you don't do shit about it.

  • Re:1963: JFK says (Score:2, Insightful)

    by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @05:28PM (#45979837) Homepage
    Obama doesn't have a fraction of the courage of JFK. None of them do, except Carter and Bush Sr. and perhaps Nixon.

    Reagan. The way he reacted when he was shot showed that he had, at least as much physical courage as JFK. And, like it or not, his Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA "Starwars") wasn't the type of policy that a timid president would ever have dared.
  • Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @05:41PM (#45979947) Homepage

    That makes no sense. They're the one advocating taking to the streets and guillotineing people. Not me.

    We have all the tools we need to improve our country and we decline to use them. The voter turnout for people under 35 is a disgrace. If young people just voted at the same rate as old people, this country would transform overnight.

  • Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @05:59PM (#45980097) Homepage

    Sorry if my proposal isn't as exciting as murdering people in the streets.

  • Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @06:07PM (#45980181)
    Young people voted overwhelmingly for the president who has authorized this data collection. If more of them voted we would be no better off.
  • by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:08PM (#45980727) Journal

    Only $100?

    But then, I'd bet $1000 (if I had it) that they wouldn't do anything effective

    As a naturalized citizen of the United of America I can tell you that there is *NOTHING* we, the voters of American, can effectively do, to change the system.

    The system is so entrenched, with its roots dug so deep into so many fields, affecting so many people's livelihoods, that even if 90% of the voters (who do go out to vote) of the America decide that "Enough is enough", that is still NOTHING we can do !

    "Vote them out", you say ?

    When you vote them out, who would you vote in to replace them ?

    The whole scenario of a supposedly "Two Party System" is a sham.

    They are JUST THE SAME OLD SHIT, like two sides of a same coin.

    Whether we vote Republicans or for Democrats, we vote for the same fucking system.

    "Vote for somebody else then," you say.

    Who ?

    Third party ? Libertarians ?

    I *AM* a libertarian, but even me know that the "Libertarian party" is worse than a fucking joke.

    Every single day the system fill us with nonsensical topics such as "abortion", "welfare abuses", "prayer in the school" and so on, so to occupy our attention.

    So we have the line drawn in between the people along the line of "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice", and people having protests over "Gay Parade" (on both sides), and so what ?

    I mean, those are the devices that the fucking system used to divert attention AWAY from the hundreds of millions of morons living in America anyway.

    I am sorry to say that, for even I, as an American, have to admit that there are just too many morons in America and we have been moronic for way too long.

    The so-called "Constitution" is no more.

    Yes, there is still a piece of paper with the "We, the people..." written on it, but it might be as well printed "Made in China" on back, because the system doesn't give a fuck of that piece of paper anymore.

    Do I sound pissed ? Sure I am !

    But what the fuck more can I do ?

  • Re:1963: JFK says (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:28PM (#45980867)

    maybe only deterred him from firing Hoover... who was using the FBI to do what the NSA does now but limited to political figures... and maybe a few communists

    And Martin Luther King Jr., the NAACP, journalists/athletes critical of the Vietnam war, the black panthers, individual students not even associated with groups, Albert Einstein, the KKK, etc (that list is actually really blood huge).

    Hoover's FBI engaged in political smear campaigns, giving false report the the media, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, oh, and an assassination.
    Seriously, learn some history.

    Now, I don't think that the NSA is currently up to the sort of abuse that Hoover was involved in. Lying to the media, lying to congress, spying on their girlfriends, illegal domestic dragnets, internationally illegal espionage? They've been caught red handed. And no-one is in jail yet. Or even charged. That's a pretty serious breakdown of the rule of law.

    But hey, it's not as bad as Hoover's FBI. Yet. That we know of.

  • by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:35PM (#45980919) Homepage

    Wow. You should really leave such a terrible country right away.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:15PM (#45981209)

    Wow. You should really leave such a terrible country right away.

    I'm pretty sure american domestic opression doesn't hold a candle to american imperial oppression :/

  • by anagama ( 611277 ) <> on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:33PM (#45981365) Homepage

    Plainly you're just more interested in making jokes about insubstantial things like sexting, which sadly appears to be much more damaging to one's career than shredding the US Constitution or committing perjury in Congress.

    Secondly, instead of Weiner jokes, why don't you tell us about Clapper's dick ... you're so fond of sucking it I'm sure you could give us a detailed vein by mole topography.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:26PM (#45981943)

    As a naturalized citizen of the United of America I can tell you that there is *NOTHING* we, the voters of American, can effectively do, to change the system.

    Sounds like the rationlisation of a victim for being passive, but perhaps you just don't understand how the system works. Sure the parties all collude to present you with an illusion of choices they dictate (in reality the choices of the bodies that fund them), and all politicians no matter whether they're altruists or not cannot represent all the "needs" of the electorate (they also have to represent the people who voted against them) - but you can do something to force the election issues, and in turn affect legislation and how government (and government funded) bodies operate. Before each election the parties research the issues they lost votes to the previous election in order to hijack issues and gain a majority - so vote for single issue candidates that don't stand a chance of getting in. The biggest lie politicians tell is that without "major" parties (duopolies, e.g. liberal/labor, republican/democrat) governement will cease to function. Their rationalisation is that too many parties means government gets tied up in compromise negotiations - which is true only in that it stands in the way of ramrodding through the wishes of their major funders. All government is based on compromise, the more it has to be negotiated the more influence the voter has.

    Additionally all elections (at least according to the funding records in Australia) are won by the party that spends the most money - and they don't get the majority of their funding from individuals. By spreading the votes across a large number of parties the funders have to spread their funds as well, greatly reducing their influence. That's all "lobbyists" basically do, make promises to politicians about the funds they'll provide for the next election campaign. And the next election campaign is almost always the greatest influence on any politician.

    Just some thoughts....

    ~Demonoid Penguin (moderating)

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus