Former NSA Whistleblower Bill Binney Warns UK Lawmakers Mass Surveillance Will 'Cost Lives In Britain'
from the analysis-paralysis dept
Shortly after the first Snowden documents were leaked, Techdirt wrote about former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney providing some context and history to the newly-revealed information. The central point he made was that trying to collect "haystacks" of data -- mass surveillance -- doesn't work, because intelligence agencies have insufficient resources to search through vast digital stores for the "needles" hidden there. It's a theme Techdirt has returned to a number of times, as has Binney. This week, he was trying to convince a committee of MPs and peers who are scrutinizing the UK's Snooper's Charter Bill that too much data leads to "analysis paralysis," and that targeted surveillance was the way to go. The Guardian reported:
William Binney, a former technical director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), told parliamentarians that the plans for bulk collection of communications data tracking everyone’s internet and phone use are "99% useless" because they would swamp intelligence analysts with too much data.
He said:
This approach costs lives, and has cost lives in Britain because it inundates analysts with too much data. It is 99% useless. Who wants to know everyone who has ever [been] at Google or the BBC? We have known for decades that that swamps analysts.
He claimed that the attacks carried out on September 11 could have been thwarted if the NSA had adopted the more targeted approach he and his colleagues were advocating:
Sixteen months before the attacks on America, our organisation (Sigint Automation Research Center -- Sarc) was running a new method of finding terrorist networks that worked on focusing on 'smart collection'. Their plan was rejected in favour of a much more expensive plan to collect all communications from everyone.
Binney pointed out that in addition to improving the operational efficiency of intelligence agencies, a targeted approach brought with it other important advantages:
The US large-scale surveillance plan failed. It had to be abandoned in 2005. Checks afterwards showed that communications from the terrorists had been collected, but not looked at in time.It reduces the privacy burden affecting the large number of innocent and suspicion-free persons whose communications are accessible to our systems.
And as a bonus:
Legally protected groups such as MPs, lawyers and journalists could have their communications screened out and excluded from bulk collection and analysis unless a designated and targeted authorisation is in place.
Alongside the facts about the failure of mass surveillance laid before them by Binney and other expert witnesses giving evidence to the committee, let's hope the MPs and peers also took on board that point about the personal advantages of targeted surveillance for them as a group.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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
Filed Under: bill binney, haystacks, investigatory powers bill, ipbill, mass surveillance, needles, surveillance, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
have you ever?
It's tough isn't it?
How much harder to search through 50 million such historys over 2 years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for government: let's just say a few departments need to die; or at least be shrunk down back to earth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: have you ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: have you ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not for Terrorism
Law Enforcement is only ever about one thing... catching people AFTER THE FACT! Deterrence is actually not a big priority for anyone just the catching part. The side effect of this nifty load of shit is now they have a data base they can comb through to fuck you with when they decide you need to "processed" as a dissident!
It is supper easy to get the sheeple ignore government rape of its citizenry if they say someones search history grazed a porn site, terrorist site, or some other site of ill public repute!
Anyone trusting a damn thing the government says will only get a hearty dose of LOST LIBERTY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
paralysis does not require analysis
20 NSA SPIES ON CONGRESS
30 CONGRESS INVESTIGATES
> breakpoint. Press C to Continue
40 NSA INTERFERES WITH INVESTIGATION
50 GOTO 30
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: have you ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Common sense
Of course, maybe it's because the people at the top have people beneath them sifting through the mountains of data and filtering it for them, so they don't understand how difficult it is.
Either you end up with too much data for the number of people, or you have a massive number of people dealing with the data, potentially to the point where quality drops, or the expense is just unsustainably high.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As this is phrased, it implies that bulk collection is okay as long as certain, few "protected" professions are exempt from bulk monitoring.
As someone that isn't an MP, a lawyer, or a journalist, this feels unfair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: have you ever?
It's tough isn't it?"
No not really. It's very easy. Cick History and type in a keyword. Job done. If it takes you any longer than 15 seconds you are doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: paralysis does not require analysis
70 REMIND AMERICANS THAT THEY JUST LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Common sense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: have you ever?
IFF that keyword is embedded in the URL or page title, yes. If that keyword is instead embedded within the page itself, you're better off $googling (I prefer Ixquick), and then good luck finding that page you vaguely remember reading at one time long ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The point of surveillance
No, mass surveillance here is really about just one thing: getting the taxpayer to hand over money by the fuckload for a fundamentally useless task.
From the point of view of the intelligence community, it's about getting the cash to build gigantic new datacentres, staffed with tens of thousands of people. They might not be doing anything useful, but the responsibility of keeping everyone organised does ensure that the bosses of GCHQ get to enjoy salaries an order of magnitude higher than otherwise.
From the point of view of industry, it's about getting paid billions of pounds in taxpayers money for the same new datacentres. Unlike the intel community, however, they're unlikely to be satisfied with mere maintenance: as lucrative as those contracts may be, there's undoubtedly always far more money to be had from building new datacentres, stuffed to the gills with the finest brand-new computers available to humanity.
From the point of view of anyone senior in Her Majesty's Government, it's about getting enormous payoffs from one of the companies above. Whether it's an extra-large brown envelope stuffed with cash, or a non-executive directorship at the company, the rewards far exceed anything they can earn legitimately, particularly given how few of them have any discernible professional skills beyond public lying.
As a special bonus, since by definition there will always be more information in existence than they have access to, any failures to prevent torrorism can always be attributed to a lack of new powers and responsibilities and the new datacentres that go with them. No-one need ever apologise for anything, because it's forever and always going to be a previous government's fault, for not building enough new datacentres when they had the chance.
I think that basically sums it all up. There may be a few people in the halls of power who actually care about doing a good job or being in control, but if so, they're Britain's best-kept secret. People who work for parliament only care about money - and they invariably fill their departments with friends and family who think the same way. There's no reason to think GCHQ, MI6, etc, are staffed by anyone more concerned with the public good than their employers.
This is Britain, PLC. Where greed and total self-interest are the only things that matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Common sense
For most of them the only data they're particularly interested in is 'How much did that one company give me last election, and what did they want me to do for them in return?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point of surveillance
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/hs2-the-human-cost-of-britains-most-expensive- rail-project
£57 billion for a mere 119 miles of track must have George Stephenson spinning in his grave. No-one in the UK wants this but the Gov. and the private sector. This is very telling, but it'll likely go ahead anyway, tearing through the heart of England's finest greensward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]