Is it just a coinkydink that this came out on the day "1984" was published??

It's also D-day, 1944.

When you look at it, if we are too much of a nuisance, Kennedy was right they will just take us out. Things like car accidents in a tunnel at night or maybe we will be found in a field dead propped up against a tree. Then there are spies whom are poisoned with radioactive substances.
We are far more observed and monitored than we ever dream of, in fact I expect they monitor these comments sections. Certainly there seem to be some stooges who try to distract from stories they don't want people to read or engage with or attack people who make comments they don't like.
Interesting really, am I paranoid, I fear not.

"There's no way all of our calling records are relevant to a terrorism investigation."

I'm sorry to say this, but there is. Statistical mapping of the transactions lets analysis detect outliers, which can then be monitored for content.

I'm sorry to say this, but there is. Statistical mapping of the transactions lets analysis detect outliers, which can then be monitored for content. -- Radwaste at June 6, 2013 10:41 AM

So the Tsarnaev brothers calling each other is an outlier and should have been detected? Or is that in combination with tracking the internet sites they visit? Or tracking that they were buying pressure cookers and fireworks?

If that is happening then you are living in the Fascist States of America. And saying it's right is even worse.

JimP: I didn't say it's right. I said it's useful.

The real problem is that we cannot trust the persons collecting the information. Even "sworn" public servants totally disregard their oath when it means advancement for their office.

Your example shows a lack of thought about this tactic, nothing else. Maybe I can illustrate.

Think of a cube with 300 million points uniformly distributed within. The combinations/permutations of connection is a very large but finite number. Monitoring would swiftly find popular numbers: lottery commissions, police stations, service departments, etc. For each of these, there is a mean distance suitable to the customer base. You wouldn't call a Sears on Long Island when you live in LA, for instance. Mapping in 3D would show "flowers" - think of dandelions - of local calls to popular numbers.
Teased further, the connection map would show occasional calls from retiree homes to the pharmacy, occasional calls to phone, heat and other service companies, and incoming from relatives. The local call "flower" would be small and faint for this personal number, the incoming "flower" would be even fainter.
So the system can look for atypical calls immediately, and can adapt to find rarer atypical calls as time goes by.

And for this to work, ALL the numbers have to be present.

You know, I think most the smart terrorists went to encrypted communications, and disposable cell phones, a LONG time ago, and the stupid ones, are mostly dead.

So the system can look for atypical calls immediately, and can adapt to find rarer atypical calls as time goes by.

And for this to work, ALL the numbers have to be present. -- Radwaste at June 6, 2013 3:11 PM

The problem with this idea is that the government is assuming we are all planning to do something illegal.

I have a co-worker that was playing an online game and found a hot, smart, chick that was playing from New Jersey. So all of a sudden he started calling her and then flew out to meet her. Is he suddenly a terrorist?

So some Arab guy talks to his dad, and finds out that a family friend's son is studying at UCLA, while he lives in Georgia. So now he starts calling the son in California. Is he suddenly a terrorist or reaching out to a cultural, familial friend?

The problem with your idea is there is no probable cause and you are accepting that the government has a right to violate your Fourth Amendment rights against search, your Fifth Amendment rights about due process, and the one not mentioned, but assumed is the right to privacy.

JimP:

Chill. Not only is it NOT MY IDEA, I'm not advocating it. That's only an attempt at explaining how the process would work. Read back and I think you'll see my objection matches yours nicely.

Single calls as you've described can't be flagged until one of the parties is identified by other means as a threat. I suggest that a caller on probation for domestic violence might be one of the callers monitored. THEN, we run headlong into a problem most citizens don't realize exists: even hardened criminals engage in wholly legal activity 99% of the time. Ignorance fo this basic fact is one of the reasons it is so easy to get an American to give up liberty.

Rad,

Apologies given. I misinterpreted your comments.