quote:

---

Fresh disclosures yesterday in USA Today about the scale of domestic surveillance -- the most extensive yet known involving ordinary citizens and residents -- touched off a bipartisan uproar against a politically weakened President Bush. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) vowed to haul telephone companies before his committee under oath to ferret out details the Bush administration refuses to supply, and more than 50 House Democrats signed a letter demanding a criminal investigation by a special counsel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:

I realize that the content of calls was not part of this particular effort. The only thing I can tell you is that to me, it doesn't matter. I simply do not want my government to have the ability to get these records without proving to a judge that they have a good reason to have it.

.... But in the meantime, data that is none of their business has been turned over to the government without any independent review.

---

What is going on with this country when I cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy without being accused of supporting terrorists? I used to feel proud that I lived in a country where this sort of thing "couldn't happen." This is really starting to alarm me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Here's an interesting (possible) bi-product of this work:

You're on the phone with your One True Love, and you mention that you need to get flowers for her Mom because she babysat for the two of you on a last minute notice.

Two days later, you get junkmail from a florist and a professional babysitting service.

The phone company uses your conversation to tag what products you're likely to purchase, and then sells that info to interested parties.

Grr. I'm not pleased.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
There's a good summary of the whole thing at Ars Technica. I remember Total Information Awareness (with its creepy logo) from a few years ago, and even though I'm not American and don't live in America I was glad to hear that your politicians had voted it down. Now it's sounding like the program was never actually abandoned, merely hidden from Congressional, judicial, and to some extent even executive oversight.

quote:

---

You might recall from our earlier coverage of a related instance of law enforcement overreach that government access to phone call transactional data is regulated by 18 USC 2703, which stipulates that the government doesn't need to show "probable cause" when petitioning for a court order to obtain this information on a customer. The standard that the government must meet is set at a lower threshold than probable cause, but it's not set at zero.

Crucially, the NSA's data-mining program not only dispenses with probable cause, but it dispenses entirely with the court order and thus with the lowered standard of evidence.

Think about that for a moment: the program is secret, and there is no judicial or congressional oversight (as of today, there's not even any executive branch oversight from the Justice Department), so the national security establishment has arrogated to itself carte blanche to snoop your phone activity and possibly to detain you indefinitely without a warrant based on what they find.

---

quote:

---

I personally don't care if this was done legally or not. I don't care if it's been going on in past Administrations. I don't even care if they first sought court orders to cover this.

---

quote:

---

I simply do not want my government to have the ability to get these records without proving to a judge that they have a good reason to have it.

---

quote:

---

I cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy without being accused of supporting terrorists

---

quote:

---

This program doesn't even listen to phone calls, it uses a computer to track calls, scanning for keywords that set it off, and if they're heard, the phone number is added to a database, it attempts to look for networks of potential terrorists, it's nothing more than an algorithm.

---

quote:

---

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

---

quote:

---

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
And, I know you don't care, but it has long been standard doctrine that it is not a violation of your fourth amendment rights to request and receive the call records for a particular customer from the phone company. This is basic stuff. Which means that if this is such a big issue for you as it seems to be, you need to be lobbying for rules to change this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
And, I know you don't care, but it has long been standard doctrine that it is not a violation of your fourth amendment rights to request and receive the call records for a particular customer from the phone company. This is basic stuff. Which means that if this is such a big issue for you as it seems to be, you need to be lobbying for rules to change this.

---

Is the snippet I quoted in my post wrong, then? It seems to me that US government agencies do have to obtain a court order to obtain such records, and that was not done in this case, which would make the program illegal.

---

quote:

---

§ 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records

(a) Contents of wire or electronic communications in electronic storage. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Contents of wire or electronic communications in a remote computing service.
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection--
(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant; or
(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity--
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705 of this title [18 USCS § 2705].
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.

(c) Records concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service.
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--
(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure;
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title [18 USCS § 2325]); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the--
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.

(d) Requirements for court order. A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.

(e) No cause of action against a provider disclosing information under this chapter. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2701 et seq.].

(f) Requirement to preserve evidence.
(1) In general. A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.
(2) Period of retention. Records referred to in paragraph (1) shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be extended for an additional 90-day period upon a renewed request by the governmental entity.

(g) Presence of officer not required. Notwithstanding section 3105 of this title [18 USCS § 3105], the presence of an officer shall not be required for service or execution of a search warrant issued in accordance with this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2701 et seq.] requiring disclosure by a provider of electronic communications service or remote computing service of the contents of communications or records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.

---

quote:

---

I grew up believing that the role of government precludes domestic spying in all but a few very specific scenarios

---

quote:

---

If you'd like a more cogent reason, I suppose I'll just have to say that I grew up believing that the role of government precludes domestic spying in all but a few very specific scenarios, and that those are covered by the governmental system of checks and balances such that there's not supposed to be an opportunity for any government entity to get information on individuals unless:
a) it's already part of a public record, or
b) the individual specifically agrees to turn over that information, or
c) a warrant is issued by a duly sworn judge who conducts an independent review.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

I cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy without being accused of supporting terrorists

---

Of course, that criticism is at most marginally relevant to this program. I don't see an accusation that you or anyone else who doesn't want their phone records released support terrorism.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, it doesn't matter if you care whether it's legal or not.

---

quote:

---

Because Moussaoui and the other terrorists did much of their planning of the 9/11 attack through phone calls to each other from inside the United States. So if we could have prevented that....

---

quote:

---

The people who advocate this program will advance pretty concrete reasons about what it can achieve (I have some statistical reasons for doubting this, myself). They will point out the importance of detecting terrorist communications. They will point out the limited nature of the information gathered. They will assert that even though they could match phone numbers with people, they aren't doing so.

---

quote:

---

Dag, the INSTANT I read Bob's first post on this thread, I thought, "the first thing out of Dag's mouth will be a dismissal of those grounds, because he won't HAVE an argument about ethics."

---

quote:

---

Seriously, man, you won't GET into a political discussion unless you can argue a point of order.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because Moussaoui and the other terrorists did much of their planning of the 9/11 attack through phone calls to each other from inside the United States. So if we could have prevented that....

---

....it would NOT have been worth the cost.

---

quote:

---

majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Here there was consent.

---

quote:

---

So since the NSA asked for it rather than demanding it, it's legal?

---

quote:

---

Are the telecom companies permitted to sell this information to whoever they like?

---

quote:

---

If the question was really "If this program had been in place and thus prevented 3000 deaths, would it be worth it?" I'd have a hard time saying flat out "No, it wouldn't", however, I suspect the real question is "If this program had been in place and thus prevented 3000 deaths in 2001, and also had resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of homosexuals in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and had amplified the fear of the McCarthy era so that it persisted even today squelching political opposition to the powers that be, would it have been worth it", well I'm pretty sure it would not have been.
And until such a program actually can be shown to prevent a future 9/11, it's highly questionable whether it would have prevented the one in 2001.

---

These are the exact things that need to be weighed: the possible "non-good" uses, the efficacy of the program in reducing future attacks, the probabilities of future attacks, the effects on privacy, and how all of these balance against each other.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Phone companies are permitted to sell lists of listed telephone numbers. The ones that are in the phone books. The information the NSA is gathering is call records -- what phone numbers were called from what phone numbers. Phone companies are not permitted to sell that information at all, and generally do not release it without a court order, to anyone. Including the owner of the account. If I called in right now and requested the call records on my account, I would be told to get a subpeona. If I tried to access the information myself, since I'm an employee, and I was caught, I would be fired. It has happened in my office in the last six months, so I have no doubt that we mean it.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Hmmm, my cell phone bill comes with a list of every call made on it during the billing period, including the number the call was to and how long it lasted. I recall, back when I had a landline, that my home phone bill also included this information for long distance calls. I also know that I can request copies of my old bills without a court order.

This seems not to jibe completely with your information, Eljay.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yep, anything that shows on your bill you can get, and cell calls and long distance calls show on your bill. Basically, any toll calls show on your bill. But landline local calls don't. We've already sent you the bill once, we'll happily send you as many copies as you like. But we won't provide you with any information that doesn't show on the bill.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
KarlEd, I respect your rant, but I would like a little further clarification as to what you consider "this Administration" that you so deeply despise.

After all, this wasn't a single-handed Bush thing. Hate him all you want, but this wasn't a Republican-only action.

Overall, there are (from what I have been able to read about this) tons of checks and balances in place. Someone in authority can't just say "Oh, today, I think I'll listen in or investigate Joe Smith". There are many many different levels of different people and intelligence that have to sign off on each possible investigation, and that suspicion can be thrown out at any one of those levels, so the suspicion has to be pretty darn severe before it actually gets to a full investigation and "Camp Gitmo" (as you threw in).

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

These are the exact things that need to be weighed: the possible "non-good" uses, the efficacy of the program in reducing future attacks, the probabilities of future attacks, the effects on privacy, and how all of these balance against each other.

---

quote:

---

Overall, there are (from what I have been able to read about this) tons of checks and balances in place. Someone in authority can't just say "Oh, today, I think I'll listen in or investigate Joe Smith".

---

quote:

---

I disagree. What needs to be weighed is those things and, if the program seems like it's important enough, those things that we're going to add to it so as to prevent abuse.

---

quote:

---

Also, such an analysis should have been done before this was put into place and it should have been open to Congress, at the very least.

---

quote:

---

They're most likely getting all of it because they're lazy, and because the NSA's stance is always going to be, the more information, the better.

---

quote:

---

Imagine that a given pattern has an accuracy rate of 99% in determining terrorists. Sounds pretty good, right? (I'm betting it's far, far better than anything a pattern criminologist would claim for any kind of test like this.)

OK, now assume there are 300 million people in the U.S. that use the phone. Assume there are 30,000 terrorists that use the phone, meaning one in a ten thousand people who use the phone are terrorists.

Of the 30k terrorists, 99% or 29,700 will be identified correctly as terrorists. 300 will not be identified.

Of the 299,970,000 non-terrorists, 1%, or 2,999,700, will be falsely identified as terrorists. This means that only 29,700 out of 3,029,400 (or 0.98%) people identified as terrorists by the test will be terrorists.

I'm not worried people will be convicted based on this evidence. I'm worried investigatory resources will be horribly diverted by people who don't comprehend this phenomenon (called the "prosecutor's fallacy) and also that lesser burdens than conviction - such as the do not fly list - will be placed on these people.

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know what these are, because this is the first I've heard of it.

---

I'll try to find you some links, then. I heard most about from an ex-NSA speaker on a news program....

FG

(personally, I'm more worried about the mother-of-all-databases that Microsoft is said to have with uses information from all the licenses of home pc's, etc. But I have no proof such a thing really exists)
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dagonee: I would like a President who runs to Congress every time he wants to do something subject to great potential abuse by the executive, even if its legal .
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Only if what they've done is illegal, which is very unclear at this point. I don't want a president who runs to congress every time he does something that he's allowed to do under law.

---

quote:

---

The hop analysis (that is, who are all the people within x number of hops out from person y) is most likely one simple (if massive in memory, but it can be easily chunked) database query. At least, it would be on any semi-sane system I can imagine.

---

quote:

---

So, you think that instituting a wide-scale spying program on American citizens is something that the President should do without oversight.

---

quote:

---

From my perspective, there is often a difference between what is legal (and, as far as I can tell, that point is unclear just now) and what is right. I expect my representatives to do what is right, even if it extends beyond the technicalities of the law.

---

quote:

---

These are the exact things that need to be weighed: the possible "non-good" uses, the efficacy of the program in reducing future attacks, the probabilities of future attacks, the effects on privacy, and how all of these balance against each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmgirl:
KarlEd, I respect your rant, but I would like a little further clarification as to what you consider "this Administration" that you so deeply despise.

---

quote:

---

After all, this wasn't a single-handed Bush thing. Hate him all you want, but this wasn't a Republican-only action.

---

quote:

---

Overall, there are (from what I have been able to read about this) tons of checks and balances in place. Someone in authority can't just say "Oh, today, I think I'll listen in or investigate Joe Smith". There are many many different levels of different people and intelligence that have to sign off on each possible investigation, and that suspicion can be thrown out at any one of those levels, so the suspicion has to be pretty darn severe before it actually gets to a full investigation and "Camp Gitmo" (as you threw in).

Farmgirl

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Sure. I don't DO long policy analysis, Dag, because I think policy is used by government as a distraction. And the basic principles on which my opinion is founded are fairly easy to enumerate in a matter of one or two sentences.

Length is entirely unnecessary. *shrug*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
I'm not so sure that its true dumping the database is easier, given two things:

1. The size of the database. Transporting such large diffs over a network, even the excellent ones that phone companies and the NSA have, is nontrivial, particularly to do repeatedly and automatically. And the first, 300+ terabyte dump (from just one of the phone companies) had to be a significant pain, technically speaking. The local networks of terrorists and terrorists suspects probably wouldn't top out a couple of gigabytes.

2. Phone companies already have to comply with requests for the immediate phone records of people fairly regularly. All they have to do is run that query recursively on its return values, basically. In a verbose language, that might be a ten or twenty line script.

---

I'm basing my guess on the reactions of dozens of agencies and private organizations when data is requested. None this big, of course, but I've gotten more datadumps in response to requests that can be fulfilled by 10-line queries than I can count.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The query would only be one short line, and they've already written it; they just have to run it a few times .

Also, its clear from the articles that this enjoyed extensive high-level talks between the NSA and the phone companies, not very much like someone complying with a request using as little effort as possible.

Keep in mind the size consideration, too; the initial dump had to take hours of highly paid (and possibly security cleared) technicians' time, this isn't like a small database where they can just shuffle a dump over to you by pressing a button (or typing three words) and writing the results to a disc.

Plus, there's the simple argument that when its the NSA asking for specific data, and the executives have agreed to give out the data (as they no doubt would for the lesser request, given they did for this one), the company is quite likely to provide that data, particularly if it means they only have to run a quick script instead of taking hours dumping their entire database.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You have entirely too much faith that they will act efficiently. I'm too old and cynical to think that.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm too old and cynical to think that.

---

Maybe too cynical; I'ma call you on old, though.


 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
[QB] Companies buy and sell phone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, purchase information all the time and that is just peachy. [QB]

---

quote:

---

Why LIE about me not addressing the ethics of things when I did that in my very first post? Why make another LIE about me not being able to participate in political discussions without a "point of order"? Is asking questions about it not sufficient for mister one-liner?

---

quote:

---

I've yet to see you -- ever -- advance your own ethical opinion;

---

quote:

---

I'm also far from willing to accept as a "lie" -- especially in all caps -- the observation that you only engage in political discussions when you can identify a point of order. Asking questions about things is NOT, in fact, sufficient to demonstrate interest; volunteering information, on the other hand, IS.

---

quote:

---

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer

---

quote:

---

If all the NSA is doing is comparing locations of calls to pick suspects, I have probably been picked. And by coming here, emailing some of you who have e-mailed others, all of Hatrack is most likely by now, under NSA surveilance.

---

quote:

---

If we curtail these things that make us who we are, if we let others tell us what we can do, or whom we can talk to, or what religion we can choose, then we have already lost the war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Whether it works that way or not, many in the country will now hesitate before contacting people of Mid-Eastern descent...

---

Better make sure you never interact with me on this forum, then.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Dan and twinky - go ahead and e-mail me. I'm proud to be on any list you're on.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
It doesn't work that way? How do we know?

We aren't doing those things? How do we know they aren't?

Because they tell us they are not?

Are they are using this technique for things not associated with the search for terrorists?

Do they use the same mining and computer techniques not to find out who's been talking with terrorists, but to find out who's donated to the Democtratic Party, or the Peace Movement, or to the prosecuters of the Delay case?

Do they use these same techniques to determine where peaceful but embarasing protests are going to occur? The same exact techniques used to uncover and thwart a terrorist cell can be used to uncover and thwart a political protest.

Some already see evidence that the IRS is threatening liberal churches who speak against the administration, while ignoring conservative churches who back it.

If someone in Congress could vote against the NSA, when suddenly its discovered that calls from his phone have gone to a local prostitute, are we sure that information would not be misused?

If we assume the most sparkling of character from our President and his staff, can we be so sure of every person working on this project? Can we be so sure of those who may be in that position in the future?

Finally the constitution gives us the right of free assembly. Now, with out warrant or supervision, an branch of the executive is monitoring our electronic assemblies to make sure they are not used for purposes that are contrary to the "public good."

The only problem with that is the executive branch had decided that they, and they alone, define the Public Good.

While it may be a safe and even sane definition for now, we don't know, and we have no way of protecting ourselves from abuse of the system in the future, either by the leaders or the workers tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Specifically, you seem to trust that the executive will fail to abuse powers he is granted (or assumes) without oversight,

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see you elaborate on why you're comfortable with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmgirl:

1) this is very similar to what the Eschelon project was under the Clinton administration -- and that was even prior to 9/11

---

But the Eschelon project abided by FISA rules, right? The lack of (judicial) oversight is what has made the current issue so troublesome, I think. Or am I missing something?

(Honest question. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, Dag, I HAVE elaborated on this one. Several times, in fact.

---

quote:

---

Elaborating on why you're uncomfortable with that would involve discussing why you think abuse is likely, why existing oversight (which you've mistakenly stated - again - doesn't exist) couldn't catch abuses, what the harms of any abuse would be, and why instituting additional oversight wouldn't be sufficient.

---

quote:

---

If the law doesn't say that, then the law is screwed up and needs to be changed.

---

quote:

---

Dag, I don't know if you'd enjoy a conversation like that, but I have to admit that I'd find it stultifyingly dull,

---

quote:

---

I'm curious what you consider adequate oversight, though

---

quote:

---

Dag has provided one cogent reason for not doing so -- an impossibly high 99% accuracy rate still floods the system with false leads. Wasting taxpayer dollars and enforcement resources.

---

That reasoning I gave about the prosecutor's fallacy applies to pattern matching algorithms in general, which I'm not sure is what they're doing. If they're not, though, then fugu is right and they're taking too much data. Someone will be tempted to do it.

I still think Farmgirl's intitial question - if it would definitely prevent an attack, is this (not some perversion of this, but simply running the pattern match) worth doing - has not been adequately addressed, and I think it needs to be.

I agree that there are issues related to whether it would actually work, and we can never quantify how much risk reduction occurs. But discussing the bald uncluttered case - is it worth doing X if it will stop Y and have no slippery slope effects - has enormous value.

The arguments about whether it will work, how it will be abused, and such are all perfectly valid attacks on the idea of this program. But assume for a minute there's no chance of misuse and that it will stop one attack that would result in 3,000 deaths. Do we do it? If not, why are the lives of 3,000 people worth the keeping our call lists secret?

What I'm trying to get at is the core value involved in the government not knowing whom we call. I think it's an extremely important value. I advocate allowing murderers to go free in defense of that value.

But there's a long way from "The idea that ANYTHING we can do to thwart terrorism we MUST do" to thinking that non-identified looks at call lists aren't worth 3,000 lives. I want to see why it's worth it articulated.

And it's really unfair of me to ask that, because I can't articulate it. I can evaluate the likelihood of it actually working and the problems it can cause to come up with a reason why we shouldn't do it. But I can't ethically get to the point "keeping these numbers secret is worth 3,000 lives."
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm aware of that. I'm asking a hypothetical question in an attempt to identify the competing values. Because, despite some of the rhetoric, there are ethical principles that support each side of this equation.
 

---

Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
 
Besides the potential for government abuse, I'm skeptical of all the new, post-9/11 intelligence programs because it IS all just more data.

I haven't read anything that suggests that US intelligence is getting any more coordinated to actually act on the intelligence it already has. There was info pre-9/11 that some intelligence agents picked up on, but because of bad coordination and office politics, it never got acted upon.

I wonder if US intelligence will ever get any better when it comes to terrorism, since it's hard to gauge how well it's doing. I'm thinking here about OSC's comments on how, during a war like the Civil War, it took the Union a few very bloody years to get rid of the incompetent generals and find the ones which knew what they were doing. In a conventional war, there's battles all the time, and by those battles you can measure officers' competence.

With the whole War on Terror, though, there's been 9/11... and if we're lucky, it'll be a long time/never before there's another attack. (Hopefully never... but, pessimistically, it'll happen again.) When attacks are spaced out over years or decades, it's hard to figure out what intelligence folks are actually doing any good; right now, since there haven't been any domestic attacks since 9/11, EVERY intelligence officer can claim that what they're doing has been vital to preventing terrorism...
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Assuming "there's no chance of misuse and that it will stop one attack that would result in 3,000 deaths" is true, I can't see how the privacy of non-identified call lists is more important than actual lives. However, I would first need to know exactly how these call lists are going to save these people's lives and why this is the only solution. If those questions can be adequately answered, then I would support the use of the call lists.

Personally, I would find it to be worth doing so that I wouldn't have to live with the guilt of knowing that I had it well within my power to save even one person's life, but didn't, because of something so trivial as a non-identified list of phone calls.

Of course, this is all based on what I feel are a bunch of completely unrealistic assumptions. But that also raises the question, what would I consider to be an acceptable risk? Where is the line drawn for what constitutes an acceptable risk and an unacceptable one? Those are questions that I am not able to answer.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
For the record, I have seen Dag offer his opinion more than once on ethical issues here at Hatrack; I think that there is so much griping about Bush and Co. here that he takes the other side automatically out of reflex.

I also think that the he is being cautious about statming anything here about the legality of this is because there is a slight possibility that it might be technically legal. (and he isn't suppose to offer legal advice per say ) That is not to say it is moral, or proper, but you can't really blame him for wanting to hear WHY other people had a problem with it.


A lot of people automatically assumed that it counld't be legal. . . I know I did. I still disagree with it strongly on ethical grounds, but Dag has raised some interesing points already.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
The difficulty is that so many of these actions are classified and covert that we don't know much of what they're doing, we don't know what (if any) results they're getting, we don't know much about the safeguards that are preventing the information from being misused. It could be that, by golly, this operation is the best thing since sliced bread and Al Qaeda operatives are going to fall out of the woodwork like so much loose change out of an upended pocket. Or it could be that it's doing diddlysquat with regard to terrorism and is actually intended to do any of a number of less acceptable goals from instilling a sense of paranoia in the face of upcoming elections (see the color coded terror alerts), to merely making a show of action, to intimidating legitimate political opposition.

The attitude that things like cooperating with Congress and having a level of transparency with those surveyed (who are allegedly the ones being served by the surveillance) is a luxury is growing rather tiresome, to put it mildly.

[ May 13, 2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I would like express one over-arching opinion on the idea that we should pursue any valid means of getting the terrorists to stop.

If that is the case, does it not seem likely that things such as uncertain fishing expeditions through every phone call made in the US are worth less time, effort and resources than things that have a higher probability of success?

At some point, we're going to end talking about the marginal utility of human lives -- something I'm not comfortable with in this context.

I prefer to look at it another way. While we wpend ourselves into financial holes deeper than ever before, we (our government) continues to neglect one tried and tested method that is relatively cheap -- diplomacy.

We steadfastly refuse to work in concert with the UN (we rejected the call for bilateral talks with Iran today). We broke off contact with Saddam's regime.

Those calling for these major intrusions into citizen's privacy should, I think, be able to justify their use in place of methods that have worked in the past.

And, seriously, it's not enough to say "well they didn't work this time" because, if truth be told, the efforts were undermined specifically by the Administration and that attitude may have contributed much to our vulnerability.

But when diplomacy and cooperative action are labeled as failures, all we have left are the stupider and more costly choices: committing our troops to bloody conflict; immitating the past in curtailing civil liberties, and so on.

If you look at Palestinian attitudes toward the US today and what they were like back 10 years ago, there's a world of difference. I don't believe that the Palestinians have changed all out of the blue. But they have concrete examples now of what the US does to Arabs it doesn't get along with. They aren't stupid people. When it was in their interest to be friendly to us, Americans were pretty much "off limits" in Palestinian controlled areas. Flash an American passport and it was old home week.

Not anymore. Who on this board would be willing to go to Hebron and flash a US passport today?

Is that change because of something Palestinians did, or something we did? Or a combination thereof?

That's just one example.

I can't see how military solutions in Iraq, Iran, or elsewhere in the Middle East are winning us the kind of respect and fear they would need to in order to daunt the terrorists. To ignore their impact as recruiting tools is, I think, foolish. That doesn't mean that military programs might not be ultimately necessary (as they certainly were in Afghanistan), but that we are using them, and the threat of them too much.

The enemy isn't growing numb with fear. They are growing more desperate...perhaps. That's only a good sign if you feel you have contained them.

Hence we come to the greater need for domestic "safety" programs. But we find out there that we aren't capable of installing effective programs overnight. So we sit in our homes hoping against hope that some terrorist cell out there isn't already prepped and ready to attack.

And if they are...they will do so without being caught by the leaky net of a few billion calls on sorted lists.

If they are caught this next time, and the time after that, and the time after that, it'll be because we had people alert to the possibility, not asleep at the switch, taking an extra hard look at someone whose story doesn't wash.

There was a NYS trooper who came within a few decisions of arresting one of the attackers (I think it was Mohammed Atta actually) the day before the attacks. He was extremely suspicious of the guy. Why couldn't he hold him? Because the agencies who'd run into Atta before didn't have an efficient way of sharing information nationally.

Now...why is that?

I won't talk about NYS, because I don't know their situation, but does it strike anyone as completely silly in these times that states continue to cut their state patrol/state police budgets to almost nothing? Sure, their #1 job is patrolling the highways, and everyone likes to speed without getting a ticket. But these folks are also a front line of defense in this country and we chop them off at the knees.

We also have national databases, but they aren't used universally. Why is that? Because they require at least some minimal level of automation and many law enforcement agencies don't have squat -- not even a dumb terminal in the vehicle (something most mom&pop taxi services have as a routine investment). But the people we send out to enforce our laws are still stuck using radio communications to increasingly busy dispatchers who aren't on the scene to react to their gut the way the officers are.

If this country was truly serious about combating terrorism, we would start with the people who we KNOW had contact with several of the 9/11 terrorists in the days before their attack -- the people on the streets enforcing our laws.

Sure, there are more grants now than ever before for agencies to buy stuff. But if we aren't putting more of them out there on the roads and in the towns, just to do standard policing, I say we're being really cheap and stupid.

I'm on a rant here, but it really offends my sense of stewardship when I see us haring after high-tech solutions when everything we learned so far in the post-9/11 debriefs is that there were PEOPLE who saw these guys, and had a gut reaction, and all they needed was information to do their jobs.

And by information, I mean the simple stuff like "okay, this guy was in jail two days ago in Florida. What's up?"

I'm not even talking the more sophisticated stuff like "oh, this guy's on an FBI watch list." Although why they couldn't know that in the field is beyond me too, given that that was the one provision of the Patriot Act that made obvious sense to me.

Ultimately, I have to say that I'd be all in favor of an R&D project to see if tracking phone numbers from call lists would even work. We know the phone numbers of some of the 9/11 guys...use them as a test case and go fishing from their call lists (I'm sure someone has done this). But to just obtain millions of lists with billions of calls and pay consultants millions of dollars to develop systems to filter it...it's a waste.

We have more certain methods at our disposal. They are cheaper methods. We know they work.

And if it was the case that we could afford to pursue EVERYTHING, I might shut up. But we know we can't. One look at our budget deficit should convince any reasonable person that we are once again mortgaging our grandchildren's futures.

I look at this and wonder where the accountability is. And where the accounting is.

And, because I do not trust this Administration, I also wonder what else they are doing that just hasn't been divulged yet. And I wonder what else they're doing with the information because it seems that what they admit to in every situation is the tip of the iceberg.

I'd call that a judgement based on the facts of their record to date.

Some here may disagree and say (rightly, I suppose) that I have a jaundiced view of President Bush and his motives.

I'll admit to all of that.

And yet, I can't see where he's giving me a reason to think otherwise. I don't see where he gives one damn about earning MY trust or that of people who think in any way differently from him.

So, I feel at least justified in giving him at least one thing that he seems to want. My fear of him.

[ May 13, 2006, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

If the data mining were the only factor contributing to the supression of terror networks in the US, your hypothetical question would be valid. Since it's not, it's not.

---

quote:

---

Why couldn't he hold him? Because the agencies who'd run into Atta before didn't have an efficient way of sharing information nationally.

---

quote:

---

If this country was truly serious about combating terrorism, we would start with the people who we KNOW had contact with several of the 9/11 terrorists in the days before their attack -- the people on the streets enforcing our laws.

Sure, there are more grants now than ever before for agencies to buy stuff. But if we aren't putting more of them out there on the roads and in the towns, just to do standard policing, I say we're being really cheap and stupid.

---

quote:

---

I still think Farmgirl's intitial question - if it would definitely prevent an attack, is this (not some perversion of this, but simply running the pattern match) worth doing - has not been adequately addressed, and I think it needs to be.

---

quote:

---

We're talking about a country founded on a revolution that was stirred up over controversies about taxes on stamps and tea

---

quote:

---

But, like I said earlier, I also wouldn't make seat belts or car seats mandatory.

---

The only why I'd think this an acceptable idea is if no one not wearing a seatbelt can recover for injuries caused in an accident from their insurer or a negligent driver.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
re: seatbelts -- I would make them mandatory because it saves society money. The studies show that shared costs of deaths and injuries on the highways are higher than the costs born by the injured or the relatives of those who die.

The costs are spread out, so it's not incredibly painful until you add up all the deaths and injuries and assess the societal costs from them in aggregate.

But yes, the economics of it actually do make sense.

Now, booster seats for 8 year olds...I'm not sure about the data in favor of that. I haven't looked at it. Seems excessive on the face of it. Especially if your 8 year old is belted in appropriately and the belt is adjusted to someone of her stature. The think I worry about with smaller humans in a 3-point harness is belt positioning across the chest. If it hits them in the neck instead, that's a nasty injury waiting to happen. If the shoulder belt is put behind their back, or it doesn't hold them in properly, they could slide out of it. That does have it's own risks, especially if the rear of the front seat is hard plastic or has stuff stored in the convenient pouches back there.

Also, if the vehicle has side curtain airbags, I'd be worried about someone small enough to come out of the shoulder harness because position relative to the airbag is important.

But...realistically, as long as kids and small-stature adults are in the back seat and belted, they are getting better protection than back in the 60's and before when belts were a luxury item.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Amusingly, I'm a part of a discipline (Informatics) that works towards making such large datasets manageable .

As for another area Informatics focuses on, most of the barriers to intelligence sharing between agencies remain organizational and technological. US agencies lack clear ways to direct raw and derived inputs among the various agencies absent direct requests and certain basic pathways. Due to the volume of information involved, this direction must almost certainly occur automatically. The agencies have encountered significant barriers to implementing ICTs, I suspect due to continued attempts to apply waterfall design to a system conceived without proper interaction design consultation.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

There's a difference between decisions made by a king and parliment we can't vote for and decisions made by elected officials.

---

quote:

---

re: seatbelts -- I would make them mandatory because it saves society money.

---

I'm really reluctant to use this as a justification, Bob, because the "greater good" is probably one of the biggest threats to liberty out there. In this, I agree with Dag's assessment: people shouldn't have to wear seatbelts, but insurers shouldn't have to cover the injuries of people who aren't wearing them when an accident happens.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

From what I'm gathering as I've read articles on this, no actual survailance is taking place. No actual names are being connected with the phone numbers.

The government is collecting information on phone numbers in order to isolate patterns in movement for spikes in calls to certain areas from known terrorist areas or terrorist known phone numbers.

They would not, for example, be able to tell whether I'm having an affair based on these phone numbers, which information they could then use to blackmail me into reporting information on my company to the FBI.

They could, however, figure out if there was a change in calling patterns to my town that might indicate a terrorist event might happen here.

Am I wrong in this? Is there more to the program?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Honestly, I think they're far more likely to be able to deduce that you might be having an affair than that your town is the target of a terrorist strike.

Identifying a terrorist cell might exist IN your town is another matter. But they won't have the content of the calls, so knowing where the strike MIGHT happen is outside the parameters of this particular program.

I suspect, however, that if they decided there was a terrorist cell in a specific spot, they could tap into their conversations (legally or not) and try to unscramble the coded messages that the folks might be using.

Of course, if you talk dirty to your terrorist lover, they might think you're speaking in code and come after you anyway.

"Spank Me!" is well known code for "will you make me an omelet?" afterall. And we all know you can't do that without breaking a few "eggs."



 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

In this, I agree with Dag's assessment: people shouldn't have to wear seatbelts, but insurers shouldn't have to cover the injuries of people who aren't wearing them when an accident happens.

---

quote:

---

Mr Bush stressed that all intelligence activities he authorised were "lawful" and "strictly target" al-Qaeda.

"The privacy of all Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities," he insisted.

---

quote:

---

The intelligence activities I have authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. The privacy of all Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda terrorists and its affiliates who want to harm the American people.

---

 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Like I said, this is carefully worded to avoid talking about the topic of the hour. Notice how he said "we're not trolling through the personal lives of millions of Americans" immediate after talking about NOT listening to domestic phone calls without court approval.

Sorry, I think he's holding the deniability card to play later if this heats up too much.

Things he left out:

1) Didn't really address the accessing of phone records directly. He linked it to the already 'dealt with' issue of court approval for domestic calls.

2) Calls that are only 1/2 domestic -- didn't really talk about that. Which is partly the source ofthe problem with not obtaining court approval. Everyone knows to get a tap on a purely domestic call, you need a court order. But we've all been talking about this supposed "gray area" where a call goes to a foreign receiver, or comes from a foreign source. Can they intercept and listen without a warrant? Isn't that what the hubbub was about?

He's waffling, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I just posted it for those, like me, who hate paraphrases and don't like listening to stuff they can read.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Good idea. I didn't know the text was available online. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
My post was just a quick way to say that the domestic surveilance issue is just as complicated as the seatbelt issue, and that if you are simply citing "calculation of numbers" as a reason to be for a policy that Libertarians and Civil Liberties types would dislike, the same could be said of this program.

Not saying it has to be. That would require knowing the specifics of the program, which seems to be hard to pin down, both due to speculation and some bizzare idea that seems to have surfaced in this thread that the morality of the issue exists independently of, and somehow above, the specifics of it.

But I also don't see how keeping who I'm calling over a public phone company's lines private is more a Constitutional Right than having my bags and person searched by the Federal Government simply because I'm boarding an airplane or entering a Federal Building.

Time it was everybody in town could hear a phone call simply by picking up the phone. That was just how phones worked.

I'm not saying I advocate the program. I don't know the specifics of it well enough yet. If it's as I desribed above, I'm okay with it. If it's more, I might not be.

But do still think the cell phone ringtone is cute.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Wow. I think that post was pretty incoherent.

::Scratches Head::

Let me see if I can say what I'm trying to say:

I've got no problem with data collection. Albertsons using a card to track my purchases is no different from the days when your corner grocer knew what you bought because you had to buy it from him. Or like your favorite neighborhood restaurant bringing you your coffee the way you like it before you ask. It's simply part of how business works.

Similarly, I've got no problem with the goverment doing or sponsoring studies that would gather similar information for the purposes of regulating trade policies, especially if names weren't attached. If they can use data to provide for the common defense, that's probably a better use of their resources than figuring out which type of produce to subsidize.

So if this is strictly a data game, I'm fine with it.

(Which makes for a question. What if the data were changed to make it usable for the program, but unlinkable to individuals. For example, if area codes and prefixes were left intact, but the last four digits were altered in a way that would leave the numbers coded? And if specific numbers could only be decoded with a warrant? Would that be more acceptable?)

On the other hand, the specifics of my privacy--what's in my bag, what's on the phone call, what's in my pockets--that's something I don't feel the government has any business knowing.

(I'm actually opposed to Federal Air Marshals and Federal bag screeners, and feel the "invisible hand" of capitalism could actually do a better job of securing airplanes than the federal goverment could. Individual airlines have every right to earch your bag before you take it on one of their planes).

It just seems to me that the arguement against the program is kind of circular.

1. There isn't much the government can get from this. The quantity of information is just so vast that it's doubtful they'll even be able to get the information they want.

2. Therefore, the only way to make this information useful is to use it to do things that are abusive.

3. Therefore, this constitues an abuse of power.

However, nothing has actually suggested that this information has been used to enact any abuses, or that any of the times they've taken further action have happened without proper approvals.

Which leaves us with number 1, which everybody seems to agree on, which is simply that there's not that much information they can get from this.

Everything else just breaks down along party lines.

Pro-Bushites: Therefore it's terrific, and we should continue funding it! It will probably bear fruit before the year's out!
Anti-Bushites: Therefore the real motive is hidden somewhere, because this is not nefarious enough!
Terrorists: Therefore we should race to change phone companies to Qwest!

Specifics, of course, are incidental.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I don't think it has been used for any abuses, but I can easily imagine numerous possible abuses that would be nigh undetectable.

For instance, access to this information would make discovering embarrassing associations trivial.

Regarding airline security, reliance on Adam Smith's invisible hand would make airlines less secure, and I'm absolutely certain Adam Smith would agree (after being familiarized with airlines ).

Companies manage risk by spending on risk prevention until the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit. As has become abundantly clear with oil tankers, that point is often well below what is considered societally acceptable where there are substantial externalities.

For instance, the emotional impact on the nation of a terrorist hijacking/attack is vastly larger than the net cost, even including massive damages to the families of the passengers (and that's not terribly likely assuming the security was fairly stringent, just not stringent enough), to the airline. Thus the number of acceptable hijackings airlines will budget for will be significantly higher than the number we are willing to spend to achieve as a conglomerate.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

While there seems to you to be a gray area, for the people involved in the actual activity there is not. What can and can not be done is spelled out quite clearly, and would almost definately have to go through Justice at some point.

---

am4: Is this a statement of fact or are you just assuming that it'd have to go through Justice "at some point." And, frankly, going through the DOJ is not the same as independent oversight, in my book. Unless you mean that it has to go through an independent judicial review at some point. In which case, I think the facts appear to be otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Re: the numbers game -- I hesitated just a bit to post the bit about the mandatory seatbelt law justification for the simple reason that it does come down to the cost of a human life, and the cost of the programs designed to save those other costs.

I've never been "comfortable" with such equations.

The problem I have with making an analogy between the situation with occupant protection and the situation with fighting terrorism by having millions of call lists is as follows:

1) Personal freedom "advocates" usually talk about the only person being hurt being the individual. That's not true. I deliberately chose a scenario that would have a lot of legal and financial burdens and cost "society" at large a great deal of time, money, and, of course, anguish. It's also not all that uncommon or unbelievable (except the part about Tom & Christy being estranged, of course)

2) We know something that works with respect to traffic safety. I can guarantee you a certain number of lives saved for a given percentage of seatbelt usage increase. The "gains" for the trolling through phone numbers system seems pretty nebulous to me.

3) If we are going to talk numbers, just in a dollars spent per life saved kind of way, then this society is blowing its wad on a lot of unproven, and probably useless stuff right now. This call list thing seems to me to be sort of middle-of-the-pack in terms of dubious utility. It probably doesn't cost as much as some things, and it's probably got a non-zero probability of success.


Here's my question:
If we are going to spend money to save lives, where should we do it?

If we have limited resources, does that change the answer any?


I do understand the psychological value of "security from external threats." But there are other ways to combat fear. I accuse this administration of playing on peoples fears rather than working to put those fears in perspective. It won them an election, IMO. It also got them their war. And a lot of provisions in the Patriot Act that appear execreble to me. And countless other things that make me cringe and make me angry and make me want to vote Libertarian!

But I defy anyone to convince me that our government (not just Fed, but state and local too) is making us "more secure feeling." They have botched a major attempt at showing how they can deal with domestic disasters -- mobilizing to a standstill in the gulf after Katrina. They have failed to reign in budget earmarks -- in fact setting records in the latest Transportation bill (and thus spending money foolishly when we should be husbanding resources against the day of our next attack or disaster).

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can have faith in government's ability to solve most problems.

And, when there are things they can solve -- like the traffic fatality problem -- they have so tarnished their credibility and their authority as to render themselves impotent.

But I digress.

The only parallel I can draw between belts and terrorism is that we'd save a lot more lives for a lot fewer dollars just by convincing people to buckle up. Mandatory belt laws have been shown to cause a reasonably sized uptick in the percentage of people buckling up. Unless we find other ways to more cooperatively and gently convince the last 5-10% of folks to go ahead and wear their seatbelts, I reluctantly conclude that mandatory belt laws are effective and practical, and end up saving much more than they cost us.

Counter-terrorism efforts benefits seem pale by comparison. They cost a lot, and can't be shown to have had any effect on safety, or even people's perception of safety.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

If we are going to spend money to save lives, where should we do it?

---

You're missing the more important cost. Rephrase this:

"If we're going to spend money and sacrifice liberties to save lives, where should we do it?"
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'd be interested in seeing where you draw that line, Tom, taking into account the many, many restrictions on liberty we make now to save lives.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Perhaps they all are currently, but they certainly haven't all always been, as is abundantly documented in numerous historical accounts, and there's no guarantee they all will be in the future.

Since this database includes no identifying information other than the phone number, those performing searches and analyses on this database have no way of knowing (absent being told ) how any particular search will be used. All it takes is one politically motivated person with the authority to instigate a search and sufficiently low moral scruples, and the database has been abused. One. Since nobody in any branch but the executive, and not even most of them, get more than the vaguest details about the use of the database, catching that person is extraordinarily difficult.

Heck, even if the abuse is detected, the intelligence agencies may be extremely reluctant to do much about it, since revealing the details of the abuse would likely reveal techniques they use to mine the database.

This database is political persecution waiting to happen.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
airmanfour, I think you are remarkably idealistic. fugu isn't necessarily talking about a politician. He's talking about maybe someone high up in the CIA, who has an axe to grind somewhere, and tells a counterpart in the NSA that he's having trouble with a case and it sure would be nice to know what numbers have been called from this particular number here. He's got the approriate level of clearance, and he's helped the NSA guy out before, so the NSA guy hands it off to his technicians and asks them to run a report with all the calls to and from that number for the last six months. Nobody has to go into the building, or into the room where the stuff happens. They just have to be at the right level to request a search, and a little unscrupulous. And they'll always think that they have the best of reasons, and that the ends justify the means.

Like fugu said, similar things have happened before. There are plenty of dishonest people at all levels of government and bueracracy, because there are plenty of dishonest people in every role, every where in the world. I believe that if this database stays in place it will, at some time or another, be abused. I would say the chances of that are as near to 100% as it is possible to be. Abused how badly? Don't know. But in the mean time, how much good is it going to do? I don't know that, either. I have a hard time seeing how it could do enough good to justify the expense, much less the risk of abuse.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Anyone who doesn't think this is very scary is ignorant of history. Powers like these have always been used against political opponents (anyone who's not for us is for terrorism), and people who bring up unpleasant truths that need to be addressed (we all must hang together and not criticize the leaders or the terrorists will win), any injustices, any wrongs done by leaders. They always have been. Are George W. Bush and his administration more vituous than any other government in history? So far, the record doesn't look that way.

It amazes me that some people can still support him.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Off the top of my head, Aldrich Ames was a successful spy in the CIA for 10 years. Robert Hanssen was a spy in the FBI for 15 years. I don't have a specific example for the NSA, but forgive me for thinking that it's not quite as simple as you think it is, airmanfour, just because people are checking to make sure nothing suspicious goes down.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We have numerous records of using our intelligence agents to spy on people considered politically dangerous, such as that subversive Martin Luther King, Jr. Why is this much easier abuse so difficult?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Anyone who doesn't think this is very scary is ignorant of history.

---

It can't be that they have a considered conclusion drawn from that history that's different from yours. They must be ignorant.

It might not "amaze [you] that some people can still support him" if you would spend less time calling people ignorant because they disagree with your conclusions.
 

---

Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
I feel bad for all the people that have to make speeches and be interviewed about this type of thing, talking around how they know what they know. It's difficult, and people end up thinking you're a little dumb. Oh well.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Dagonee, then demonstrate your knowledge of history that leads you to a different conclusion. Describe 10 times in history that such powers have been used only for good.
 

---

Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tatiana:
Anyone who doesn't think this is very scary is ignorant of history.\

---

quote:

---

Describe 10 times in history that such powers have been used only for good.

---

is not necessary to not think this program "very scary." For instance, one could think that even when used for bad, the good done outweighs that bad. One could think that the potential for abuse isn't any worse than that which already exists at the DMV, IRS, Social Security Administration, and the NCIC, all of which fulfill administrative requests for information not requiring court orders or judicial oversight. One could think that the loss of secrecy of the mere knowledge of who calls whom isn't something to be scared of.

One could even think that the program is a bad one but not be "very scared" by it because they believe that the political check (and the commercial check in this particular situation) will end it before it can be abused enough to be "very scared."

Why don't you bother to state your case before calling people ignorant. You've asserted that "[p]owers like these have always been used against political opponents." You haven't demonstrated it, yet you decide those who disagree are ignorant. In response, you challenge someone else to disprove what you haven't bothered to prove. And the formulation of that challenge attempts to curtail numerous points of possible refutation of your original assertion.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Added: To airmanfour.

I don't think you're dumb, and I don't think you're ignorant. I think you're a person of integrity who's involved enough in the system to know how it is supposed to work, and who believes that it does work the way it's supposed to. You have no reason to try to corrupt the system, so you look at it and see all the safeguards.

But the safeguards aren't there for people of integrity. They wouldn't need to be. The safeguards are there for the people who look at the system and see the loopholes. There is no such thing as a perfect system. And to look at it and say it's impossible? What's the phrase you used before you deleted your posts in this thread? That's just silly.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Dagonee, it's so weird. Every time we discuss something that we disagree about, I'm left with the feeling that you care nothing about what's actually right or wrong about the issue, you just want to win the argument. What good does it do you to win all the arguments you ever have? I can see that it's a good trait for a lawyer to have, perhaps, but it doesn't improve discourse. It doesn't serve to help build a common understanding of the truth. All it does is tear down stuff.

You don't address the substance of what people are saying. You don't try to understand what they mean and why they say the things they say, and address that. You just argue for the sake of arguing, it seems like.

If there's a reason why someone who understands how such powers have been used again and again against political enemies in history, and to oppress the populations they are supposedly keeping safe, and they still feel it's not scary, then why? Can you seriously think this is at all comparable to the DMV? It's much more like the Stasi, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Several people have critized Dagonee's posting style lately. I agree that he is often a difficult person to argue against. I don't think it's that he cares more about winning arguments than discussing issues. I think it's that he cares very much about the terms of the discussion being fair. It's unfair to expect him to do more research than you're willing to do yourself. It's unfair to ask him to address a topic in depth when you're posting one or two lines. And it's unfair to make statements of fact that are really your opinion. (Tatiana, I'm not saying you've done all of these things, just that they've all been done to Dag in the past few days.) And when people do this to Dag, he does't play along. He calls them on it. And then he gets accused of just being legalistic, or just caring about arguing or winning.

I find Dag very frustrating to argue with, but when I do so I usually dig deeper for facts and references than I would otherwise, and end up thinking my opinions through more than I had before. And I think the crap he's been getting lately is unfair.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
(Edit: Deleted.)

Thank you ElJay. You have no idea how much that means to me.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I still don't agree with you. Insofar as you've told us what your opinions or lack thereof are, anyway.



But you've spoiled us by being willing to whip out long, insightful, knowledgable posts on almost any subject at the drop of a hat. So of course we demand that you talk about what we want you to. And I know I'd get pissed off if that was expected of me all the time.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Insofar as you've told us what your opinions or lack thereof are, anyway.

---

I still haven't decided if I'm a little annoyed with it or really pissed off about it. I do know I'm not very scared, in no small part because I know our system can stop it if we as a people decide it should be stopped.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
My concern is that we as a people don't seem to care about very much these days. I think it's wrong, but I also don't think it's a huge deal for most people. But it feels to me that the people in power, of either party, will keep pushing until they are stopped. I'd rather it was here.
 

---

Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
ElJay, I deleted my posts because it occured to me that I really shouldn't participate in this discussion. Mostly because of everything you just brought up.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I wonder if it's already having a chilling effect on discourse, that people are not saying what they think because they'd rather not be put on that list.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

in no small part because I know our system can stop it if we as a people decide it should be stopped

---

quote:

---

My fear is that not being reasonable and sensible and legal about all these things will aid the Unmakers both in the accomplishment of their task and in the lulling of most of the people to sleep about it.

---

quote:

---

"If we're going to spend money and sacrifice liberties to save lives, where should we do it?"

---

quote:

---

AND...If we are going to spend money PRESERVING personal liberties, can we make is so that personal responsibility is not amortized over the whole population, but rather is appropriately proportioned to those who make unsafe life choices?"

---

quote:

---

The online sources to whom I usually turn for defenses of the indefensible have either been silent on the matter, or they've voiced a mix of cautious skepticism and concern. Something tells me that if this story turns out to have real substance and legs, at least a few of the staunch defenders of the NSA's domestic surveillance program will choose to sit out this particular fight.

Next is a post that gives some historical context for current controversy, as well as an indication of what a possible congressional showdown over it might look like:

quote:

---

The Coming Showdown Over Executive Privilege

None too pleased about AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth doing the National Security Agency's (NSA) bidding, Arlen Specter says he's going to haul the three telecom companies before the Judiciary Committee for some pointed questions. Deja vu; in 1976, the now-deceased Rep. Bella Abzug did the same thing with three telegraph companies for their similar handmaiden-to-NSA roles. Looking back to those events, we can't help but wonder if there's more history that will repeat itself--will the Bush Administration try, as the Ford Administration did, to extend executive privilege to private industry.

---

The article goes on to reference some of the early and vehement support of the notion that executive privilege extends to private industry by two Ford administration officials named Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom were involved in the 1976 telegraph controversy. I've read at least one theory that former NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination to head the CIA was intended specifically to provoke a showdown over the NSA's surveillance activities, so we may yet see the fireworks that Vest predicts.

---

Emphasis mine. Interesting. Even though I'm not American, I'll be following the development of this story with some interest.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
That's very, very interesting, twinky. Thanks for posting that.

In what may be related news (related to the general topic, not to twinky's post in particular), This article claims that the government is tracking the phone numbers reporters call in an attempt to determine confidential sources.

[Edit--and the FBI has more or less confirmed the previous day's article.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
So far BellSouth and Verizon have both denied giving any phone records to the NSA. I think it's worth noting that Verizon initially would neither confirm nor deny it, but after a $50 billion class-action suit was filed they're denying it.

Apparently the class-action suit is only for Verizon landline customers though, so no $1000 for me.

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Start your own!
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Picture this: In the dark recesses of power, in a smoke filled room, the huddled and cloaked spymasters of our government plat thier next intelligence scheme.

"Here's what we do" whispers one. "We get the President to DeClassify/leak a story claiming that we have been given every telephone record for the past 5 years from every telephone company in the US except one. Um, Qwest. Yeah, Quest."

"Then what?" asks the able assistant.

"Then we find out who changes their phone service to Qwest, and we know who's been leaking all our super secret diabolical plans."
 

---