To The NSA Your Book Club Looks Like A Terrorist Group
from the interceptr-2.0-should-stay-in-beta dept
Privacy issues aside, it's worth wondering what the NSA plans to do with the mountains of call records it has allegedly been collecting. In the past we've expressed serious doubts on the efficacy of data mining and social network analysis as techniques for combating terrorism. One of the problems with social network analysis, in particular, is that terrorist networks resemble other benign networks, like a book club, or a group of parents who carpool their kids to school. Looking only at calling patterns, it'd be impossible to determine whether a group is coordinating an attack, or simply a way to get make sure everyone got news that the book club had changed venues that night. The NSA will soon learn the lesson that the Tampa police learned from their experiment in facial recognition, that the number of false positives could render the system useless. At the moment, the debate over NSA domestic spying seems to be between civil libertarians and privacy advocates on one side, and security hawks on the other. But it's hard to see why those that defend the system can support what's likely to be a fruitless waste of security resources.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lack of data is a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Known Terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Known Terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Known Terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Known Terrorist
Actually, they're not. The judges that are being asked for "warrants", at least in most national security and terrorism cases, are FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) judges operating under FISA. FISC is a secret court with all records sealed. I'd be worried about information leaking through a lot of other channels before I'd be worried about it leaking through FISC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Known Terrorist
Noone can say with 100% certainty that data mining will never prevent an attack. Heck maybe it only prevents 1 in 1000, but if I gave you a scenario where every member of your family dies in that 1 attack, and that that attack could have been prevented with all this "waste of time" as some of you call it, then would you still be against it?
If you are, then go home to your family and tell them that to their faces. Tell them that even if these efforts could stop only 1 attack in 10,000 and thus save their lives, you sitll wouldnt support these efforts because its a "waste of time".
I dont mean to be argumentative, but lets talk with some reason and compassion. Afterall, we are supposed to be the civilized ones right?
-chaalz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Known Terrorist
no one can say with a 100% certainty that anything will ever (or never) happen. It's the whole white swan/black swan idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Known Terrorist
We must not give up our civil liberties for so called "security" The bush administration and republicans only use it for political purposes, and to their credit it has gotten them reelected.
If Terror was a big deal we would have focused on afghanistan and got Bin laden! Instead of doin an aboutface and attacking Iraq.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wating Tax Dollars or Buying Votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comparisons can be dangerous
But to bash an agency and compare them to city police is absurd.
And I'm sure when research finds a book club, processing models will be tweaked.
Why is everyone a pessimist about this. I have nothing to hide - Look at all of my calls if it will help!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comparisons can be dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comparisons can be dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comparisons can be dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regardless of the data
The idea of massive databases of private records obtained without reason or any probable cause is simply un-American and illegal in the first place. Whether or not it is for the "Greater Good" is not and should not be up to politicians.
The details of the issue are so overshadowed by the basic problem that the analyitical aspecects of how the information is processed are irrelevant.
A simple analogy:
Police enter my home and find illegal possessions inside while I'm away at work, and don't aquire a warrant. Do I go to jail? No, beccause if that actually worked in real life the government would be 'stopping by' each and every one of our homes, including yours.
It is a logical fallacy to fall for the line, "If you have nothing to hide, then why can't we take a look?"
--Prof HiB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Algorithms
Because you are wrong, you should eat your own dogfood:
I suggest that we let the NSA have all the phone records it wants, because it actually does know what and how its doing, and I suggest that we ban you from posting extrapolative comments without being informed about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, Joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ughmm?
Big difference there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA datamining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is the best point of the whole thread. Being free comes with inherent risk, and discussing everything from the standpoint of ultimate safety is a nonstarter. Totalitarian regimes are simply safer (as long as you don't constitute a threat to the state), but safety isn't the goal of democracy, freedom is. To live in a free society is to accept that our courts will let people who are probable murderers go free; that we will hear people say things that we find irrational, treasonous, traitorous, or blasphemous; and that we will occasionally be the victims of some crime that could have been prevented by pervasive monitoring of every individual. That's part of the the price for that society. People always remember Patrick Henry's line about "Give me liberty or give me death..." but the a sentence before that he asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery?"
I wonder how many people in this country, hell the world, would say yes to that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I dont necesarrily see how someone looking at my phone records means I'm not free. Someone please explain.
And to compare our so called "lack of freedom" today with the actual "lack of freedom" of people during the times of our founding fathers is quite disrecpectful. Have you even heard of that thing...whats it called...oh yeah...slavery. We all have it real good my friend. Dont forget that.
Its hard to get an honest debate going, when there is such a difference of philosophy on things like freedom and power. But on the bright side, its better than living in a country of indifference.
-chaalz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slavery
2) Slaves weren't citizens, therefore their lack of rights is not central to this debate, in fact, it is extraneous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Police work can be very difficult and require a lot of intelligence. Most criminals try to get away. Given their druthers, it is the natural response of bureaucracies to give up on investigating crimes or following up on evidence and just concentrate on investigating innocent people instead. Innocent people do a lot of stupid things, like cooperating and giving up their civil rights. Once you get inside their car or their house or their phone records its easy to find 'evidence' for various 'crimes'. Check out the various profiles for drug dealers they use at airports these days. Golly, almost everyone is a suspect. Look what it took for all those people to end up at Guantanamo. Look very closely at the case of each person who has been convicted in a terrorism-related case in the last five years.
Here is what you'll find in each case: An awful lot of 'criminals', but almost no crime. Just a lot of 'suspicious activity'. Allowing the government more leeway in investigating innocent people is nothing less than an invitation to disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have never guessed a decade ago that so-called "republicans" would be the political group that is trying to shred the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He states:
The NSA isn't monitoring phone calls and otherwise conducting illegal "surveillance." No one has said that the NSA is listening in on calls, just looking at the patterns.
The Supreme Court ruled in Smith vs. Maryland that law enforcement agencies don't need a warrant to collect data to mine, the 4th amendment right to privacy allows this.
He goes on to say some other things, but the fact is, the only people that are talking about this are either uninformed, have a political axe to grind or a member of the media who likes to get headlines. Next week, they will start writing about Bird Flu, Anthrax or the latest emergency of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"He'd like to give the FBI more tools so there will be no more bombing like at the Olympics," White House spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn said Monday.
Well that worked like gangbusters.
People always forget that even if you think you can trust the guy in office, sooner or later the other guy gets a turn, and the question is, do you trust him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HUH?
Actually, regardless of the ethics of the situation, all the information we have on 9/11 says we DID have the information to prevent it, but no one had the mind to do it.
So, yes, in fact, it DID work like gangbusters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, I disagree with the assertion that what the NSA has done so far is illegal. There are some pretty sharp legal minds who disagree on this as well so blanket assertions that it's illegal are unhelpful to say the least.
I don't think what the NSA is doing to this point is data mining though, as someone else said, we really don't know what the NSA is doing. (I would add that we should NOT know. Secrecy is essential if the NSA is to be able to function at all.) But my understanding is that the NSA wants to see who else has called ar been called by known terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I suspect a warrant is useless when the known phone number is in a foreign country. Therefore, sifting through the data is the only way to see who else is involved.
I can't help but recall a little program that was running under the Clinton administration called echelon that actually listened to all phone, radio, email and satellite traffic looking for key words. I don't remember anything like the outcry we hear over call logs today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA
"I don't care, I don't have anything to hide. Let the NSA take a look at my phone calls. Doesn't matter to me."
Not only is it a logical fallicy to suggest that because you don't care what they do, it is okay to do it, but if everyone was giving their permission, there wouldnt be a problem. They aren't asking!
I don't care if the NSA looks at my phone records because I am getting the fuck out of this country, and moving to one that still has shit like freedom, justice, and civil liberties and not just a bunch of fascist militaristic propaganda and espionage.
And I welcome your comments of "Good, we don't want your hippy liberal gay marriage abortion supporting ass here anyway." Because I will be laughing from Canada while the US implodes, as the value of the dollar crashes, the deficit explodes, oligarchies control legislature and the government establishes the foundations of a military state.
Which one of those things isn't happening right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Echelon
What seats were you in, cause where I was sitting we called that an outcry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Seems pretty clear. No searches of me, my property, or my records without a judicial review that determines that probable cause exists.
As for the rationale that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another, the answer is, with respect, fuck the Supreme Court. They've been ruling clearly enunciated Constitutional rights in and out of existence for years, and bending it to the political will of their patrons. When the Supreme Court shows the reading comprehension required to grasp the phrase "Shall not be abridged" then I'll consider what they say as having some weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And to compare our so called "lack of freedom" today with the actual "lack of freedom" of people during the times of our founding fathers is quite disrecpectful. None of the people commonly referred to as Founding Fathers was a slave, nor did their calls for freedom include slaves. Most of the noble speeches and eloquent worlds on which our country is based come from the land owning educated gentry class, who's idea of freedom largely concerned tax rates and commerce barriers; and the lack of accountability and redress to the government. Those men were arguably more free than the average citizen today; not nearly as burdened with pretty laws, local ordinances, , fines for spitting, littering, or loitering, the Patriot Act, the DCMA, or Induce. Keep in mind that one of the tripwire acts of the rebellion was the state having the temerity to try and confiscate privately owned artillery. Try rolling a working howitzer out in your front yard to see how free you are right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]