Study shows what we all knew: phone metadata can be used for insane breaches of privacy

[Newsjock]

Source: PandoDaily

A study by two Stanford graduate students has demonstrated the sheer amount of personal information that can be gleaned from phone call metadata. The students, Jonathan Mayer and Patrick Mutchler, were able to able to determine their subjects’ medical ailments, whether or not one owned a firearm, and that one subject probably planned to grow some pot. They didn’t need to listen in on anyone’s phone calls — they simply needed to know who their subjects were calling and how to access public records.

... Mayer and Mutchler learned intimate details about their subjects’ lives. They learned that one subject regularly called a “hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis.” They learned that another “ placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location.”

The study is another indictment of the United States government’s claims that gathering phone call metadata from millions of Americans is not an invasion of privacy. It doesn’t matter that no-one is listening to those phone calls. Unless the second most well-funded intelligence agency is less capable than two graduate students — which is doubtful, given its ability to surveil millions of people — metadata can be used to infer all kinds of information.

Read more: http://pando.com/2014/03/14/study-shows-what-we-all-knew-phone-metadata-can-be-used-for-insane-breaches-of-privacy/

[Aerows]

1. Nothing to see here, citizen

Move along.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Gotta make that "consumer" for accuracy. We have been demoted.

[Aerows]

58. Sadly

You are right . Move along consumer, nothing to see here.

[cantbeserious]

2. Where Be The Government Defenders? - "It's Just Metadata"

eom

[villager]

3. Hope! Change! Snowden is a monster!

You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide!

Etc.

[sabrina 1]

75. Tell that to Diane Feinstein. She seems very fearful these days since we found out they are spying

Senators. But I was told, here on DU, that spying on Senators is 'good for transparency'.

I always thought it might be useful for threats and bribery, but what do I know?

[Autumn]

4. But it's just metadata. No one cares if they collect that. Besides Google

and all that other shit has more on you than the NSA. Yada yada and so on.

[idendoit]

5. This 'study' has so many holes, it's worthless.

Yelp and google directories are easily hacked, how can they be reliably compared to anything. Inference is in and of itself not evidence. What scientific controls and protocols were used in defining crowd sourcing participation? Why isn't this presented as a peer reviewed study? I can make guesses based on observations myself and infer from that and statistical analysis that I am right 8.3% of the time.

[mindwalker_i]

6. The "study" just had ODS

[cui bono]

9. haha...

[neverforget]

15. And what study did you do?

[idendoit]

22. I study baseless studies.

[pragmatic_dem]

17. Are you going to throw out buzz words like a hack pop psychologist or

publish your data, methodology and results that contradict their well documented and credible findings?

In meantime, why not contact the authors directly with your complaints?

[idendoit]

21. Why rely on bloggers to defend spurious data?

What is the author graduate of, an art school?

[pragmatic_dem]

27. Since you asked, here they are. Now having embarrassed yourself, what credentials do you bring?

Jonathan Mayer is a Ph.D. student in computer science at Stanford University, where he received his J.D. in 2013. Jonathan is a Cybersecurity Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, a Junior Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society, and a Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellow. He earned his A.B. at Princeton University in 2009, concentrating in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Jonathan has consulted for both federal and state law enforcement agencies, and his research on consumer privacy has contributed to multiple regulatory interventions. A proud Chicago native, Jonathan is undaunted by freezing weather and enjoys celery salt on a hot dog.

Computer Crime

Brief of Amici Curiae Mozilla Foundation, Computer Scientists, Security and Privacy Experts

Jennifer Granick and Jonathan Mayer

United States v. Auernheimer (Third Circuit) (2013)



Legal History

The Vine Vote: Why California Went Dry (Forthcoming)

Jonathan Mayer

California Legal History (2013)



Privacy

Internet Surveillance Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act

Jonathan Mayer

ODNI Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies (2013)



Privacy Substitutes

Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan

Stanford Law Review Online (2013)



A Promising Direction for Web Tracking Countermeasures

Jason Bau et al.

Web 2.0 Security and Privacy (2013)



Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology

Jonathan R. Mayer and John C. Mitchell

IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2012)



Comment to the FTC on Web Privacy

Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan

Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change (2011)



Do Not Track as a Generative Approach to Web Privacy (Draft)

Jonathan Mayer

Yale ISP Workshop on Behavioral Advertising and Privacy (2011)



Do Not Track: Universal Web Tracking Opt Out

Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan

IAB Internet Privacy Workshop (2010)



"Any person... a pamphleteer"

Jonathan R. Mayer

Princeton University Senior Thesis (2009)



Security

Comment on the Draft National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace

Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan

(2010)



Robotics

Argos: Princeton University's Entry in the 2009 Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition

Solomon O. Abiola et al.

Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition (2009)



Kratos: Princeton University's Entry in the 2008 Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition

Christopher A. Baldassano et al.

SPIE IS&T (2009)



Kratos: Princeton University's Entry in the 2008 Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition

Christopher Baldassano et al.

Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition (2008)



DARPA Urban Challenge Princeton University Technical Paper

Alain Kornhauser et al.

DARPA Urban Challenge (2007)

[idendoit]

35. I ask again why isn't this 'study' published....

Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

.....in a scientifically evidenced based, peer reviewed manner. Or is it because he is taking his own advice? "Any person... a pamphleteer" Jonathan R. Mayer Princeton University Senior Thesis (2009). I point out his thesis because it specifically talks about the methodology used to obtain the baseless results he achieved in that blog you sighted. You can read the whole thing carefully or skip to p. 46 and start with: "While suggestive of a trend, occasional conversations are no firm basis for a policy analysis;" It is Dr. Mayer, and evidently you, who should be embarrassed.

[pragmatic_dem]

36. lol - apology not accepted. Supply your credentials on this subject. Only then, will we talk.

[idendoit]

37. I'm a high school drop out. Have you started yet?

[sibelian]

45. ...

[bvar22]

7. Jope Biden knew THAT back in 2006.

[LondonReign2]

8. But but but

I was informed by the BOG Brigade that metadata is "useless"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024653285

[Maedhros]

10. I call them the "ignore list." [n/t]

[bobduca]

11. its like an adblocker

for dishonest rhetoric

[truedelphi]

61. heh heh

Too bad we can't post the funnier comments about them over to them.

[pragmatic_dem]

12. For example, spying apologists are NOT dchbags, they are META dchbags. See the difference? nt

[OilemFirchen]

13. Remarkable!

These grad students discovered that telephone metadata can be used to ascertain patterns of call activity. Which, as I recall, is the intentional motive behind this data collection. So a couple of savants unearthed an intricate plot, first revealed to the public seven years ago. Kids today are a phenom!

There is a small problem with their grand theorem, however. Collection of numbers, dates and times reveals absolutely nothing about who was at either end of that call or what was discussed. Their subject who "placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location"? Maybe a kid home from school calling mom? The unwitting dupe who "regularly called a “hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis"? Perhaps yet another savant doing research for yet another blockbuster survey.

They should teach the NSA how to divine personalities and conversations from metadata. As it is, the agency is wasting its time - using the results of pattern detection to obtain a warrant for further investigation. Why didn't they THINK of this? All that time and money... wasted!

[dsc]

50. actually I would think a person would be more worried about

someone knowing their kid was home alone while they worked at planned parenthood than that they were maybe getting an abortion. After all Planned Parenthood has had several employees threatened and some killed.

[baldguy]

14. Processing metadata enough so it's not metadata any longer.

You can make anything true just as long as you ignore the definitions of words.

[neverforget]

16. They processed metadata until it's not metadata anymore!

What is it then?

[baldguy]

19. Data. But nobody anywhere is claiming this is what the NSA is doing.

They just say having the metadata is just as bad as having the data.

Sort of like saying an egg is the same thing as a chicken, or a pile of lumber is the same thing as a chair. They aren't the same, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from whining they are.

[neverforget]

20. What you're saying, I think, is that the NSA is gathering metadata but doesn't process it?

In other words, they gather it to just hold onto it? Why would they do that? It costs a lot of money to gather and hold onto data for no reason.

[baldguy]

23. Show me where anyone anywhere has claimed the NSA is targeting individual Americans

via the generalized metadata they collect. Please provide links & references.

[neverforget]

25. Thanks for not answering my question. I guess you don't have an answer.

You answer mine and I'll answer yours.

[baldguy]

30. You seem to have everything figured out already.

In spite of the fact that your assumptions have no basis in reality.

[neverforget]

31. You made an assertion. Back it up since you have everything figured out.

I'll wait.

[baldguy]

33. Um, no. An assertion was made in the OP and the article that it links to.

A couple of "researchers" did a "study" which was based on a whole lot of assumptions and very little evidence, but which you seem to agree with. All I'm asking for is a tiny little bit of evidence: Where has anyone claimed the NSA is targeting individual Americans with this metadata?

[neverforget]

38. What they said was that you can get a lot information identifying what a particular individual

does with metadata. According to you, the NSA collects that stuff for kicks and giggles.

Why would they collect it? What use is it to them? Why collect it on all Americans and not individuals who are suspected of terrorism?

They have my information and my wife's because we are Verizon cell subscribers. What did I do that can have that information? Am I suspected of something?

And lastly: What fucking business is it of the governments who I call and for how long?

Here’s how phone metadata can reveal your affairs, abortions, and other secrets

In short, the distinction between call metadata and call contents is not as clear in practice as it might seem in theory. Sucking up everyone's phone records gives the government access to a lot of highly sensitive information, like whether you've had an affair, gotten an abortion, or provided secret information to a reporter. Felten's examples give ammunition to those who believe the Supreme Court should revise its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

The NSA-Verizon Scandal

All call detail records or “telephony metadata” created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.
-----
The government seems to have a list of all the people that Verizon customers called and who called them; how long they spoke; and, perhaps—depending on how precise the cell-phone-tower information in the metadata is, where they were on a given day. All phone records—for any of the company’s customers, not just, say, A.P. reporters that the government thought were involved in the leaking of national-security information, though that would be bad enough—are on the table. And the customers of other providers shouldn’t be reassured: it is likely that this order is simply one of a type—the one that fell off the truck. Whatever complaints their customers may have, there is no reason to think that choosing Verizon is a tell-tale sign of one’s foreign-intelligence value.

Either the government, in the interest of looking for a couple of particular Verizon customers, decided to vacuum up the records of what could be millions of them; or there are similar orders out there for other providers. Neither is a good option.

There is also nothing in the order telling the government to destroy the records after a certain amount of time. Nor do there appear to be provisions limiting who can see the data. How will that information not be a permanent temptation to overreaching investigators? (Beyond privacy rights, the location data has implications for freedom of assembly.)

[baldguy]

40. If the NSA is doin the things you claim, there must be thousands of Americans in jail because of it.

Name one.

[neverforget]

41. I gave you links to what they are doing and then you say something I didn't claim

they were doing.

And you haven't answered ONE of my questions but you continue to throw out straw men like claiming I said they jail Americans which I didn't claim. However, I did ask what business it is of the governments. Can you answer that?

[baldguy]

42. Names?

Come on! This shit has supposedly been going on for more than a decade! There has to be at least ONE famous case where some hapless victim has been wrongfully jailed by the NSA that has become a cause célèbre among the low-information phoney libertarian pseudo-intellectual douchebags who worship Rand Pauls flatus and for whom everything the govt touches is by definition evil. Name one.

[neverforget]

43. Still slaying those straw men baldguy. Bravo!

So far you've created 1, slayed it, and did it again!

Care to answer my question instead of insulting me or creating strawmen?

Do you have the courage of your convinctions to answer the questions?

[baldguy]

52. You open yourself up for ridicule when you make claims you can't back up. Welcome to the Internets.

The fact is you can't show that even ONE person in America has been materially impacted by these programs. And, just as with any of the myriad GOP-created phony "scandals", it wouldn't even issue without the incessant squawking of a few RW gadflies.

That's not to say I think they should be continued, in spite of the propaganda the less honest & more easily manipulated among the anti-Democrat/anti-Obama crowd on DU is pushing. It only goes to prove how useless the programs are: they don't do what they're advertised to do, and they don't do what the Randian objectivist pseudo-intelligentsia accuses them of doing.

[neverforget]

74. "I" open myself up to ridicule? I never claimed that anyone went to jail over this.

You did. If you think that spying on everyone is harmless in a democracy, think again. Senators Wyden of Oregon, my senator, Senator Udall of Colorado and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, all DEMOCRATS and not Rand Paul Libertarian anti-Democrat/anti-Obama a-holes, seem to disagree with you.

The following is what they had to say about the NSA November 25, 2013 in the NY Times:

End the NSA Dragnet Now

WASHINGTON — THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment. The bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records — so-called metadata — by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers’ intentions. This intrusive program was authorized under a secret legal process by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so for years American citizens did not have the knowledge needed to challenge the infringement of their privacy rights.

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records. But this can be done without collecting the records of millions of law-abiding Americans. We recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition that those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

---

This is not the true reform that poll after poll has shown the American people want. It is preserving business as usual. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity. It did not permit government agencies to issue general warrants as long as records seized were reviewed with the permission of senior officials.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. When *did* you decide to become an apologist for illegal government actions?

Because you certainly changed your tune sometime after 2005:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492

baldguy Sun Jan-30-05 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.

Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:34 PM by baldguy
Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.

The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.

People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list.

During his most recent inauguration, Bush faced the largest number of protesters at such an event in 35 years. People were herded into cages, tear gassed en masse, and arrested for the crime of exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

What do you think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/://duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x431371#431380

baldguy Jun-25-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The TSA's No-Fly list is entirely different than the FBI's Terrorist Watch List.

Trying to conflate the two is RW propaganda.

[baldguy]

49. Show me any evidence that the present administration is targeting it's political enemies

as was done in the previous administration.

And your out-of-context nit-picking attack on me indicates you have no clue what various agencies at the local, state & federal govt levels actually do, or how they interact with the general public, and further that you don't believe that it makes a difference who sits in the Oval Office.

The arguments posted here protesting against the NSA are nothing more than a rehash of same old & tired moronic Teabagger/RW libertarian/Palinesque "GUBMINT BAAAAD!" slogans that have correctly been ridiculed on DU since the beginning of time. But when people on DU refuse to acknowledge that Snowden and Cheney are guilty of the same crimes, or they start painting Obama as the Second Coming of Joseph Stalin, or proclaim that "both parties are the same", they out themselves as dupes of the Republican Party. Too many here on DU trust Rand Paul and Glenn Greenwald over Barack Obama. And they still have an excess of arrogant stupidity to claim to be progressive Democrats while they do it.

[questionseverything]

51. our gov't is not supposed to be based on trusting one admin or another

it is about having a system we trust no matter who is in power

a system with checks and balances, a system with laws including the 4th amendment

[baldguy]

54. We're not "supposed" to have a standing army, or have 90% of our media controlled by 6 corporations

Or have legally-sanction second-class citizenship basted on race, religion, gender & gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin or political affiliation. But we do. Attacking Obama and the Democrats over this NSA shit will only ensure that none of that ever gets changed.

[questionseverything]

55. you see it as attacking

I see it as pointing out a problem so potus can fix it and the dems will then win for generations to come (if we count the votes in an open transparent manner)

[baldguy]

56. I'm all in favor of robust and aggressive oversight by Congress.

I'm not in favor of putting Rand Paul in the White House, which seems to be the objective of some of the anti-Democrat/anti-Obama crowd on DU who parrot Teabagger talking points and cast anyone who supports the President as some sort of totalitarian Stalinist (see some of the posts above). They're the ones you should be having an argument with.

[neverforget]

66. who on DU wants Rand Paul for President?

I have never seen a "Rand Paul for President" or anything close to that on DU.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. Nobody. It's a red herring thrown out by surveillance state apologists n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. "It's different when *our* guy does it" would have been more candid and less verbose

[baldguy]

65. Show me proof that "our guy does it", i.e. targets his political enemies using the federal govt.

The fact is, you can't. That's ample enough evidence that the moronic Teabagger/RW libertarian/Palinesque meme promoted by the likes of Rand Paul and Glenn Greenwald that both parties are the same and both parties do it is simply a lie.

It seems there's a competition among the RW dupes to spread the most lies on DU. How are you fairing?

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. An illegal trawl is no more acceptable than an illegal specifically targeted search

Some of us still resist falling in love with any Big Brother, no matter his looks, proclaimed politics,
or letter following his name.

Judging by your vitriol and repeated use of the associational fallacy, your
posts demonstrate the old adage "The converts always sing the loudest in church..."

[OilemFirchen]

68. NSA metadata collection is legal. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. More than a few Constitutional scholars disagree

Including some associated with these worthy organizations:

https://www.eff.org/

https://www.aclu.org/

[OilemFirchen]

73. Good for them.

And they've pursued the proper channel to have the issue adjudicated. Thus far, they've failed. I encourage them to appeal, ultimately, to the USSC. They are, after all, the final authority.

In the interim, NSA metadata collection is legal. Opinions otherwise are moot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. You've neglected to mention the ACLU's opposition to all this

Not to mention the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

https://www.aclu.org/

https://www.eff.org/

If I were you, I wouldn't have brought them up either- they fuck up a perfectly good
associational fallacy...

[baldguy]

78. The ACLU would be first to point out that honorable people can disagree

An attitude which seems to be sorely lacking among the anti-Democrat crowd in their attacks on DU.

And if you're looking for "associational fallacies", you should check out the people on your side who can't seem to tell the difference between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Who do *you* believe "the people on (my) side" are?

And why do you think so? Am I supposed to quit supporting marriage equality because
Dick Cheney said that he was fine with it?

[baldguy]

105. OK, let's just have a look see who's on YOUR side:

The RW lunatic Rand Paul, the Cheney copycat & serial exaggerator Ed Snowden, the professional liar & sour gadfly Glenn Greenwald, and literally anyone seeking to roll back all of the progressive advancements in America since the Great Depression and anyone who bears the slightest grudge - real or imagined - against any Democrat in history. It's hard to run away from them when they're the ones generating your talking points.

Maybe you can guess who's on MY side: I'm a proud Democrat posting on a website dedicated to supporting the Democratic party & electing Democrats. I'm replying to attacks on a sitting Democratic President by Republicans who blame him for the excesses of the previous Republican regime using Republican sound bites & Republican excuses, all while they extol the virtues of other Republicans.

[neverforget]

107. 2 can play guilt by association

Right Wing Lunatics like John Woo, author of the torture memos, Dick Cheney evil incarnate himself, George W Bush worst President ever, Donald Rumsfeld architect of the Iraq War, Bill Kristol war and torture lover, and on and on.

And no, I don't think that you're a neo-con or a Republican.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Sticking with the associational fallacy, eh? Fine

For the sake of argument, I'll accept that for the moment and not declare
that you've completely sold out your previously stated principles for partisan reasons...

Since that's the way you roll, here's a few other things you will need
to do without:

Government-run health insurance, workers compensation, and Social Security-
all started by the ultra-conservative Otto von Bismarck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#Bismarck.27s_social_legislation

Health Insurance Bill of 1883

The first bill that had success was the Health Insurance bill, which was passed in 1883. The program was considered the least important from Bismarck's point of view and the least politically troublesome. The program was established to provide health care for the largest segment of the German workers. The health service was established on a local basis, with the cost divided between employers and the employed. The employers contributed one-third, the workers the rest. The minimum payments for medical treatment and sick pay for up to 13 weeks were legally fixed. The individual local health bureaus were administered by a committee elected by the members of each bureau, and this move had the unintended effect of establishing a majority representation for the workers on account of their large financial contribution. This worked to the advantage of the Social Democrats who, through heavy worker membership, achieved their first small foothold in public administration.[8]

Accident Insurance Bill of 1884

Bismarck's government had to submit three draft bills before it could get one passed by the Reichstag in 1884. Bismarck had originally proposed that the Federal Government should pay a portion of the accident insurance contribution to show the willingness of the German government to lessen the hardship experienced by the German workers as a means of weaning them away from the various left-wing parties, most importantly the Social Democrats. The National Liberals took this program to be an expression of State Socialism, which they were strongly against. The Centre Party was afraid of the expansion of federal power at the expense of states' rights. As a result, the only way the program could be passed at all was for the entire expense to be underwritten by the employers. To facilitate this, Bismarck arranged for the administration of this program to be placed in the hands of “Der Arbeitgeberverband in den beruflichen Korporationen”, “the organization of employers in occupational corporations”. This organization established central and bureaucratic insurance offices on the federal, and in some cases the state, level to perform the actual administration. The program kicked in to replace the health insurance program as of the 14th week. It paid for medical treatment and a Pension of up to two-thirds of earned wages if the worker was fully disabled. This program was expanded in 1886 to include agricultural workers.[8]

Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889

The old-age pension program, financed by a tax on workers, was designed to provide a pension annuity for workers who reached the age of 70. At the time, the life expectancy for the average Prussian was 45, although this reflects the high infant mortality of the era, and retired workers could expect to live until 70 years. Unlike accident insurance and health insurance, this program covered industrial, agrarian, artisans and servants from the start. Also, unlike the other two programs, the principle that the federal government should contribute a portion of the underwriting cost, with the other two portions prorated accordingly, was accepted without question. The disability insurance program was intended to be used by those permanently disabled. This time, the state supervised the programs directly.[8]

High-speed dedicated passenger rail- because it originated in fascist Japan
and the Third Reich. No Acela for you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Early_research

Early German high-speed network

On May 15, 1933, the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft company introduced the diesel-powered "Fliegender Hamburger" in regular service between Hamburg and Berlin (286 km), thereby establishing the fastest regular service in the world, with a regular top speed of 160 km/h (99 mph).
This train was a streamlined multi-powered unit, albeit diesel, and used Jakobs bogies some 47 years before the advent of the TGV.

Following the success of the Hamburg line, the steam-powered Henschel-Wegmann Train was developed and introduced in June 1936 for service from Berlin to Dresden, with a regular top speed of 160 km/h (100 mph).
Further development allowed the usage of these "Fliegenden Züge" (flying trains) on a rail network across Germany.[4] The "Diesel-Schnelltriebwagen-Netz" had been in the planning since 1934 but it never reached its envisaged size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel-Wegmann_Train

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dkaid%C5%8D_Shinkansen#History

History

The Tokaido Shinkansen line was originally conceived in 1940 as a 150 km/h (93 mph) dedicated railway between Tokyo and Shimonoseki, which would have been 50% faster than the fastest express train of the time. The beginning of World War II stalled the project in its early planning stages, although a few tunnels were dug that were later used in the Shinkansen route. Since the line goes through Japan's three largest metropolitan areas, it is the most heavily travelled of all Shinkansen routes.

You'll be supporting a revival of the ban on LBTQ people in the military as well,
because Barry Goldwater-*and* Dick Cheney!:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html

Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable
By Barry M. Goldwater

The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"...

Wind power because Ted Kennedy opposed it. and so does his nephew Robert F., Junior.

The plebs in southeast MA get to breathe the emissions of a rather dirty coal-fired plant...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_Point_Power_Station

... for a few more years thanks to the actions of Ted and allies like Bill Koch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x224904

Energy Magnate Koch Funds New Anti-Cape Wind Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112755930

Koch Brother Wages 12-Year Fight Over Wind Farm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/us/koch-brother-wages-12-year-fight-over-wind-farm.html?pagewanted=all


http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/19/environment-utilities-operations-capewin-idUSN1930289620071019?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Cape Cod Commission denies Cape Wind application

NEW YORK Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:34am EDT

(Reuters) - The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts Thursday denied Cape Wind's application to bury electric cables needed to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound to the state power grid.

Cape Wind said in a release that it would challenge the Commission decision. The Cape Cod Commission is a local organization created by the state in 1990 to manage growth and protect Cape Cod's natural resources.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

The project's supporters, who include other environmental groups, meanwhile claim it would provide renewable energy, improve air quality, lower electricity costs and increase the reliability of the power grid.

Your 'explanation' of this last one should be most amusing...

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. There's also the EPA, started by Richard Nixon:

We await your spirited and no doubt genuinely principled denunciation of clean air and water...


http://publicaccess.supportportal.com/link/portal/23002/23012/Article/23723/When-and-how-was-the-EPA-created

...According to the publication "The Guardian: Origins of the EPA," President Nixon declared his intention to establish the Environmental Protection Agency with Reorganization Plan Number 3, dated July 9, 1970. Reorganization Plan Number 3 can be found in the Congressional Record, Vol 116, H 6523 (91st Congress, 2nd Session).

The EPA's mission would include:

"The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals... The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it; the gathering of information on pollution; and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes... assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means, in arresting pollution of the environment... assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment."

After being cleared through hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives, the EPA came into being on December 2, 1970.

[grasswire]

82. snap! nt

[woo me with science]

101. Good catch. More disgusting, blatant hypocrisy from the propaganda brigade.

Once again, anything goes...as long as the administration has a (D) after its name.

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. They insist we've *always* been at war with Eastasia...

[baldguy]

97. Another RW libertarian shill wasting our time with conspiracy theories

and by bandying about accusations of fascism at loyal Democrats - including the sitting Democratic President.

First, they ignore us....

[bobduca]

110. "First, they ignore us"

Then the pro-nsa threads drop like stones,

Then, what doesn't happen next is threads being derailed by : smears by association, moving the goalposts "we've always known about this", and the 10-15 other spookily consistent pro-NSA talking points.

[neverforget]

111. You got that right. nt.

[OilemFirchen]

29. They do process it.

They come at it a thousand different ways. And if they find something useful in the processing of said data, they obtain a warrant to gather more information.

[questionseverything]

48. two levels of deception

AUGUST 6, 2013 | BY HANNI FAKHOURY
DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations

UPDATE: Add the IRS to the list of federal agencies obtaining information from NSA surveillance. Reuters reports that the IRS got intelligence tips from DEA's secret unit (SOD) and were also told to cover up the source of that information by coming up with their own independent leads to recreate the information obtained from SOD. So that makes two levels of deception: SOD hiding the fact it got intelligence from the NSA and the IRS hiding the fact it got information from SOD. Even worse, there's a suggestion that the Justice Department (DOJ) "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight," shedding doubt into the effectiveness of DOJ earlier announced efforts to investigate the program.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

[GliderGuider]

18. Metadata is far easier to mine for useful information the contents of the messages.

You don't need to sort through miles of junk information, which is what the message contents are, from an intel POV. With the metadata you have exactly what you need all in one small, tidy package.

[OilemFirchen]

26. Yes.

If "what you need" is metadata. What you don't get is what the authors of this thin tripe suggest.

[jsr]

24. +1

[Shivering Jemmy]

28. I can do this via fusion of any data I get on you

Its not hard and if we ban metadata collection someone like me will invent an algorithm to use a different data set to the same end.

[OilemFirchen]

32. Indeed.

The IRS knows more about most American citizens than the NSA could dream of. Different data, richer data, more data points. And, of course, U.S. "targets" are within their purview, while the NSA's aren't.

[pragmatic_dem]

34. meta-kick

[Rex]

39. NP. That person that explains why this is no big deal will be online

eventually to explain it to you.

[LondonReign2]

60. No big deal, pefectly legal,

AND old news. Did I miss any?

[Thinkingabout]

46. This is the second time around for this story so here we go again. Now truthfully was this

Database information gathered from NSA? Or was online data bases queried which did not have any connection to NSA or the work they do? I am hoping these two Stanford graduate students do not think this is so new and revealing.

[treestar]

53. Why would the NSA bother to find out who has multiple sclerosis?

The NSA is not looking for that, as that information is useless to the NSA.

The government already knows who is disabled, see the Social Security Administration.

The government knows who is employed and who they work for, see the IRS. And how much they made. And how many children they have. And their names and social security numbers.

The NSA has a specific purpose.

[quakerboy]

57. Ahh, specific Purposes. Like listening to soldiers phone sex

Its good they have these specific purposes, and hold to them strictly. Otherwise who knows what sort of shenanigans they might get up to, sitting there with access to so much data and no oversight..

[treestar]

59. Why would the NSA bother with that?

People don't want to get fired from their jobs. even if that happened, it would be an aberration that could be punished. You don't get promoted if you waste time on the job and don't get results. As if the NSA does nothing with its powers but this kind of stuff. Employed there, your main goal would be to get credit for finding out things about terrorists, war plans, and so on.

[quakerboy]

76. "Even if"

It did happen. It was even in the newz! http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/we-snooped-on-i/

Apparently those people did want to get fired from their jobs. Because clearly, they wouldn't have done it otherwise, according to your logic.

Then you have the nsa folks tasked with infiltrating World of Warcraft. Good thing they had "specific purposes" as well, otherwise we might think that someone was pulling some funny business. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nsas-virtual-waste-time-spying-world-warcraft-harder-you-think-2D11724106

There is a fairly clear lack of direction and oversight in what they are doing. Most of what I read has given me the impression that most of what they do is bumbling in the dark, without a clear goal or path of getting to that goal. People working for the NSA are no less susceptible to information overload than anyone else. Being employed there sounds to be somewhat similar to spending a day browsing Wikipedia, except instead of learning about new things each click, you have access to peoples personal data and communications.

But Im sure you will disagree with me. You seem, from my perspective, to have a basic trust that they know what they are doing, and are doing it competently and responsibly. I do not share that belief. I suspect that its run more like a poorly run office (or a college dorm), with petty infighting and ill motivated people sitting around doing as much to entertain themselves while avoiding real work as possible, up till the deadline when they try to cram activity in and get their assigned tasks done, whether they do it well or provide accurate information, or even understand the assigned task being irrelevant to the end result produced.

[truedelphi]

62. No the NSA does not have a specific purpose. It is a privatized group of contractors

And subcontractors, getting paid big bucks to spy on us. Do you really think that those in charge don't have individual purposes?

The Dick Cheney types that occupy the hallowed ground of such agencies are all about their bottom line. They would rip off patent knowledge, if they could. They would find out business plan information, and use it to sabotage those business owners, if it helps them. They won't even have to bother hiring business espionage experts, simply tune in to whatever field of business they want to corner the market in.

I can never figure out if people here on DU are as naive as some purport to be, or if they are the "T" word.

[OilemFirchen]

84. How ridiculous.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is a U.S. intelligence agency responsible for the production and management of signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance for the United States government. Originating as a unit to decipher code communications in World War I, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Truman in 1952. Since then, it has become one of the largest of U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of personnel and budget, operating under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and reporting to the Director of National Intelligence.

The NSA is tasked with the global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, including surveillance of targeted individuals in U.S. territory. The agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through clandestine means, among which are bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software. The NSA is also responsible for the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems. As part of the growing practice of mass surveillance in the United States, the NSA collects and stores all phone records of all American citizens.

Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA has no authority to conduct human-source intelligence gathering, although it is often portrayed doing so in popular culture. Instead, the NSA is entrusted with coordination and deconfliction of SIGINT components of otherwise non-SIGINT government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

You're accusing others of naivety?

[truedelphi]

93. Oh brother.

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I bet you also think that the folks over at the FDA give a crap about the medical devices they allow to go for sale to the public, or the GMO crud they say is safe to eat.

I guess people here really are that naive.

[OilemFirchen]

103. The manner in which agencies carry out their duties...

as long as they are legal and within the constraints of the agency, doesn't not invalidate their charter.

Here's the Description of Duties from the FDA charter:

The Committee reviews and evaluates emerging food safety, nutrition and other food- or cosmetic-related health issues that FDA considers of primary importance for its food and cosmetics programs. The Committee may be charged with reviewing and evaluating available data and making recommendations on matters such as those relating to: (1) broad scientific and technical food- or cosmetic-related issues; (2) the safety of food ingredients and new foods; (3) labeling of foods and cosmetics; (4) nutrient needs and nutritional adequacy; and (5) safe exposure limits for food contaminants. The Committee may also be asked to provide advice and make recommendations on ways of communicating to the public the potential risks associated with these issues and on approaches that might be considered for addressing the issues.

If the agency fails to meet the standards you (or anyone else) have set, per your examples, that's not a violation of their charter. That's a simple policy disagreement.

I have issues with interpretations, decisions and implementations made by every one of the alphabet agencies, but none, as far as I can tell, which suggest that they have overreached beyond their established duties.

[truedelphi]

63. BTW the multiple sclerosis sufferers are people known to use marijuana.

Marijuana relieves the tremors that group of patients often suffer.

And NSA shares its gathered info with DEA and FBI, in case you don't know that.

[OilemFirchen]

69. How many arrested so far?

How many charged?

How many convicted?

[DirkGently]

77. Oddly, that's a SECRET.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

(Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

[truedelphi]

81. Did you catch last Sudnay's "The Good Wife" which was a fun but

Scarey ride through what is going on at all the alphabet agencies?

If you missed it, simply visit the CBS website and click on "The Good Wife" to watch last Sunday's programs. (Sometimes you have to wait eight days to catch any specific program, so I don't know if the March 9th 2014 episode is available yet.)

[DirkGently]

100. I don't know the show; sounds interesting though.

[baldguy]

79. I've asked that very same question several times in this very thread.

Keep getting stonewalled.

[OilemFirchen]

85. I've been asking for months.

Lotsa crickets, but the occasional circular "we'll never know, 'cause it's a secret" response. IOW, nothing.

[neverforget]

86. Spying does not equal being arrested! Is that a really hard concept to understand?

I pointed out up thread that I'm with Senators Wyden, Udall and Heinrich, all Democrats by the way, and their efforts to reform the NSA.

Here's a definition of spying for ya:

spy
n. pl. spies (spīz)
1. An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
2. One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
3. One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
4. An act of spying.
v. spied (spīd), spy·ing, spies (spīz)
v.tr.
1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
4. To investigate intensively.
v.intr.
1. To engage in espionage.
2. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
3. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.

[baldguy]

87. You think that your alleged spies are just voyeurs?

And that the alleged victims would only suffer inconveniences?

The whole purpose of the alleged widespread domestic surveillance is to punish & imprison the govts political enemies. This is exactly what the GOP, Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and the naive, hysterical misfits that idolize & parrot them on DU have repeatedly, endlessly & LOUDLY claimed the Obama administration has been doing, and yet can present no evidence to support those accusations.

The old saying is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Put up or shut up.

[neverforget]

88. I give you links. You give me nothing but accusations of libertarianism. Put up or shut up indeed.

Care to respond to Senators Wyden, Udall and Heinrich? Of course not because that's the fucking evidence you never respond to.

The following is what they had to say about the NSA November 25, 2013 in the NY Times:

End the NSA Dragnet Now

WASHINGTON — THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment. The bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records — so-called metadata — by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers’ intentions. This intrusive program was authorized under a secret legal process by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so for years American citizens did not have the knowledge needed to challenge the infringement of their privacy rights.

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records. But this can be done without collecting the records of millions of law-abiding Americans. We recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition that those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

---

This is not the true reform that poll after poll has shown the American people want. It is preserving business as usual. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity. It did not permit government agencies to issue general warrants as long as records seized were reviewed with the permission of senior officials.

[baldguy]

89. A dragnet with no arrests?

If Obama is a totalitarian dictator like your friends Rand Paul and Ed Snowden insist he is, he's not very good at it.

[neverforget]

90. You're embarrassing yourself with your ridiculousness because now Senators Wyden, Udall and Heinrich

are now RAND PAUL loving LIBERTARIANS and not Democrats like me because we disagree with you. You have nothing but emotional attacks and no links to back up your accusations.

Obviously you didn't read anything I have given you.

Care to respond to this? If you're so damn right and have the courage of your convictions then respond with something other than ridiculous emotional attacks. Why are these 3 Democratic Senators who sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee wrong?

The following is what they had to say about the NSA November 25, 2013 in the NY Times:

End the NSA Dragnet Now

WASHINGTON — THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment. The bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records — so-called metadata — by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers’ intentions. This intrusive program was authorized under a secret legal process by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so for years American citizens did not have the knowledge needed to challenge the infringement of their privacy rights.

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records. But this can be done without collecting the records of millions of law-abiding Americans. We recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition that those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

---

This is not the true reform that poll after poll has shown the American people want. It is preserving business as usual. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity. It did not permit government agencies to issue general warrants as long as records seized were reviewed with the permission of senior officials.

[baldguy]

91. The whole basis of the current NSA hysteria originates from RW libertarians like Rand Paul.

It's only objective is to weaken the Democratic party & ultimately roll back all the progressive gains America has had since the 1930s. When Ed Snowden says he's fighting for the Constitution - it's for Rand Paul's version. Not any one that you'd recognize. The libertarians you're parroting don't give a DAMN about your personal privacy or your individual rights. But you'd be happy to hand them the power to enforce their dream of an America that never was, with legally-sanction second-class citizenship basted on race, religion, gender & gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin or political affiliation.

What you IMAGINE Obama is doing, the GOP will ACTUALLY do with the power you're giving to them. All they have to do for you is make the right noises, induce you useful Obama-hating idiots in the Democratic party to break ranks, and then reap the electoral rewards.

[neverforget]

92. So are Senators Wyden, Udall and Heinrich Rand Paul Loving Liberatrians?

You are really wedded to that. You think throwing out that accusation somehow responds in substance when in actuality it's nothing but an emotional way to discredit those who disagree with you.

[TheKentuckian]

94. It may not even be on purpose, some can't imagine that anything could possibly be amiss, just

another "death panel" or a "BENGHAZI!". This miss the piles of far Reich Wing Republicans riding on their bandwagon and the establishment not making a peep. All the sudden Darth Cheney is a reasonable moderate and John Woo a voice for responsible governing.

[neverforget]

95. Truly bizarre. Nothing but LIBERTARIAN!

So juvenile.

[baldguy]

99. What's even more astonishing is that on a website dedicated to supporting the Democratic party

And which is dedicated to electing Democrats, a sitting Democratic President can be attacked by Republicans for the excesses of the previous Republican regime using Republican talking points & Republican excuses, all while they extol the virtues of other Republicans.

It's truly bizarre.

[neverforget]

106. So you changed LIBERTARIAN! for REPUBLICAN! Lol! Nice try.

Still the question stands: are 3 Democratic Senators (Wyden, Udall and Heinrich) all Libertarian, Rand Paul Loving, Anti-Obama Republicans? Well?

[truedelphi]

80. It was something that has happened very frequently. In fact,

When I was asked by editor Don Deane of The Coastal Post to do some articles on the medical marijuana issue, there was a website up at the time (circa 2000-2001) that had many, many stories of individuals whose lives were upended by medicinal marijuana even though it had been approved by California voters in the mid-1990's.

Really pathetic to see the photos of middle aged women in prison, grandmas all for the most part. their crime, marijuana being smoked to relieve the tremors. Californians spend less on school children per capita than most other states, but hey! Our prison union is one of the strongest and most powerful prison in the unions, and our governors always agree to serve as that union's bitch. Can the governors help it if we have all those prisons to keep filled to capacity?

Some eleven years later, this article was posted here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170497

It refers to how there is valid science behind the idea that MS patients can relieve their suffering by smoking MM.


Even today, every seven minutes, someone is arrested in California by the local police or others for the "crime" of smoking marijuana. Anyway I no longer have the name of the website in question. I do remember the worst of all the stories that was told there. It concerned how a young woman inherited enough money from her grandmother's estate to purchase her own condo, and fund her four years of college.

Unknown to her, the condo complex she chose to live in had as one of its inhabitants this thug who was a drug kingpin. He kept hitting on her. She wanted no part of him.

But when he got busted, he offered to be a snitch, he then "informed" on her. And the local cops, corrupt to the core, planted either coke or a significant amount of pot in her place.

She had no one to snitch on so she was going to have to serve some twenty years.

In another case, that made the SF Chronicle papers for a week or two, a guy that worked at a factory job offered to give a co worker a ride home, after the co worker was begging people at work for a ride to get him home.

On the way home, the co worker, he mentions he wants to stop at some fast food outlet.

And the guy thinks, sure, why not.

The co worker was dong a drug deal. He didn't know it, but this deal was targeted.

Anyway the man whose only offense was offering the drug dealer a ride ended up with a 15 to 20 year minimum sentence. Mandatory sentencing - no excuse gets you out, as it was all zero tolerance for drug dealers and their "couriers." The reporter added into the story that the judge cried at the sentencing.

[OilemFirchen]

83. How was the NSA involved?

That's far beyond their purview and a phenomenal waste of their resources.

[truedelphi]

98. You are the patience-trying til I am exasperated person asking the

Questions. And you probably know the answer so why ask?

The question you asked above was how many... You didn't ask how many were arrested due to the NSA involvement, as the time period in question was not regarding the NSA.

In any event, now that the NSA is involved in spilling some of what it learns over to the other alphabet agencies, we will never know how many arrests that are not related to the nation's security come about on account of the NSA disclosures. As if once the NSA is involved, I assume that those of us without security clearances will never ever know.