News Surveillance Works: How Do You Feel About It Now?

[Evo]

After the news yesterday of British, Pakistani and US surveillance thwarting a terrorist plot that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How do you feel about surveillance now?

Here is a good op-ed piece that basically recaps what happened and also reminds us of the thwarted attacks in Toronto two months ago thanks to surveillance.

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

Do you think the government should not have used surveillance and the death of thousands of innocents is acceptable because we have a right to our privacy and a few thousands deaths now and then is just the price we have to pay?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060810-084233-1883r.htm

 

[Ronnin]

I don't think it is so much what the government is doing with the intel now but what they may do in the future. Who will be in charge and will their motives be sinister in nature. This surveillance has also been used to uncover money flows that were once hidden. I doubt the IRS wouldn't use this kind of information to their advantage if they needed to.

 

[NateTG]

According to the article, US government surveilance restrictions and oversight should be decreased because British intelligence services were able to foil a terrorist plot.

What a pile of tripe.

This may or may not be the result of a "terrorism surveillance program" so controversial of late, but it surely demonstrates the need.

Um, how does foiling the plot (i.e. success) indicate that more powers or resources are necessary? I'd think that would be an indication that the resources were (at least in this case) clearly sufficient.

Moreover, the article is clearly conflating a lack of oversight with the existence of an effective surveilance program, when, realistically speaking, the opposite is more likely to be true.

Why add a couple of yellow ribbons, US flags, the passage "will somebody think of the children", and play "god bless america" in the background?

P.S.
Barring some interesting chemistry, it's unlikely that the passengers would be incinerated by a bomb the size of a sports drink bottle. It's much more likely that they'd be killed by the impact with the water, or drowned afterwards.

 

[Evo]

Well the IRS has always has an incredible amount of information on us.

There is always the chance that someone could use information the wrong way, or obtain it in questionable ways. I don't feel that I am at any personal risk from any information the government has on me. I don't live in fear of it. I think they have more important things to track. My bank records and finances have never been secret.

 

[Evo]

According to the article, US government surveilance restrictions and oversight should be decreased because British intelligence services were able to foil a terrorist plot.

That wasn't in the article I posted. My article said it was a joint effort of British, Pakistani and US. Please post a link to the article you are talking about.

Um, how does foiling the plot (i.e. success) indicate that more powers or resources are necessary? I'd think that would be an indication that the resources were (at least in this case) clearly sufficient.

Again, that wasn't in the article I posted, it suggests that what happened is a good reason to continue the current programs. Please post a link to the article you are referring to.

Moreover, the article is clearly conflating a lack of oversight with the existence of an effective surveilance program, when, realistically speaking, the opposite is more likely to be true.

What article are you reading? Did you even read the article I posted? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[russ_watters]

After the news yesterday of British, Pakistani and US surveillance thwarting a terrorist plot that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How do you feel about surveillance now?

Here is a good op-ed piece that basically recaps what happened and also reminds us of the thwarted attacks in Toronto two months ago thanks to surveillance.

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

Do you think the government should not have used surveillance and the death of thousands of innocents is acceptable because we have a right to our privacy and a few thousands deaths now and then is just the price we have to pay?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060810-084233-1883r.htm

In short, I agree with everything you said.

I flat-out don't understand people's desire for privacy. If it helps the FBI catch a criminal, they can have at my phone lines, bank records, whatever. As long as the use of the information is legit, there is no harm in the gathering of it.

 

[russ_watters]

Barring some interesting chemistry, it's unlikely that the passengers would be incinerated by a bomb the size of a sports drink bottle. It's much more likely that they'd be killed by the impact with the water, or drowned afterwards.

I'm not sure what your point is here...

 

[Yonoz]

In short, I agree with everything you said.

I flat-out don't understand people's desire for privacy. If it helps the FBI catch a criminal, they can have at my phone lines, bank records, whatever. As long as the use of the information is legit, there is no harm in the gathering of it.

It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers" . When countries adhere to this model the tax agency can't use the information gathered by agencies dealing with terrorism.

 

[Bystander]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A108C-BE4B-14DB-BE4B83414B7F0000&ref=rss

Odds are, the biggest hazard is that of an epidemic of projectile vomiting provoked by the stench of burnt morons.

This may be less a "success" than it's touted to be --- more in the category of "the shoe bomber" slapstick than a serious threat.

 

[russ_watters]

It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers" . When countries adhere to this model the tax agency can't use the information gathered by agencies dealing with terrorism.

I don't understand what you mean. You're already required by law to provide the IRS whatever info it needs to assess your compliance with tax law.

 

[Evo]

It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers" . When countries adhere to this model the tax agency can't use the information gathered by agencies dealing with terrorism.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying that the IRS can't use information gathered by the surveilance of terrorists? That's not what we're dicussing.

Law enforcement agencies can get financial records of suspects, this appears to be one of the methods used in yesterdays arrest, also the bank accounts of all the suspects have been frozen.

Do you know that one of America's most notorious criminals, Al Capone was sentenced to prison, not for any of his crimes, but for tax evasion. But let's stay on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A108C-BE4B-14DB-BE4B83414B7F0000&ref=rss

Odds are, the biggest hazard is that of an epidemic of projectile vomiting provoked by the stench of burnt morons.

This may be less a "success" than it's touted to be --- more in the category of "the shoe bomber" slapstick than a serious threat.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Reid was a joke because he was caught, right? This operation appears to have had more significant planning and I would think it would have had better odds of success.

 

[Ronnin]

Where do we draw the line though? For instance, would you be comfortable with surveillance inside your home. Do you think they should have the right to audit any aspect of your life as long as it is done within the confines of due process? I know if there is a criminal investigation the government has tremendous power to delve into my life but it is the compilation and archival of this information that worries me. Who is entitled to look at it? What assurances does the government give that that this information will not get out? Several banks and even the VA have had information compromised because of simple theft of laptops.

 

[Bystander]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Reid was a joke because he was caught, right? This operation appears to have had more significant planning and I would think it would have had better odds of success.

You've never had the "privilege" of TA-ing chem labs when there were a few Moslems in the class --- one hand on the chain to the safety shower at all times --- other on the first aid kit. "Dangerous?" Yes. A "threat?" No. Reid was "a joke" because Reid was a joke. Buncha religious nuts with copies of "the anarchists' cookbook?" Slapstick. Let 'em run loose on airliners making the other passengers ill as they turn themselves into "Phantoms of the Opera?" No. Was it a "sophisticated" plot? No. Did it take Sherlock Holmes to expose it? No. Could the "Keystone Kops" have spotted the idiots? Eehhh --- mebbe, mebbe not. Was it "good" police work, the kind of thing people are paid to do? Yeah. Is it outside the bounds of "habeas corpus?" Depends on how good their lawyers are. Should they be strung up? Yup. Will they be? Nope.

 

[kyleb]

Where do we draw the line though?

Many people believe the government should choose where to draw that line, the desire to feel safe often outweighs the motivation to ponder such details which can easily lead to feeling less safe.

 

[daveb]

I have no problems with the concept of surveillance, but I do have problems with surveillance by one branch without proper oversight by either of the other two (or both in some cases). It has been shown in our own history time and again that one branch, unchecked and in the hands of a few paranoid few, can create an atmosphere of fear to rival the fear that can be created by terrorists.

 

[3trQN]

P.S.
Barring some interesting chemistry, it's unlikely that the passengers would be incinerated by a bomb the size of a sports drink bottle. It's much more likely that they'd be killed by the impact with the water, or drowned afterwards.

Are you forgetting that they don't need to blow everyone up, only bring down the plane. Now a drinks bottle or 3 is enought to do that for sure, or they wouldn't be bothering with all the extra checks.

Increased surveillance is good provided its done properly and respectfully, and the information is delt with carefully and securley.

 

[pcorbett]

I have no problems with the concept of surveillance, but I do have problems with surveillance by one branch without proper oversight by either of the other two (or both in some cases). It has been shown in our own history time and again that one branch, unchecked and in the hands of a few paranoid few, can create an atmosphere of fear to rival the fear that can be created by terrorists.

When was that time?

 

[daveb]

How about the McCarthy era for one?

 

[BobG]

In short, I agree with everything you said.

I flat-out don't understand people's desire for privacy. If it helps the FBI catch a criminal, they can have at my phone lines, bank records, whatever. As long as the use of the information is legit, there is no harm in the gathering of it.

And as long as none of the data is left on a laptop that is stolen? http://idtheft.about.com/od/2006/p/Veterans.htm

As long as government officials don't decide all of your personal info dating back to 1978 should be public knowledge? http://idtheft.about.com/od/2006/p/Broward_County.htm (Then again, this is the same Broward County of Recount 2000 fame. Perk up, those people's personal info will only be available until sometime in 2007, so if you want to steal their info for identity theft, better hurry!)

As long as your legal media doesn't take 'freedom of the press' too far? http://idtheft.about.com/od/2006/p/Boston_Globe.htm (tacky joke - it was the same kind of mistake any business could have made).

As long as your college's computer isn't hacked? http://idtheft.about.com/od/2006/p/OU_Breach.htm (fifth data breach reported by OU since April 21 of this year - although the real reason is OU taking a closer look since their first data breach).

Then again, why hack when your college could just e-mail out your personal data? http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm (Scroll down to Dec 15, 2005. An employee was supposed to e-mail out Winter class schedules to past students in an attempt to entice them to reattend. Instead, the employee e-mailed out the personal data of individuals enrolled for Winter classes. Suddenly, your private personal info is nothing more than spam to annoy people with! )

Hmm, , you might have a point at that. Is there anyone left whose personal info hasn't already been released to the public, whether that public be law enforcement, tax enforcement, or identity thieves?

Um, how does foiling the plot (i.e. success) indicate that more powers or resources are necessary? I'd think that would be an indication that the resources were (at least in this case) clearly sufficient.

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the laws about surveillance in the UK, but I think they're a little bit less restrictive than the laws in the US. They've compromised their right to privacy to better combat the IRA.

The author was suggesting the US should do likewise in order to better combat terrorism.

 

[NateTG]

[The assertion, US government surveilance restrictions and oversight should be decreased because British intelligence services were able to foil a terrorist plot.] wasn't in the article I posted. My article said it was a joint effort of British, Pakistani and US.

The linked article is an editorial in the Washington Post, which is a paper concerned with US government policy, and the editorial is not about the necessity of Surveilance work per se, but about the necessity of "uncompromised" surveilance programs.

Here are some passages from the article which suggest the view that terrorism surveilance should not be impinged by such niceties as civil liberties, policy discussion, or investigative journalism.

Can we all agree now on the necessity of uncompromised terrorist surveillance programs?

We shudder to think what would have happened in the coming days had the New York Times gotten hold of British or American airline antiterrorism investigations prior to yesterday's arrests.

But even if it isn't the type of program which Democrats and civil-libertarian maximalists so fashionably decry lately, it shows why those programs continue to be so necessary.

Again, [the call for extra surveilance programs] wasn't in the article I posted, it suggests that what happened is a good reason to continue the current programs. Please post a link to the article you are referring to.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060810-084233-1883r.htm

Consider, for example, this passage from the editorial:

Is this a "terrorist surveillance program"? Possibly, possibly not. But even if it isn't the type of program which Democrats and civil-libertarian maximalists so fashionably decry lately, it shows why those programs continue to be so necessary.

The 'those' refers to "the type of program(s) which Democrads and civil-libertarian maximalists so fashionably decry". Thus this article is arguing for surveilance powers or programs beyond those that were used to foil this plot.

 

[Astronuc]

I have no problem with surveillance as long as it is done legally and according to the law. The intelligence, domestic and foreign, are doing their jobs.

What I have a problem with is when someone like the president (or any individual in government) uses government resources, e.g. FBI or NSA, to spy on people, US citizens or others, who are not involved in criminal or suspicious activity. McCarthy was an extreme example, and his un-American activities damaged or destroyed countless innocent people. Then remember Nixon's Whitehouse enemies list - Nixon used the FBI to spy on 'innocent' people who simply openly criticized his policies.

 

[Evo]

The text of quotation in my post and the last sentence of the first paragraph of the referenced article are identical.

You are correct, I was looking at an almost identical sentence in another paragraph, due to the order you were responding to the artice, I thought this was what you were referencing. I didn't realize you were jumping around and had returned to the first paragarah. I will remove my statement.

 

[NateTG]

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the laws about surveillance in the UK, but I think they're a little bit less restrictive than the laws in the US. They've compromised their right to privacy to better combat the IRA.

The author was suggesting the US should do likewise in order to better combat terrorism.

Oh, I'm sorry, I got so confused by the horrific plot and the thousands of immolated men, women, and children. Won't anybody think of the children?

Actually, the editorial's position somewhat different than what you describe:

[Terrorism Surveilance Programs] don't threaten our civil liberties: they save our lives

It seems that the author here is willfully and deliberately denying that there is any cost in terms of civil liberties and privacy.

 

[Evo]

The linked article is an editorial in the Washington Post, which is a paper concerned with US government policy, and the editorial is not about the necessity of Surveilance work per se, but about the necessity of "uncompromised" surveilance programs.

I tend to agree that the success of these surveillance programs are that they are not "compromised". Do you think it's a good thing if some greedy journalist decides to risk lives and national security just so he can get a "scoop". I don't.

Thus this article is arguing for surveilance powers or programs beyond those that were used to foil this plot.

Since no details have yet come out, we cannot say to what level the investigation was counducted. Luckily it did not get leaked, and therefor was not "compromised". So you cannot make the statement you did until you have facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

After the news yesterday of British, Pakistani and US surveillance thwarting a terrorist plot that would have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How do you feel about surveillance now?

Here is a good op-ed piece that basically recaps what happened and also reminds us of the thwarted attacks in Toronto two months ago thanks to surveillance.

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

Do you think the government should not have used surveillance and the death of thousands of innocents is acceptable because we have a right to our privacy and a few thousands deaths now and then is just the price we have to pay?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060810-084233-1883r.htm

Not only is that the wrong question, the answer is obvious. Of course we need surveillance. What has been at stake is the system of checks and balances in which we have proper oversight. Never has anyone credible ever argued that we don't need government spy programs, but many of us object on the most basic principles of a constitutional government to this country being run as if this is Stalinist Russia.

How far can we go; random strip searches on the street?

Also, what tipped off the Brits was a citizen - a Muslim - who was suspicious, so your point is rather moot in either case.

 

[edward]

A paid police informant who calls himself "an observant Muslim" infiltrated a group of men and youths arrested last month and charged with plotting to carry out bomb attacks and kidnappings around southern Ontario, CBC News has learned.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/13/terror--plot.html

They were invaluable just two months ago in Canada, when successful surveillance of Islamist Internet sites led Canadian intelligence to thwart a major terrorist attack in and around Toronto.

From link in OP.

CNN just announced as Ivan mentioned above that this latest plot was discovered when a member of the Muslim community notified authorties.

So much for our $5 billion per year high tech all encompassing, watching your grandmothers bank account and phone records folly.

 

[pcorbett]

Not only is that the wrong question, the answer is obvious. Of course we need surveillance. What has been at stake is the system of checks and balances in which we have proper oversight. Never has anyone credible ever argued that we don't need government spy programs, but many of us object on the most basic principles of a constitutional government to this country being run as if this is Stalinist Russia.

Where's the harm in cutting out dozens of Congressional staffers and a handful of judges while streamlining the process?

 

[Evo]

Also, what tipped off the Brits was a citizen - a Muslim - who was suspicious, so your point is rather moot in either case.

If you're referring to the group they arrested a couple of weeks ago, they gave the investigators more information, so my point stands.

"Five Pakistanis have also been arrested in Pakistan as suspected "facilitators" of the plot, a government official said, in addition to two Britons arrested there about a week ago.

Agents in Pakistan arrested at least seven people, including two British nationals of Pakistani origin who provided information on the terror plot,"

"The raids in Britain on Thursday followed a months-long investigation, but U.S. intelligence officials said authorities moved quickly after learning the plotters hoped to stage a practice run within two days, with the actual attack expected just days after that. "

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=baf60282-8a48-4691-ad54-e5ab4dcaf36f&k=25138

 

[Hurkyl]

What has been at stake is the system of checks and balances in which we have proper oversight.

But that's never what the objections are. As far as I've seen, they usually (always?) look like "Oh my gosh, the government wants to collect information! 1984! Big Brother! Shut it down!". (or Stalinist Russia, as the case may be. )

 

[Astronuc]

Where's the harm in cutting out dozens of Congressional staffers and a handful of judges while streamlining the process?

Nobody here at PF has suggested placing "dozens of Congressional staffers and a handful of judges". What people here expect is that 'proper' oversight be in place - be it one judge, or three judges, or some members of Congress ( 2 Senators and 2 Congress (HR) members), which is basically an exercise of Constitutional Checks and Balances, i.e. Due Process.

From the BBC

Security chiefs said the group believed to be planning the attack had been under surveillance for some time.

Police probe flights terror plot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4780815.stm

Neighbours' shock at terror raids
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4779539.stm

Police and ministers' statements

The full text of statements by the Peter Clark, head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, Home Secretary John Reid and Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander about the alleged terror plot disrupted by police.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4778817.stm

Lots of links in the Wikipedia article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

The Home Office has refused to confirm reports that Thursday's anti-terror operation in the UK was triggered by the interception of a decoded message sent by a suspect in Pakistan, which gave the go-ahead for the attack to take place.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4783141.stm

Some level of surveillance is needed, but it must be legal, i.e. according to the law. The administration, which is responsible for domestic and foreign surveillance, has repeatedly shown its contempt for the law. Even the Supreme Court has found the administration in violation of the law.

 

[NateTG]

But that's never what the objections are.

People complaining about warrantless wiretaps are complaining about lack of checks and balances.

People complaining about sneek and peak searches are complaining about lack of checks and balances.

People complaining about detention without access to council or courts are complaining about lack of checks and balances.

There are other things that this administration is doing that are out of line, but there is no shortage of the erosion of checks and balances, nor a derth of complaints about it.

 

[Bystander]

Ever hear of "sealed records?" Courts do all sorts of things that are never part of the public record --- the journalistic conceit that everything can be made public is just that, a conceit. Find the sex offenders living in your neighborhood, the fraud judgments against real estate developers, and a thousand other "little" embarassments that judges support their "humble" $40k houses on 40 acre lots with.

 

[DaveC426913]

CNN just announced as Ivan mentioned above that this latest plot was discovered when a member of the Muslim community notified authorties.

So much for our $5 billion per year high tech all encompassing, watching your grandmothers bank account and phone records folly.

Come on, surely you know this is highly oversimplifying the situation.

Do you really think that if that 5G$ budget disappeared tomorrow we'd still have the same success rate?

 

[edward]

Come on, surely you know this is highly oversimplifying the situation.

Do you really think that if that 5G$ budget disappeared tomorrow we'd still have the same success rate?

Make that a $5 billion budget.

Neither the Canadian or the recent British apprehension of terrorists have been related to the
massive NSA surveillance programs. They have been accomplished by foreign security police, using for the most part tips from ordinary people and an old fashioned feet on the ground approach. The British had been following this latest group since last December.

There were FBI agents who wanted to use the the tried and true methods prior to 911. Agent Williams in Phoenix and the agent tailing Moussaoui are good examples. They were ignored. So now we just throw money at the problem and presume it will work, because that is what the software companies selling to the NSA promise.

Also to a great extent the NSA operations are outsourced to private contractors. This greatly increases the possibility that information on ordinary citizens may end up in the wrong hands via data theft or incompetence.

To win the war on terrorism we have to regain the basic intelligence skills that we possesed during the cold war, and not rely on the extraordinarily expensive methods that we are currently using.

 

[russ_watters]

You've never had the "privilege" of TA-ing chem labs when there were a few Moslems in the class --- one hand on the chain to the safety shower at all times --- other on the first aid kit. "Dangerous?" Yes. A "threat?" No. Reid was "a joke" because Reid was a joke. Buncha religious nuts with copies of "the anarchists' cookbook?" Slapstick. Let 'em run loose on airliners making the other passengers ill as they turn themselves into "Phantoms of the Opera?" No. Was it a "sophisticated" plot? No. Did it take Sherlock Holmes to expose it? No. Could the "Keystone Kops" have spotted the idiots? Eehhh --- mebbe, mebbe not. Was it "good" police work, the kind of thing people are paid to do? Yeah. Is it outside the bounds of "habeas corpus?" Depends on how good their lawyers are. Should they be strung up? Yup. Will they be? Nope.

I think it is unwise to underestimate them. Al Qaeda is not just a bunch of dumb freshmen with a copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook.

 

[russ_watters]

And as long as...

I don't see how any of that is relevant here. All of that information in the links you provided is information the government must have to do its job. The only way for the government not to use that information is for it to cease doing its job. And you're not suggesting that it should, are you...? And assuming you are not saying that the IRS should pack up and leave town, doesn't that undermine your own argument?

If all you want to do is point out that government makes mistakes, I'll certainly grant you that, but that fact doesn't change the fact that it needs and is going to get all the information in your post - and shouldn't inhibit surveilance either. The logic for both is the same: once you decide whether or not the government needs the info, then the government needs the info - data security is a separate question that isn't relevant to whether or not the government needs the info.

At the very least, I will grant you that that is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed, though. Unlike the nebulous "Big Brother" fears that are the typical other objection (Hurkyl pointed out).

 

[russ_watters]

I have no problem with surveillance as long as it is done legally and according to the law. The intelligence, domestic and foreign, are doing their jobs.

What I have a problem with is when someone like the president (or any individual in government) uses government resources, e.g. FBI or NSA, to spy on people, US citizens or others, who are not involved in criminal or suspicious activity. McCarthy was an extreme example, and his un-American activities damaged or destroyed countless innocent people. Then remember Nixon's Whitehouse enemies list - Nixon used the FBI to spy on 'innocent' people who simply openly criticized his policies.

Aren't those two paragraphs separate issues and isn't the first one a tautology? The whole point here is debating what should and shouldn't be legal, so just saying that you have no problem with surveilance that is legal doesn't address that (except, perhaps, to say that you don't think the laws are too liberal on it right now).

Certainly, the use of such data for a personal vendetta is now and always was illegal. So how is that relevant here? Are you saying the increased amount of information will make it easier to do that? Same answer as to Bob: the possible abuse of such information is not relevant to the question of whether or not such information is necessary for the government to do its job. Data security is a certainly a concern, but it is a separate issue.

And clearly, as the McCarthy example shows, you don't need high tech modern surveilance to carry out a personal vendetta. Most of their good information was obtained by good, old fashioned intimidation in a Congressional sub-committee. Abuse of pretty much anything requires that someone be breaking the law (redundant). You can't outlaw something that can be abused just because it can be abused. Try the same logic on any number of consumer products - cars, guns, cigarettes, tobacco - it works the same for all of them.

What you have to do is adequately regulate things to minimize such risks. License drivers, have a minimum smoking/drinking age - and mandate and enforce proper procedures in government to reduce such risks in data security.

 

[Astronuc]

Aren't those two paragraphs separate issues and isn't the first one a tautology?

They are two separate issues, and no, the first is not a tautology, rather it provides context.

The whole point here is debating what should and shouldn't be legal, so just saying that you have no problem with surveilance that is legal doesn't address that (except, perhaps, to say that you don't think the laws are too liberal on it right now).

Certainly, the use of such data for a personal vendetta is now and always was illegal. So how is that relevant here? Are you saying the increased amount of information will make it easier to do that? Same answer as to Bob: the possible abuse of such information is not relevant to the question of whether or not such information is necessary for the government to do its job.

I was reflecting on the comment "the type of program which Democrats and civil-libertarian maximalists so fashionably decry lately", and the point that I was trying to convey is that most people, including myself, are not objecting to government surveillance, but rather inappropriate or illegal surveillance. Most reasonable people do recognize the threat of terrorism, and the therefore the need for the government to protect the population through effective and 'legal' surveillance. On the other hand, there are those who will object to any surveillance, even when it is justified, and I would agree that is a ridiculous position.


As for not understanding the desire for privacy, I don't understand the administration's desire for secrecy, except that they are trying to hide some activity which is potentially illegal.

There are reasons that we have a Constitution and Rule of Law, and one reason is to prevent abuse of power. Well, Bush has abused his power, and one manifestation of that is 'domestic surveillance without appropriate oversight'. The other abuses include misleading the country about the war in Iraq, and the denial of 'due process' to detainees at Guantanamo.

 

[alexandra]

My opinion on this issue is simply stated - but one of America's most prominant and respected 'founding fathers' says it much better than I ever could:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759" (cited online at http://www.quotegarden.com/freedom.html)

 

[Gokul43201]

Between the rhetoric and the strawmen, I failed to catch the argument in that article. But then, it's only an anonymous op-ed in the Washington Times!

 

[Bystander]

I think it is unwise to underestimate them. Al Qaeda is not just a bunch of dumb freshmen with a copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook.

Let's not overestimate them either.

The "magic" of guerilla warfare, or ski-masked gutless cowardice, is the appearance that a disproportionate effort is required to suppress a small band of hoodlums (hundred man-years per psychopath, if we take Robert Thompson's numbers). Compare this to the 3-10 man years per inflicted fatality in conventional wars --- looks inefficient, until we compare it to conventional law enforcement; how many man-years to nail Ted Kaczynski? Pablo Escobar? Moussaoui?

Would surveillance programs have prevented Oklahoma City? Who knows? "Horseshoe nail history" is a waste of time.

Is this a planned effort to divert resources into the least effective channel (conventional law enforcement)? We've got killing grounds in central Asia (A-stan), and SW Asia operating at the 100 man-year per nitwit rate --- they could actually be working well enough that the 10% who can actually see the world outside the Koran feel it's necessary to throw a few morons away in a diversion --- like you say, "Let's not underestimate them." Tactically, they're complete idiots --- strategically, there're several thousand years experience in Fabian strategy built into the culture.

 

[edward]

The additional burden of being buried under tons of bureaucratic tripe is only putting us futher behind the curve. The liquid explosive approach was first tried by terrorists in 1995. So what did Homeland Security do after 911? They took away our nail clippers. After an attempted shoe bombing they started searching shoes.

We are throwing money at a problem that is not necessarily going to be solved unless that money is more wisely spent. The article below concerns wise money that was not spent at all.

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/terror_explosives_detection

 

[SOS2008]

The additional burden of being buried under tons of bureaucratic tripe is only putting us futher behind the curve. The liquid explosive approach was first tried by terrorists in 1995. So what did Homeland Security do after 911? They took away our nail clippers. After an attempted shoe bombing they started searching shoes.

We are throwing money at a problem that is not necessarily going to be solved unless that money is more wisely spent. The article below concerns wise money that was not spent at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/terror_explosives_detection

That's because the Bush administration is only concerned about terrorism in so far as containing it and/or exploiting it to gain/retain power. For example, Bush justified the invasion of Iraq stating that by taking the war "over there," we would be safer here. This in contrast to recent remarks that:

"We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people," President Bush said Thursday. "But obviously we're still not completely safe."

Which better reflects the reality, with exception of his assertion that "a lot of measures" have been taken to protect Americans. This would be a laugh if it wasn't such a serious matter. Finally liquids are being banned, though electronics still are allowed as carry-ons, and only 10% of the cargo is screened.

Aside from points already made regarding neglect of obvious safe guards (e.g., securing the border), Bush's warrant-less surveillance program is just another Watergate guise to spy on the opposition for personal strategic intelligence. Assuming this surveillance is effective in combating terrorism (though majority consensus is that it's not), why, oh why would any sane American support such activity without checks and balances via substantial oversight?

As for the Bush administration's track record on spending and managing the tax-payer's money wisely, that is even more pitiful. Iraq alone is a financial fiasco that will haunt us for generations.

 

[edward]

The current so called sophisticated NSA system didn't even catch this:

SEATTLE -- Nine people have been arrested following a two-year investigation into an international sex-trafficking ring involving smuggling Asian women into the U.S. in shipping containers, authorities said.

The U.S. attorney's office in Seattle said the "highly organized national network prostitution ring" illegally brought women to the U.S. from China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Laos

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/08/12/1751058-sun.html

Most anything could have been in those containers.
Some day the administration will have to look at something besides airplanes. But you got to admit, airplanes rate a high score on the continuing fear factor agenda which the administrtion thrives on.

 

[Manchot]

I have never been against surveillance or record gathering, I have nothing to hide and do not suffer from paranoia that the govermenment would give a hairy rats @ss what I'm doing. We live in dangerous times. There are nuts out there and we have to give the people we pay to protect us the ability to protect us.

I flat-out don't understand people's desire for privacy. If it helps the FBI catch a criminal, they can have at my phone lines, bank records, whatever. As long as the use of the information is legit, there is no harm in the gathering of it.

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. To all of those who are for widescale surveillance: do you realize that what you're describing is a core aspect of fascism? Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance to not be abused by those in power. It's one of those things that looks good on paper (e.g., communism) but then ultimately fails because people are in the mix.

We live in dangerous times.

Actually, we live in the safest times in human history (despite what some would have you believe). We don't have to worry about getting eaten by wild animals (which we did in most of our history), about getting invaded by another country (at least in the US), or about ending the world through nuclear war. Probably the two most dangerous things right now are North Korea and Iran, neither of which are doing anything that could be prevented by domestic surveillance. Terrorists are pretty low on the list. Hell, far more people have been killed in car accidents than by terrorists since the Cold War ended. If we'd sunk billions of dollars into cars that drive themselves, we'd have saved more lives and made that money back by doing away with millions of hours of wasted time spent in traffic. Terrorism is just a convenient distraction to increase the executive branch's power.

I'm not one to repeat a cliche, but if we allow the US to become a fascist state, then the Islamofascist terrorists have won.

 

[Hurkyl]

do you realize that what you're describing is a core aspect of fascism?

Fallacy: guilt by association.

Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance to not be abused by those in power.

Even if you're right, so what?

We get along fine with lots of things that can be abused, and arguably better than without those things. (Governments, for example)

It's one of those things that looks good on paper (e.g., communism) but then ultimately fails because people are in the mix.

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?
(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

If you cannot answer those questions, then your opinion really doesn't have any weight at all.

 

[Gokul43201]

If unchecked surveillance was in the best interests of the people, we wouldn't have the need for subpoenas, warrants, "probable cause" or the FISA court. Heck, even Arlen Specter sees it necessary to go out of the way to fix the NSA Wiretapping Program in order to give it an semblance of legality!

 

[Manchot]

Fallacy: guilt by association.

Ok, I didn't want to get into this (because it's arguing not against the idea but against a group of people), but let's associate those politicians arguing for widescale surveillance (specifically, Bush) with some other fascist ideologies: strong nationalistic tendencies, the rallying of large group of people around a fear of a small group (specifically, terrorists and gay people who want to get married), spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have, and so on. Obviously, this isn't a valid argument against surveillance, but removing privacy can still cause the destruction of the Bill of Rights. Once you remove the Constitutional right to privacy, some unscrupulous feds (and they do exist, believe it or not) might start to think, "Hey, if we spy on the New York Times, we can probably put pressure on them to not run certain stories." Then, before you know it, journalism has to be approved by the government before they can be released, and freedom of speech is dead.

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?
(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

Well, I'll assume that you agree that widescale surveillance looks good on paper. If those in power have the appropriate oversight and are reasonable in their zeal to catch criminals / terrorists, without invading the privacy of innocent Americans, then I would see no problem with that. However, history has shown us that people in authority can and do abuse their power.

As you mentioned, we have lots of things that could be abused but are better than the alternative. Nevertheless, what you neglected to mention is that the only instances where this doesn't occur is when there is a large system of checks and balances in place. By instituting secret surveillance programs that answer only to one person, we would be practically begging to get taken advantage of. We should strive to have a transparent government, not a transparent populace. The key difference between a democratic form of government and a totalitarian form is that in the former, the government represents the people, while in the latter, the people represent the government.

The way I see it, there are two options. Increasing surveillance only results in marginal gains in safety. If there are people who want you dead and will commit suicide to do so, they will find a way. It's impossible to stop them all. You can continue to increase surveillance until you no longer have a democratic form of government. On the other hand, you can accept the idea that there are a lot of ways to die, and terrorism is not even close to being a major item on that list. To quote many people, "Freedom isn't free." The small chance of getting killed by an extremist is the price you have to pay to live in a free country.

 

[Bystander]

Okay --- this ain't going anywhere --- let's rephrase: "Given the point of the OP that analysis of information is useful for prevention of criminal activity, and the Constitutional protection from 'unreasonable search and seizure,' plus assorted SCOTUS decisions placing peoples' garbage in the public domain, fingerprints left at scenes of crimes (very personal item), restrictions on 'discovery' in legal proceedings, What are the boundaries of an inviolate personal domain?" Or, "What is public domain?"

Air is public domain --- I can't smoke up something you might breathe; em radiation is public domain --- I can claim copyright to broadcast material and sue you if you record, reproduce, or otherwise profit financially from my broadcasts without my permission, but cannot otherwise restrict your use of the broadcast; tax records, soc. sec. #, licenses, transcripts are all public domain, and establish my identity and existence --- I can sue the alma mater for peddling my name to insurance companies, realtors, and other frauds for institutional profit (particularly when they charge me a fortune for transmitting records for my purposes); lot of custom and precedent on the topic.

"Due diligence" is the term the bloodsuckers use; you, personally, are required/expected to take "all reasonable care" to secure your personal, and private, belongings (this is the basis of "make my day" laws), and personal, and private, communications.

Were I a betting man, and had to bet on whether the "defenders of the Constitution" squawking about surveillance were also squawking about "make my day," I'd have to put my money on their being somewhat hypocritical --- that they defend the Constitution when it's convenient for a particular political agenda. "Due diligence" does include "taking care" of identifiable threats (terrorists) in whatever way is available or appropriate to the threats. If that entails collection and analysis of information flying through the air em-style, magnetic fields oscillating around unshielded telephone lines, and other such things, so be it. As I've said earlier, it's the most labor intensive approach --- I'd prefer the more efficient methods.