and no, one party telling you that they're going to record you does not give you carte blanche to record them as well. that makes no legal sense, although it sure as hell makes common sense and should be allowed.
Do you have a reference for that? Both parties are aware that the call is being recorded. Seems like that would satisfy the requirement.
The *quote* was clearly pointing out that they should have realized that MAKING THEMSELVES LOOK TO BE EVIL is a monumentally stupid move.
I don't think it was that clear. You've now explained it clearly, but "reminding them that we're blatantly evil people" definitely sounds like you think they're evil people. I don't think it was phrased very well to communicate what you meant to say. I don't think it's as big a deal as this guy is making it out to be, though.
It's still not as bad as saying "literally" when they mean "figuratively", though.
I literally hate it that whatever dictionary that was decided to change the definition of literally to include just adding emphasis. I thought it was a recent development, but apparently it's been done for hundreds of years.
You can store latitude and longitude with a resolution of .3 inches in 64 bits. let's be generous and add another 32 bytes to hold a GUID to identify the location. That would be a total of, say, 40 bytes (assuming 8-bit bytes) to be very generous.
There could be a lot more information than that, though.
- which tower it's connected to - previous tower it was connected to - which network - most recent phone call - other phones connected to the tower - how long it's been connected to that tower - signal strength - phone model - operating system
Who knows what else, but there's a lot of things that could be included in the category "location information".
The article doesn't say, but if NSA is having trouble storing that much data, it's got to be at bare minimum per month, more likely per week or per day. Actually I think the most likely scenario is the reporter completely misunderstood the information and the number has very little to do with anything.
You see the NSA doesn't need to directly collect that data on americans to have access to it, they just let some other country's spy agency (like say GCHQ) scoop up the data, and then get it from them.
There's an even simpler solution: ask the phone companies for it. They've proven they're willing to give the NSA pretty much anything with no due process at all.