or just oversea snz. just overseas, but americans cell phones overseas could be swept up in this. the nsa is not allowed to spy on americans. a senior intelligence official tells evan perez that the phone location tracking program focused only on foreign targets overseas, but millions of americans travel overseas even though the nsa says it doesn t intentionally target americans, the whereabouts of americans cell phones overseas could be targeted incidentally, they say inadvertently, but they try to minimize the collection of american cell phone locations, and when it does get them, it tries to remove them from the database. with said cell phone information, what has the nsa said they re doing with this? this is where it gets really interesting. what they re trying to do is find the associates of people they re targeting for surveillance. if they re targeting a potential person for surveillance, they want to follow his associates.
guardian article he could tap into even the president s information. then you hear someone like a mike rogers, chair of the house intel committee saying he s lying. you know, the nsa, we know, collects phone call times and length and dates. let me ask you, tom, what about just even a person s location? do these documents reveal whether or not the nsa collects information on a person s location using cell phone information? the met ta data would include the location. in the modern era when your cell phone s turned on and when it s connected to a cell tower in whatever system it is, anywhere in the world, the phone company knows which tower it s hitting. if it hits enough towers they can track you within about 100 yards of where you are on the earth accessing the phone system. so that me tta data is includedn what s being cleked. location of the phone, number dialed, number received, duration of the call. that is part of the data. that is not the content. that s been one of the argum
have text messages, we have voice messages. we have all sorts of stuff, pictures. do we really want law enforcement to rifle through this information? and where s the firewall? pursuant to this proposed law, they re only supposedly supposed to look at the data. how do they do it? commissioner, can t they do it after the fact? can t they actually access the phone then? call nsa. call verizon. they can do a letter. they do it all the time. if they re concerned about the cell phone information being destroyed is a text message self-preserved? no. three to seven days according to the carrier. are they really looking at the text message itself or the data history? it has to address data usage.
have text messages, we have voice messages. we have all sorts of stuff, pictures. do we really want law enforcement to rifle through this information? and where s the firewall? pursuant to this proposed law, they re only supposedly supposed to look at the data. how do they do it? commissioner, can t they do it after the fact? can t they actually access the phone then? call nsa. call verizon. they can do a letter. they do it all the time. if they re concerned about the cell phone information being destroyed is a text message self-preserved? no. three to seven days according to the carrier. are they really looking at the text message itself or the data history? it has to address data usage.
have banking information, we have text messages, we have voice messages. we have all sorts of stuff, pictures. do we really want law enforcement to rifle through this information? and where s the firewall? pursuant to this proposed law, they re only supposedly supposed to look at the data. how do they do it? commissioner, can t they do it after the fact? can t they actually access the phone then? call nsa. call verizon. they can do a letter. they do it all the time. if they re concerned about the cell phone information being destroyed is a text message self-preserved? no. three to seven days according to the carrier. are they really looking at the text message itself or the data