Myself, I find the claim that the NSA is recording everybody's phone calls to be not credible. That's like drinking from a fire hose, IMHO. Even if they could save all that data, what the fuck do you do with it?

It's not like the metadata, it can't be digitally scanned due to the vagaries of audio to digital interpretation, which is no easy task to begin with and time consuming on top of that. There are millions of phone calls every second of every day just in this country alone.

No way are they recording it all. And even if they could do that it is not credible that they have enough resources to interpret all of it. It's useless, dirty data that has no important information that can be acted on. Only a crazy person would want to do what is being suggested. There's too much chaff for the very few kernels of wheat that possibly may give them information.

Anyway, the metadata which we know is being collected tells them enough and it is digital data which can be quickly analyzed without any crappy inaccuracies of speech to text translations. Recording calls is just not necessary.

The claim has no credibility whatsoever.
IMHO.

There were TWO meetings. One of the Intelligence Committee, which was closed. That is when NSA official admitted to warrantless eavesdropping.
The second meeting was of the Judiciary Committee, where Mueller said there was no warrantless wiretapping, but fumbled for an amswer when Nadler confronted him with what was admitted by NSA in the earlier meeting.
The CSPAN video is likely of the second meeting, since tv, video, and transcripts very unlikely at a closed Intelligence Committee meeting.

Why I Parted Ways With The Right
11/30/09
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

that supported the claim in their headline that the, "NSA Admits Listening to U.S. Phone Calls Without Warrants."

"...the contents of a phone call could be accessed"

"... NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications"

"...NSA has the ability..."

The headline states unequivocally that the NSA "admits" to warrantless wiretaps. Gathering communication metadata is not "wiretapping". Under the present laws, a warrant is required to gather data, and a separate warrant is required to examine the content of any communications. The headline seems to conflate the mere ability of a NSA analyst to unlawfully access the contents of a phone call with the actual occurrence of unlawful access, which as far as I know has not been demonstrated.

Furthermore, as far as I can surmise, the NSA data collection program has court approval.

I agree that this is a very important issue and that the potential dangers of a vast and secretive surveillance apparatus are real and serious. The surveillance laws are too vague, too broad, and too secretive. I support the opinion of the ACLU and others that the laws desperately need to be dramatically changed to protect American's privacy while allowing the state to conduct legitimate criminal investigations.

But I don't think that the CNet article does the cause any favors by presenting what seems to me to be to be a misleading and inaccurate premise.