Surveillance Works: How Do You Feel About It Now?

[BobG]

You realize how a computerized surveillance program looking for patterns works, right?

For example, spam filters (at home or at work) read your E-mail looking for patterns to identify the E-mail as spam or legitimate E-mail. It's private since no human ever looks at it (although I guess the program could flag out communications for a human to take a closer look at).

Of course, in the case of spam filters, the computer's easy to beat, hence the growing number of literary spam messages that tend to clutter one's inbox. This particular one was kind of long winded:

It was such a wonderful thing, at first, to have her coming
Not exactly so, sir. But I should think he might be here fawning way, and pretended not to have heard of my arrival from Mr.
At first Miss Mills thought it was a quarrel, and that we were way or other, all my life - I see how natural it is that she should
persevered, even for months. Finding at last, however, that, with a weak, vain girl might be. I don't defend myself, but I know
much of for an hour, and then tossed back to her original place. - the very smell of which is cheap, in my opinion, at the money -
playing the harp all night, was trying in vain to cover it with an There was a dark gloom in my solitary chamber, when I at length
when all these objections of mine were set forth in detail, and hour, that closed page in the book of life, and unsettle, even for
surprised, until I found out about the tea-spoons, and also about glad to compound for an affectionate hug, elicited by this revival
himself; so let him do. All that she, Mrs. Crupp, stipulated for, Unless he brings me back a lady, said Mr. Peggotty, tracing out
It was ten oclock when I went out. Many of the shops were shut, from the Ferry I have mentioned before; and thus the day wore away,
The Doctor, ever pleased with what was likely to please his young lasting friendship, and spoke to us, generally, as became a Voice

All of that before ever getting to the spam. :rofl: Guaranteed to fool any computer into believing the E-Mail is a literary masterpiece rather than mindless spam. In fact, all spammers need is a program to randomly cut and paste from the Guttenberg Project's library of literary works. (And most spam usually place the literary filler at the bottom of the spam, where it won't interfere with the message the spammers want to get across.)

Edit: Of course, there's a downside to the spammers' activities - they slow down access for legitimate users of the Guttenberg Project's website. And there's ways for the Guttenberg Project to fight back: http://www.gutenberg.org/robot/

I'm sure the NSA's program is more sophisticated, but it's easy to understand why they wouldn't be happy about publicizing what they're doing. I can also understand why the administration might feel that a computerized surveillance program, where no human actually sees the communications, would be legal. There still needs to be independent oversight of the program, though.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm sure the NSA's program is more sophisticated, but it's easy to understand why they wouldn't be happy about publicizing what they're doing. I can also understand why the administration might feel that a computerized surveillance program, where no human actually sees the communications, would be legal. There still needs to be independent oversight of the program, though.

Except for the warrant less, FISA avoiding, wiretapping is not a computerized surveillance program.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Except for the warrant less, FISA avoiding, wiretapping is not a computerized surveillance program.

Actually I've heard that phone messages are ran through computers first by picking out key words, so it is partially, the program distinguishes wheat from general chaff. This apparently goes on in many intelligence communities, with words like bomb, drugs, guns etc being singled out for further examination, saving survielance teams time and effort. Trouble is most people who are involved in such pursuits tend to use code words for everything, so I'm not sure it's that effective, although I suspect it may work better than targetting dissidents actively in isolation. If people hear about it though they may well spend time trying to flag themselves for a laugh, which would defeat the object of the excercise.

 

[Skyhunter]

Actually I've heard that phone messages are ran through computers first by picking out key words, so it is partially, the program distinguishes wheat from general chaff.

It was under the impression that the administration claimed the NSA wiretapping was only directed at calls originating out side the US. Later it was found that this was not true.

Although because of the sensitive nature of the program and it's importance to national security, exactly what they are doing is still unclear.

 

[edward]

You realize how a computerized surveillance program looking for patterns works, right?

Yes, but we don't really know what they are looking for. And they are apparently looking at a lot more that they originally claimed. We can only "trust them" and the administration has a poor track record with being truthful.

I'm sure the NSA's program is more sophisticated, but it's easy to understand why they wouldn't be happy about publicizing what they're doing. I can also understand why the administration might feel that a computerized surveillance program, where no human actually sees the communications, would be legal. There still needs to be independent oversight of the program, though.

Without oversight the administration could be doing most anything imaginable. Why should they, despite FISA laws, be allowed to insist that their's should be the only judgement on what is best for America?
I have a big problem with this total secretive "trust us" approach.

As far as terrorism goes I don't think that there is any evidence that supports that a high tech approach will prevent low tech attacks. Also with the tremendous amount of data that NSA is gathering it is obvious that they must outsource a large amount of data mining. This leaves another door open for possible misuse of information.

Personally I don't care, as others here have stated, if they want to chenk on my own or my grandmothers bank account and e-mail. I just want to be sure this contested system works, and that it is carried out in a lawful manner.

 

[SOS2008]

As has been pointed out by others, some surveillance is effective, such as cameras in a store to prevent shoplifting. But in regard to programs such as the warrant-less NSA wiretaps, we have yet to see a significant result from it. Regardless of effectiveness, it IS illegal, and Bush has a track record of disdain for the Rule of Law.

It is already known that BushCo "fixed the intelligence" to support the illegal invasion of Iraq. Per Skyhunter's post providing Taylor's recent ruling, the NSA warrant-less wiretaps are unconstitutional, period. This will end up in the Supreme Court, and despite Bush's attempts to stack the court, the unconstitutional nature of this program will be confirmed (let's not forget that conservatives lean toward the libertarian philosophy of limited government). In the meantime, Bush also is being sued by the Republican-dominated congress for his misuse of signing statements, thereby disregarding laws they've passed.

We will go to war to defend democracy, liberty, and freedom. Yet many Americans are willing to "just trust" the government, and in particular this president, and so easily give up constitutional rights (and once lost, good luck getting these back). It is this mentality that scares the hell out of me far more than Islamic terrorists (who supposedly hate us because of our freedoms). Perhaps that is the strategy. If we lose our freedoms, they will have nothing to hate?