July 15, 2024

Can Washington re-architect the NSA phone data program?

In the President’s NSA reform speech last week, he called for a study of how to re-architect the NSA’s phone call data program, to change where the data is stored. This raises a bunch of interesting computer science questions, which I’m planning to explore in a series of posts here.

Here is the relevant part of the President’s speech:

For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.

This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability — all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

I have instructed the intelligence community and the Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself.

This will kick off a process that might not be pretty. Redesigning this program is essentially an exercise in computer system design: how to create a system that has reasonable cost, serves the NSA’s essential intelligence requirements, and offers better privacy protection and accountability than the old system did. And this system is going to be designed by … the Washington policy community, which is not known for its technical savvy.

Saturday’s Washington Post ran a story about this issue, featuring quotes like this one:

The problem is that phone companies are used to receiving law enforcement requests to search for customers’ records. If they are handed a number that does not belong to a customer, say a number in Yemen, the task becomes much harder.

“It would be an incredibly long process, because basically we would be setting a computer running to search through billions of numbers,” said one industry official who was not authorized to speak on the record. “It would probably take days to comb through the database.”

Reading this, I am reminded of the scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil, in exchange for not destroying the world, demands the staggering sum of “… one MILLION dollars.” In the year 2014, billions of records is not a particularly large database, and searching through billions of records is not an onerous requirement. The metadata for a billion calls would fit on one of those souvenir thumb drives they give away at conferences; or if you want more secure, backed up storage, Amazon will rent you what you need for $3 a month. Searching through a billion records looking for a particular phone number seems to take a few minutes on my everyday laptop, but that is only because I didn’t bother to build a simple index, which would have made the search much faster. This is not rocket science.

Fortunately, a former high-ranking government lawyer is willing to speculate that the necessary technology might someday be feasible: “The United States has the best technologists and innovators in the world. I’m confident that if the intelligence community focuses on it and works with companies in the private sector, they can solve that problem.”

As the Washington policy establishment takes up the debate about how to structure the NSA program, I fear that we’re going to see a lot of these sorts of weak pseudo-computer science arguments. It’s up to those of us who understand the issues to speak up, in the hope of fostering a fact-based dialogue.

As it turns out, redesigning the NSA metadata program does raise some interesting computer science questions. I’ll start to unpack them in the next post.


  1. Pres. Obama is full of lies and more lies. Here is just one

    “On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with … potentially less accountability”

    Nope, any private company would not have any “less accountability” than the government, because you can’t have less than NONE when it comes to accountability. It has already been proved that the government has ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NONE, NO accountability whatsoever. Even the secret court setup for this secret program doesn’t give any accounting, and those reporting to the court get to hide everything they are doing, and the senators that are supposedly briefed claim (whether truthfully or falsely) they have no idea what is really going on.

    Hence our government has provided no accountability to the public whatsoever, so a private company couldn’t have any less accountability, they may have the same ZERO accountability, they may even have more accountability if they were publicly traded (e.g. the public are shareholders).

    But, and yet again, even then the President isn’t looking to reform the NSA, only to side step the “accountability” simply by confusing the public. It is clear his intentions are to continue to bulk collect and use this data against US Citizens as he has hitherto done. It matters not “who” holds the data, because the government still plans on using the data; and that is what is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

  2. Harry Johnston says

    Who will verify that the NSA’s requests to this putative database are legitimate?

    • Harry,

      Your question points to one of the key design goals of such a system: accountability. See later posts for a discussion of what is and isn’t possible.

      • Ed, I am reading back in time, been too busy at work for a bit to read your forum, but your next post doesn’t address accountability. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, but from my perspective of everything I have read on this forum, on EFF’s website, and in the news and other sources, all I see is that the reverse is true, such a system as what the president is suggesting is only to divert the question of accountability so that it never even comes up in the public discourse.

        The only “accountability” to the public so far has been leaks from people like Manning, and Snowden (and others whose names don’t come readily to my mind). No one from the government has ever given any sort of accountability, and they don’t plan on it.

        Oh sure the government claims they are accountable to themselves, but even that has been proved false. And it is the public that needs to see that their government is accountable.

  3. Tom Richards MAmoderate says

    Our president has thoughtfully outlined the challenge! if you have expertise, get on it!