I paraphrase statement from a congressman;
'Finding terrorists is hunting for pins in a haystack, but first you have to have the haystack.' The telephone records are the haystack.
As to the "one hop" comment on tracing calls, that would be foolish.
Scenario: The UK identifies a terrorist phone number in Yemen and pass it to the NSA. At present the NSA can search the database for the suspect phone number to see how many calls came into the U.S., and how many (
if any) calls from the U.S. to suspect number were made. Note at this time there is NO names attached. The NSA notes a pattern; incoming call from suspect phone to U.S. phone (1), which within 15min results in 5 calls from phone (1) to other phone numbers within the U.S. This MAY be a terrorist cell leader in the U.S. contacting 5 cell members in the U.S. At that time the NSA applies courts to find out the names attached to the phone numbers. This is why "one hop" is a foolish and dangerous idea.
"
What’s behind Obama’s campaign to limit bulk data collection by the NSA"
PBS NewsHour 3/25/2014
Excerpt
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): We return now to the president’s proposal to limit the NSA’s ability to gather telephone information on Americans.
As intelligence agencies and Congress prepare to debate that balance between privacy and security, we turn to Gary Schmitt, staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and executive director of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Ronald Reagan, and Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group.
How big a concession was it for the president — we are going to hear the details later this week, no doubt — Kate Martin, to decide to rein in this bulk collection program?
KATE MARTIN, Center for National Security Studies: Well, it’s a significant step.
It’s the president saying to his intelligence community, you haven’t made the case that you need this authority, and I’m going to limit it. So, it’s an important recognition. You know, he did it after two separate outside reviews which said that this particular authority wasn’t needed and hadn’t actually been effective in doing anything.
GWEN IFILL: Gary Schmitt, a significant step or going too far?
GARY SCHMITT, American Enterprise Institute: Definitely a significant step.
Remember, when the president made his speech about a month or so ago, he called the program important. He said that nobody had broken any laws and that it was an important tool for counterterrorism. But yet he has put together a proposal that will make the system for collecting this kind of information a little less flexible and we will have a little less information to go with.
