posted
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*
As to the families of those dead, it's worth noting that I oppose seatbelt laws, too. And I wouldn't keep Sophie in a booster seat until she weighed 80 pounds or was 8 years old (whichever comes last), as is now the law in Wisconsin, even if it might save her life.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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*
I'm beginning to understand what OSC was getting at, Tom. Why did you bother to address me in this thread? You weren't involved in the conversation. Why feel the need to repeatedly probe for my beliefs and then ignore them when I take the time to express them.
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?
What the hell are you trying to accomplish? You obviously don't care at all what I think on any of these issues. What sick need are you fulfilling by continuing to tweak me about this?
You still can't be bothered to explain why you believe what you do. Until you decide to start doing that, do not deign to comment on what aspects of a situation I choose to discuss or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have entirely too much faith that they will act efficiently. I'm too old and cynical to think that. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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]
No. That's not "peachy" with me, either. I understand that it is apparently legal for these companies to make money off of me by selling my private information, but I have never yet had anyone explain adequately why anyone in their right mind thinks it is ethical or moral. As Dag points out, information in the phone book is essentially in the public domain. However, my social security number is most assuredly not in the phone book, and neither is my e-mail information nor information on the kinds of things I buy.
If some company wants to know anything like that about me, they can look me up in the phone book, put forth the effort and call me and ask me , and pay me for the information. It is my information. They are not getting my social security number out of me, but I'd probably be happy to participate in marketing surveys if they want to pay me for it. But I resent very much the fact that someone else is making money off of my information and my opinions, which is what information about the products I choose to buy is when it comes right down to it.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope someone can verify or debunk this. I have to be very general to avoid misleading you. I am sorry.
Some time back I heard that Clinton did something to make it illegal to hoard food. I think it had to do with Y2K. The problem (I heard he saw) was that if there was a breakdown in our social system, then the LDS church would be able to usurp authority.
While the trucking systems and shops closed down and went bare, Mormons and their two year supply of food, a propensity to bare arms, and the extreme organizational structure within the church, would be in position to...take center stage from the government.
By making it illegal to hoard food, the army or National Guard could go into residents’ homes and confiscate their supplies.
Could be true. Could be false. It was something I heard back when I attended church.
Right now we have the government going after Warren Jeffs and his Fundamental Mormon church. Whether he should be caught or not and whether the Government should exert power to take land away from the church or not is not my point.
My point if the government suddenly decides to label a group or religion as the enemy, and it has the technology, databases, and authority to track down civilians, then it will do it. I think it is liable it will happen in the future.
I know these are not directly connected, BUT seeing the power of emanate domain be used to take private property away from civilians to sell to corporations, reading about the relocation camps for Japanese civilians, studying about how Boggs made it legal to kill Mormons, hearing the rumor of the Clinton Hording Law, and remembering Waco on fire....all of that circling in my mind makes me very suspicious of how the information and databases we are using against terrorists will be used in the future.
I am worried about civil liberties. I am also worried about a terrorist sneaking in a dirty bomb. I am actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. I think I will go home and wrestle with Toshi until he falls asleep and then stay up and play Guild Wars.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to contribute more to this discussion but am heading out the door for the day.
However, wanted to make these points.
1) this is very similar to what the Eschelon project was under the Clinton administration -- and that was even prior to 9/11
2) I fail to see how this is much different than the myriads of ways we are already tracked, some by our own choice, like: *Super shopper (club) cards for discounts that track what you purchase at a grocery chain. * Everytime we get on the internet, our IP is open game and tracked somewhere * Webmail -- is stored on someone else's server and could be reviewed by them. * Those electronic tags for getting on/off the turnpikes, etc - those records are in a datbase somewhere. *Every debit/credit card tranasction is tracked, as well as ATM transactions (I don't have time to figure out the bullet feature)
etc. etc. The information is out there. This is not above or below all the other means people (or government, or companies) have of finding out information about us.
Farmgirl
(KarlEd- the two I primarily thought of were Rep. Jane Harman and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle who spoke when similar things came up in December - they said they knew about it and thought it necessary for anti-terrorism)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of the cases you list in item 2 are voluntary and most have ways to make sure your personal information is not sold or traded to 3rd parties.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
I would submit, first off, that asking someone else to justify their gut feeling to you is not the same thing as discussing ethics. I've yet to see you -- ever -- advance your own ethical opinion; I've never said that you're incapable of asking OTHER people for their opinions, which you then quite calmly dissect and reject as insufficiently sound.
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.
I haven't seen you, despite your claim to the contrary, actually express your beliefs in this thread. You've hinted that you HAVE beliefs, but you haven't shared them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure I've seen Dag offer his ethical opinion. I've also disagreed with him on a number of occasions and I'm sure on those occasions I understood his opinion, that he understood mine, and that neither of us felt calmly dissected and rejected as insufficiently sound. YMMV, of course.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to see you -- ever -- advance your own ethical opinion;
You know, the last time you accused me of this I listed several topics on which I've expressed my ethical opinion very often here.
You didn't bother responding to that then, either.
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.
Tom, you read enough threads to know this isn't true. You're either terribly forgetful or lying, and I'm done trying to attribute positive motives to this. It's gone on too long.
Once again, so you can ignore it all in one place:
Abortion Same Sex Civil Marriage Free Speech Wheelchair fraud And, as far as I remember, I'm the only one on this board who EVER expressed the opinion that what the Court did in Hamdi was a horrible abuse of power and that those who think it a victory for civil rights are fooling themselves.
These are only the ones I've thought of off the top of my head. There are many others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realized immediately I should have been more specific. I'm specifically concerned here -- and was about to edit my previous post to indicate -- about your continual defense of this administration's behavior based on perceived legality. You've been very finicky about words like "power grab" in the past, on the grounds that it can't constitute a "grab" if it's legally justifiable and/or has isolated precedent, and have thus evaded the issue of whether or not it's troublesome to you to think that the NSA is collecting our phone records. Specifically, you seem to trust that the executive will fail to abuse powers he is granted (or assumes) without oversight, and I'd like to see you elaborate on why you're comfortable with that.
The issue to me, honestly, is not whether this sort of domestic spying is immoral, but how to go about rolling back the dust of wicked precedent to ensure its illegality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The covert nature of these activities combined with their lack of oversight makes them ripe for abuses beyond their stated goals.
The possibility of that abuse raises the spectre of political intimidation, whatever party uses it, whether that abuse takes place or not.
Protections need to be in place to prevent that intimidation.
"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." -Ari Fleischer
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I intentionally do not use super shopper cards or webmail because I am uncomfortable with the privacy implications. Yes, I use the internet, and my ISP can be tracked, but I choose to use a small, local ISP instead of a national one at least partly because I believe my privacy is better protected this way. Like KarlEd said, all of the examples you gave are voluntary. And you know, when you choose to use them, that you will be tracked. Not only is the call records thing involuntary, but we didn't even know it was going on until now. I think that makes it very different.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, congratulations. Everyone here is now suspect, thanks to me.
My wife has made friends around the world. She has email conversations with people, and phone contact, from such places as Iran, Lebanon, Northern India (near the Kashmir border). We have travled in recent years to Southern Russia, near Chechnya, and Northern India, near Kashmir.
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.
Whether it works that way or not, many in the country will now hesitate before contacting people of Mid-Eastern descent, or who attend a mosque, for fear that such communications will now go on their "Permanent Record."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting; Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act is the most likely to prohibit these disclosures, it provides only two exceptions that might be applicable:
quote:Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer
The required by law arguments seems clearly not met, given the emphasis on how this has been voluntary. This is where the government's argument that the telecomm TOS constitute customer approval comes in. It would be interesting to dissect the various TOS and see if they all really do imply such permission.
Situations like this underscore how awful the privacy protections in the US are; unlike in many countries that require very specific approvals for the release of most private information, almost any vague implication in document can constitute "consent".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That what the defenders say to explain these tactics.
We are at war with terrorism.
But why are we at war? We are not at war to destroy Islam, or to conquer the Mid-East. We are at war to defend the US. We are protecting ourselves from the demands that a minority would place on us--choosing our religion, curtailing what we can say, who we can talk to, what we can do.
We are not at war to destroy terrorism.
We are at war to save the US.
The US is more than just people and places. It is ideas, democracy, freedom.
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Except that using this logic, the entire world would be under NSA surveilance after about 7 'jumps'. You are basing your opinion on what you think the NSA is doing. My opinion is that you do not even come close to being under NSA surveilance since you are not communicating with known terrorists
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Since we are not doing any of those things, does this mean we are winning the war?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, you seem to trust that the executive will fail to abuse powers he is granted (or assumes) without oversight,
No, I don't.
quote:I'd like to see you elaborate on why you're comfortable with that.
Since you've declined to elaborate on why you aren't comfortable with this policy, indeed, specifically stating that there's no need for you to do that because your principles are so "basic," I'm not sure why you'd think I'd bother.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
quote:Actually, Dag, I HAVE elaborated on this one. Several times, in fact.
You've said you fear abuse by the executive and use of precedents in the future. That's not elaborating, that's stating an opinion.
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.
THAT would be elaborating. As it is, you've simply declared that it's not worth it even if it would save 3,000 lives because you think it will be abused now and as precedent in the future.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an interesting twist I've seen mentioned a few places, that ATT has gotten a quid pro quo from the government for allowing such access. That, if true, is extremely troubling. Even if this were legal and ethical, incentivizing compliance in a way that provides competitive advantage to companies complying with any potentially abusive government program . . . would be problematic.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've already answered point 1 -- to me, at least, I don't care whether this has been going on in prior Administrations. I want it stopped. But...I just think it's worth pointing out that if you are going to use the "it's been going on for a long time" argument, then you shouldn't be using the "it could possibly thwart terrorists" argument. The point is, to me, it's a project without a real justification and to use terrorism, or whatever, to attempt to justify it is just lying to the public.
Point2) You gave my answer right in your justification. That part about "some by our own choice" makes a BIG difference to me.
I personally don't like some of the ways that information is stored and used in this country, but at least when it's a corporate entity doing it I feel as if I have a place to complain and get action -- as I did when I found out that my credit report records were wrong and one of the three companies refused to fix the problems and wanted to charge me for updated copies of the reports. I was able to get my Congressional representatives involved and, guess what...there are laws now barring their practices. I'm not the only one that complained, of course, and there were lots of more powerful people than I trying to get the laws fixed.
And those were things where I'd already signed something saying I was okay with the basic uses of the information.
In this case, what appears to be happening is that companies are giving the government information about me without any checks on their authority to have it, their use of it, and without my knowledge or approval. I don't expect privacy in everything, certainly not when I pick up the phone, or use e-mail, or what have you. But I do not expect that the government is just going on fishing expeditions.
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.
To me, though, one clear reason stands above all others. It's none of their darn business who I call or who calls me. If they think it is, they should go get a legal warrant from a judge whom they have convinced to some standard that I pose a risk.
If they can't do that, then they aren't working from a position of justification for having the records, IMO.
And, yes, I don't care if that's what the law says. If the law doesn't say that, then the law is screwed up and needs to be changed.
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.
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, not least because it would -- and I say this based on a decade of experience in Internet discussions -- result in losing the bigger picture in squabbling over the little details.
I'm curious what you consider adequate oversight, though, and would be willing to discuss this with you. I suspect our definitions are very different.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the law doesn't say that, then the law is screwed up and needs to be changed.
THAT should be the starting point, then. Kinda like when everyone complained about the 55 mph speed limit to the cops -- said it was stupid and broke it intentionally out of protest -- but did nothing to make the law itself change. Finally they did, and it has changed.
I understand your argument about voluntary vs. involuntary, I guess -- but for some reason that just doesn't raise the kind of ire in me that it does in you. In fact, I think I just kinda start out (in my head) assuming everything I do is tracked (it is by God anyway) and simple try to live a good clean life to give no reason for suspicion.
To me, if we didn't want the government to know what we were doing, we would pretty much have to drop totally out of society altogether (no driving, no bank accounts, etc. etc.) So I just accept it as fact and keep living. It just doesn't bother me at all.
Call me naive' or over-trusting -- but nothing has happened in my life to make me think things will be used by "evil powers" against me. I prefer that truth usually prevails in the end. Whether or not something like bad will happen in the future to make me lose trust -- that would be a different situation.
posted
I would be pretty uncomfortable ever even partially equating God's oversight and government's. I know that's not what you meant there, but, to be honest, I can't see government as a benevolent influence in anything like the way I see God.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of populations in these united states alone who have had abusive government powers leveled against them. To name a small sample: Indian tribes, people of Japanese ethnicity, Mormons, black people, anti-war protesters, communists, socialists, women seeking suffrage, et cetera.
While there are the obvious large scale examples for each of these groups, it is particularly important to note that surrounding the large events were patterns of oppression perpetrated by, among others, government officials exercising otherwise legal powers.
The more government powers are carefully restricted to prevent abuses, the fewer such abuses can occur. It is nice to imagine that we have passed into an age where such things don't occur, but I don't see any good reason to believe that. That you don't think such a thing might happen to you is nice, and not terribly surprising as no group you belong to has been particularly targeted for a little while, but we've averaged an awful oppression about once a decade or more for the last century. Don't let your own sense of safety compromise the legitimate doubts less fortunate groups have in a justice at the mercy of the powerful.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time forgetting J. Edgar Hoover, Senator Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and a few others who really stand out as abusers of the power vested in them.
As much as I admire the law enforcement people I have worked with over the past few decades, I've also known my share of dishonest people in that field, and run afoul of a couple in my time, personally.
The temptation to use investigative authority to intimidate people who are a thorn in the side of the powerful is, frankly, often too great for the petty-minded folks who rise to positions of power in some organizations.
I am becoming very worried about the NSA. If their modus operandi includes pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" comply with things they know they can't get by legal means, then, yes, that worries me. I don't know the people at NSA, but I know that attitude -- get it done and damn the consequences.
It is now coming home to roost for this Administration, IMO. I think it probably existed in other Administrations too. I care about that too. I care about this more because it's happening now, and we might be able to do something about it.
And...failing to do something about it now means we live with it for a few more years, perhaps sliding into getting used to even greater abuses. Until it's either impossible to roll back their power, or the only way to do so is through violently wresting control of the government back away from the thugs.
I don't think we're there yet.
I'd like to see us avoid that.
One way to do that is, frankly, for the government agents to stay well within the law.
They cannot both do that and live in a "can-do, get it done at all costs" ethos.
I know that for some of these folks, they may think this is their time to shine. But, to me, they are just tarnishing their reputations and giving the nation a black eye in the process. To me, they have been led astray by an Administration that sees itself in that same "full-speed-ahead" attitude that brooks no dissent and punishes deliberation as inaction or, worse, rebellion.
It is a sickness. One born of fear. And one born of fear-mongering too.
The idea that ANYTHING we can do to thwart terrorism we MUST do is, to me, a symptom of that fear. It is not rational to spend our country into monstrous debt to achieve uncertain aims. It is not rational to bluster and go to war in vastly uncertain conditions. It is not rational to comb through billions of records, from millions of people to identify hundreds of thousands of innocent "suspects."
I get that we want to go get 'em. But lately I'm more reminded of the troops shooting randomly in the dark than of any kind of targetted effort at hitting the enemy. How EXACTLY are our current actions punishing the people who perpetrated 9/11. Or making it less likely that more of them get through in the future?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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,
Then please simply stop trying to take me to task for not having the discussion you would prefer. That's all I ask.
quote:I'm curious what you consider adequate oversight, though
I have no doubt you would consider any discussion I would have on what constitutes adequate oversight to be equally stultifyingly dull, because such a discussion would undoubtedly involve fine distinctions of separation of powers, efficiency, exigency procedures, and structural discussions on the correct balance of political and judicial checks.
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
By that reasoning we can't ask hypotheticals about ANY anti-terrorist techniques. I have clearly stated that even if my hypothetical were answered such that it IS worth the civil liberties intrusions, the policy as implemented might not be so worth it.
If you don't want to answer the hypothetical, then don't. But it is absolutely valid to attempt to identify the outer bounds of permissibility.
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.
At least part of that was because of civil liberties concerns with mixing "intelligence" with law enforcement.
Which demonstrates that the decisions we make to protect civil liberties have real effects beyond those liberties. And we cannot, ever, simply choose the side with greater freedom every time. We must weigh the costs and the benefits.
I've mentioned it before: our fourth amendment jurisprudence deliberately excludes probative evidence from criminal trials. The exclusionary rule concerning unreasonable searches and siezures is one of the few constitutional doctrines that intentionally makes trials less accurate at determining guilt or innocence. Think about that for a second: we voluntarily prevent our society from deterring crimes because we disapprove of the way in which the evidence was collected. There have undoubtedly been rapes and murders that would not have happened had evidence not been excluded.
The choices we make with respect to privacy matter in a life or death way. And the privacy can never be the only issue examined - the lives are important, too.
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.
This analysis doesn't hold up. As you said, the police trooper had contact with the terrorist and didn't arrest him because of failure to disseminate information at upper levels. This systemic problem must be addressed before adding additional patrol units could do anything.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, but the systemic problem IS solved. As I said, the Patriot Act (among many provisions) addressed it. There are much much lower barriers to sharing information.
Of course, you have to have people out there to access the information.
And, you can't achieve THAT while at the same time cutting their budgets so that there are fewer of them.
Also, what many folks do not realize is that the national databases that would've worked quite well in that instance (and others) are already in place. NCIC, NLETS, and others already have the access to national data that would make enforcement work better even before the Patriot Act. The problem isn't SYSTEMS -- it's states and law enforcement agencies being able to and willing to put the data in.
In some cases, the FBI and CIA simply chose not to share their concerns about specific individuals. It wasn't the barriers you talked about -- it was turf.
Not in all cases -- and the Patriot Act did address the barriers that still existed that barred law enforcement agencies from sharing data. (Except perhaps in cases of records sealed by the courts).
But still, we have problems. The real reason is that agencies aren't being diligent about putting the data out there. And THAT's usually blamed on a lack of staff.
It is an investment issue. And it does hold water.
More importantly to me, we kill 40,000 people a year on our roadways. Enforcement DOES put a dent in that. If you want a way to be SURE to save 3000 lives a year (not just in one tragic event, but each year, every year), I think the data are pretty clear on where we should spend our money.
Seems to me, though, that investing there would also make us more secure in a way that we also know works -- increased law enforcement resources.
It's not high tech. And it takes time, and not a lot of people are going to want to pay the freight for it, but it works and we know it.
And look at what we advise other countries to do -- increase law enforcement.
But here in the US -- NO! We spend our tax dollars on large grants (oops, I mean contracts) to beltway consulting firms who waste time and money, produce systems that fail to work FOR YEARS, and we trample on liberties to get it all in place.
It doesn't make sense to me.
If I were in a predictive kind of mood, I would say that my cynical streak is telling me that the next great revelation will be how the system developed for NSA was done under contract to some buddy of Dick Cheney's as a sole source thing.
But I'm NOT going there. I'm just going to see how this all plays out in the press. To me, it's a public relations nightmare to the three major phone companies. Less so to the Administration. And I think it'll probably die an ignominious death in the not-too-distant future because the phone companies will fear to lose business over it. (yes, despite the poll you cited)
posted
My wife, up until four days before 9/11, worked for AT&T wireless. Her job was in working a database that was meant to do pretty much exactly what the government is trying to do with this new effort. The problem was that the sheer volume of information was just nearly impossible to work with.
They were working from a marketing standpoint (who calls whom how many times, what times of the day, what areas are most called, etc...) to help their sales teams push calling plans. No matter how many people they put on the project, or what software they used, the sheer volume of data was just too cumbersome. And that was only working with AT&T Wireless' records, they were still one of the smaller players in the wireless business. Teradata and numerous other data warehousing and mining systems just couldn't extract all of the information they could use.
Now, it's five years later, they are working towards getting the info from all telephone companies and more and more calls are made today than before. Beyond the legalities, I have to question the feasibility of this, much less the cost versus rewards outcome of such and endeavor.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the volume of data is way beyond what could be easily managed. I suspect there are ways to condense if you have A specific goal in mind -- like linking backwards from known "bad guy" phone numbers.
But yes, it still seems barely feasible and quite costly.
I also wonder if the government paid for the data. If they did, I want a rebate on my phone bill.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Here's the problem: 3,000 lives is a drop in the bucket compared to what we're giving up if we just roll over and let the government surveil us. We're talking about a country founded on a revolution that was stirred up over controversies about taxes on stamps and tea -- and somehow we've fallen so far that we're considering letting the executive branch monitor the communications of its own citizens, with the only guarantee of privacy coming from that same executive branch? There's a line in the sand here that's easily worth drawing -- and, honestly, I fully believe that it's easily worth 3,000 lives.
But, like I said earlier, I also wouldn't make seat belts or car seats mandatory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're talking about a country founded on a revolution that was stirred up over controversies about taxes on stamps and tea
A controversy not related to the idea of taxes per se, but to the idea of taxes without representation. There's a difference between decisions made by a king and parliment we can't vote for and decisions made by elected officials.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(Honest question. 
