The NSA: Master of Social Networking

So when Edward Snowden first began leaking information about all that data the National Security Agency has been gathering on Americans, the defensive talking points said, "This is just metadata. Nobody is reading your e-mails or listening to your calls." Privacy experts responded by warning that there is a lot that can be learned about you by the significant amount of data out there that doesn't include actual communications.

This weekend the New York Times published more information from Snowden's leaks that detail exactly why they were correct to be concerned. The feds are taking database data about certain Americans and putting together as much information as they can:

Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans' social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.

The spy agency began allowing the analysis of phone call and e-mail logs in November 2010 to examine Americans' networks of associations for foreign intelligence purposes after N.S.A. officials lifted restrictions on the practice, according to documents provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.

The policy shift was intended to help the agency "discover and track" connections between intelligence targets overseas and people in the United States, according to an N.S.A. memorandum from January 2011. The agency was authorized to conduct "large-scale graph analysis on very large sets of communications metadata without having to check foreignness" of every e-mail address, phone number or other identifier, the document said. Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously been permitted only for foreigners.

The agency can augment the communications data with material from public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents. They do not indicate any restrictions on the use of such "enrichment" data, and several former senior Obama administration officials said the agency drew on it for both Americans and foreigners.

The justification for this behavior, according to an NSA spokeswoman, is the 1979 Supreme Court ruling that phone call records have no expectation of privacy, even though much of this data they're gathering has nothing to do with phone calls.

Read the whole story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[The Late P Brooks]

The Consoler-in-Chief didn't want to spy on America. He had to do it.

He's just looking out for your own best interests.

[Lord Humungus]

and the NSA's involvement in an assassination program:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....8-20-46-34

land of the free indeed.

[Suthenboy]

They are spies. Their mission in life is to know everything about everybody. They are like compulsive peeping Toms.

If they have the ability to watch you in your bathroom, they will. Expecting them to respect the lines we draw for them is pure delusion.

The only way to fix this problem is to take away their ability to gather any data they want. I dont think that is a realistic possibility.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

The justification for this behavior, according to an NSA spokeswoman, is the 1979 Supreme Court ruling that phone call records have no expectation of privacy, even though much of this data they're gathering has nothing to do with phone calls.

One minute Reason is pretending that papers, effects, phone calls, letters, emails, and IMs are all the same thing; the next they're claiming there's a categorical difference between phone calls and the others.

Let me know when you guys make your mind up.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans' social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.

In 1789, every old lady in your town would have known all that stuff about you. And so would the sheriff, before anyone objects that old ladies aren't the govt.

To claim that govt correlating legally obtained data is unconstitutional, is to even further replace what the Bill of Rights actually says with what you want it to say. But I guess "Living Constitution" bullshit is OK when libertarians do it!

[Rich]

In 1789, every old lady in your town would have known all that stuff about you. And so would the sheriff

So, why do we need the NSA?

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Because most people are in cities and use invisible, nonphysical forms of communication?

[Homple]

But who says the authorities have to spy on everyone?

[GroundTruth]

So who cares what she knows, she has no power over me. The government on the other hand, has (apparently) limitless power over me.

[scareduck]

But I guess "Living Constitution" bullshit is OK when libertarians do it!

WTF?

[Homple]

Tulpa, for one, welcomes our new all-seeing overlords.

[Cdr Lytton]

The justification for this behavior, according to an NSA spokeswoman, is the 1979 Supreme Court ruling that phone call records have no expectation of privacy, even though much of this data they're gathering has nothing to do with phone calls.

Ignoring the 1996 Telecommunications Act that codifies an expectation of privacy under federal law, numerous FCC actions and decisions against telecoms that fail to protect the privacy of that data as well as establishing that such data belongs to the customer not the telecom, and the topper, calling it metadata rather than customer proprietary network information (CPNI) because it would be too obvious how shaky the moral argument underlying the NSA's case is.

[scareduck]

Smith v. Maryland is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the latter half of the 20th century.