WSJ: NSA does not gather cellphone-location records despite authorization to do so
The same request is made of AT&T and Sprint. T-Mobile is majority owned by a foreign company, Deutsche Telekom, which appears to preclude it from directly providing information, although calls carried by the carrier could still be part of the NSA's data once they travel over another operator's pipeline. Verizon Wireless is 45% owned by the U.K.'s Vodafone which apparently doesn't stop Big Red from turning over information directly to the NSA.
According to the Journal report, while the NSA does have the legal authority to grab location information from cellphone calls, it has decided not to. Information that could be received includes the nearest cellphone tower used to make or receive a call. While this information has been known to be used to place criminal suspects at certain locations to link them with a specific crime, the NSA says the data does not help them with the type of intelligence it conducts.
18 June Google files with secret court to obtain permission to report on two data sets
17 June Eavesdropping scandal escalates: U.S. spied on Russian president Medvedev, other top politicians
17 June Apple issues official statement: “we do not provide government with direct access to our servers”
16 June WSJ: NSA does not gather cellphone-location records despite authorization to do so
16 June The NSA can listen to your calls without a warrant
1. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5593; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
And why should I believe the WSJ assertion that the NSA does not capture location data? Especially when the order that was leaked requires data to be provided "...which includes the data revealing the location of all calls placed on Big Red's pipeline that is covered by the order." What about the word 'location' does the WSJ not understand?
If they are trying to say that the NSA told them they don't track location data, I have some lunar real estate I would love to sell them. I might have been born at night, but not last night. Jeez!?
2. Sniggly (Posts: 6763; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
The WSJ has served as the government's schill before. They assisted in the crucifixtion of Wikileaks, Assange and Manning. Why should I believe them?
3. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5593; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
"Why should I believe them?"
Because they are repeating a lie often in hopes it would be confused for the truth?