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

[edward]

If we are talking of due dilligence and security money well spent. We are once again behind the curve, when it come to tracing possible terrorists.

Trakfones, a prepaid disposable cellphone, have been purched in large numbers in this country. They are inexpensive and can be used once and thrown away. This was first announced by ABC news in Janurary. The first known terrorist use of tracfones was in the Madrid train bombings in March of 2004. These phones are noted to be non traceable.

Currently the phones can be purchased for cash in The U.S. and no ID is required.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1499905
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060813/1068981.asp

Again I mention my concern that the NSA is so wrapped up in the tons of
data that they are gathering through high tech, that they are not seeing the obvious.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

Fallacy: guilt by association. (And I didn't know "spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have" was a tenet of Facism)

If you know it's not a valid argument, then why do you present it anyways?

but removing privacy can still cause the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

"can" is not synonymous with "will".

And don't forget that a lot of surveillance gathers public information, and so by definition cannot infringe on your privacy.

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.

Yay, a fantastic story, with absolutely no reason to believe in it!

Well, I'll assume that you agree that widescale surveillance looks good on paper.

Well, no. Widescale surveillance is a tool, and is inherently neither good nor bad.

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.

That's not the only thing surveillance is good for.

You can continue to increase surveillance until you no longer have a democratic form of government.

This makes no sense.

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.

But, of course, it will quickly move up the list if nothing is done to curb it.

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.

Loss of life isn't the only cost of extremism.

And, oddly, your interpretation of the quote is in exactly the opposite direction from how I would have interpreted it. I see you interpreted it as:

The price of freedom is that others' freedoms may kill us.

whereas I would have interpreted it as

We cannot have our freedoms unless we pay to protect them.

Just goes to show you that soundbites aren't very useful in arguments.

 

[SOS2008]

"can" is not synonymous with "will"

All you have to do is look at history to see that it is "will."

Why not be in favor of checks and balances? Why must anyone lose either freedom or security? If you want to talk about being safe, that means playing it safe and taking measures to prevent possible abuse of power, perhaps more than using every means available for security (and since when is "every means" necessary or therefore good, let alone effective?). Do you accept scientific theories at face value, or for that matter anything at face value? Why would you make an exception and "just trust" Bush (or any other leader in our government)?

If you want to preserve democracy and freedom - Question Authority.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why not be in favor of checks and balances?

Indeed. IMHO this sort of thing is where the discussion should be. Unfortunately, I won't have much to say, but it would be interesting to read. However, it's easy to criticize the fearmongering.

 

[Rach3]

Two things:

(1) Can give reasons why you think that's true?

I think it's almost tautological - if you give a powerful (hence vulnerable) politician the ability to spy on his constituents and opponents without due oversight, he will abuse this power to protect himself. Look at what Nixon did, or better yet look at the old fasicst and Stalinist governments and how secret intelligence was invariably used to against poltical opposition. That our legal system restrics and controls this kind of information-gathering is a core strength of our government, that kept Nixon from doing Watergates twice a day.

(2) Can you argue that it's better than the alternative?

I have yet to hear a compelling argument that retroactively approved, secret FISA warrants in place since the 70's are a hindrance to intelligence gathering. Removing judicial oversight does nothing to benefit intelligence, it merely allows for illegal abuses to go unchecked.

 

[Rach3]

By the way, I have not seen any indication that the intelligence involved this week was in any was, or necessitated, an secret extrajudicial process. It seems that most discussion either assumes things one way or the other, or worse yet fails to make this crucial distinction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Rach3: You seem to have missed the fact I'm replying to:

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

and not

Human nature makes it impossible for widescale surveillance without due oversight to not be abused by those in power.

 

[edward]

By the way, I have not seen any indication that the intelligence involved this week was in any was, or necessitated, an secret extrajudicial process. It seems that most discussion either assumes things one way or the other, or worse yet fails to make this crucial distinction.

Nothing that happened this week involved the secretive intelligence community. It was all done by the Brits and their intel doesn't use our ridiculous questionable methods.

Our all encompassing highly secret NSA high tech surveillance didn't even pick up on the fact that Islamics in the USA have been buying thousands of tracfones. see post 51 above.

My point of view in this thread is not the legality of the Bush secret surveillance, but rather, is it even working? It is inexcusable that they apparently were not aware of the blasted tracfones. Local police busted that operation.

For that matter the whole system, including the Departments of Homeland and Transportation Security are being run by a bunch of people who's experience is primarily in management. The recent restrictions in airports are ludicrous. They are taking away gel filled baby pacifiers for gods sake. I hardly think that a blond haired blue eyed mom and her baby are going to be a high risk!

They are parroting what the British have done by totally concentrating on liquids and gels. In the meantime something simple and widely available, like Calcium Carbide for instance , could slip through their search for liquids.

 

[Evo]

Nothing that happened this week involved the secretive intelligence community. It was all done by the Brits and their intel doesn't use our ridiculous questionable methods.

Actually it was thanks to Palestinian intelligence. You do know that the brits even photographically track their citizen's whereabouts? Read this if you think the US invades their citizen's privacy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104844

 

[daveb]

I hardly think that a blond haired blue eyed mom and her baby are going to be a high risk!

I agree with you on that point, but at the other extreme, the authorities can't profile just those that look like they are middle eastern descent. Then the extreme left will cry out that the system is inherently prejudicial against a certain group. I think the reason they apply a blanket standard, even to the blonde-haired blue-eyed mom, is to prevent exactly that kind of backlash.

 

[slugcountry]

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

I recommend you check out The Soft Cage by Parenti.

 

[edward]

Actually it was thanks to Palestinian intelligence. You do know that the brits even photographically track their citizen's whereabouts? Read this if you think the US invades their citizen's privacy. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104844

The Brits are using a battery powered microchip attached to the plate, supposedly for determining traffic flow and road costs. According to the link below the experimental stage of this program started in August 05.

It was initiated by their Transportation department and they did tell their citizens about it up front. We use the same system here for those who use toll roads frequently. We also have a zillion traffic cams, some of them even issue speeding tickets.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68429,00.html

Edit: opps I originally couldn't get the link in the forum OP to work. It appears that the Brits are using traffic cams as well.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/vehicle_trackin.html

So what happens if the bad guys take a bus?

 

[edward]

I just realized that, according to the links, British security didn't bother to talk to their Director of Transportation. How typical.

 

[Mickey]

There is so much information out there that no human or small group of humans can possibly know it all. The privacy issues of surveillance are mitigated by the fact the no one ever sees most of the information that's out there. It's stored and organized by computer programs, tailored to bring information to the attention of human operators that meets their specified conditions.

In other words, you're invisible if no one's looking for you. We just need to make sure that the people in power look for the right people.

 

[edward]

There is so much information out there that no human or small group of humans can possibly know it all.

That is why the NSA outsources the data processing to ? uhh secret helpers.

We just need to make sure that the people in power look for the right people.

That is the big problem with the current system. We aren't involved in the equation, nor is congress or the FISA courts.

I am not as worried about the privacy issue as I am about the possiblility that with all that data, someone will drop the ball.
Rememer, we had all the information we needed to stop 911. That information never got to the right people.

 

[Manchot]

Fallacy: guilt by association. (And I didn't know "spending large amounts of money that the government doesn't have" was a tenet of Facism)

If you know it's not a valid argument, then why do you present it anyways?

In retrospect, I'm claiming that guilt by association is perfectly agreeable in this case. Why? Anyone in power with fascist-like tendencies will seize upon surveillance networks and abuse them, regardless of any checks or balances. On the other hand, someone with civil libertarian tendencies will show much respect to the checks and balances in place. In the end, who gets the upper hand?

"can" is not synonymous with "will".

Isn't it? I think Murphy's Law very much applies here. Again, regardless of any checks and balances, people as powerful as the president can and do get away with breaking the law. (For example, here we are nine months after the NSA wiretapping debacle story broke, and there has been no court case confirming whether the president's actions were illegal or not. Most legal experts do not think it was legal, and here we are.)

And don't forget that a lot of surveillance gathers public information, and so by definition cannot infringe on your privacy.

You've oversimplified what "public information" and "private information" are. There are two types of privacy, privacy that results because something cannot be known by others, and privacy that comes from the difficulty with which it is to track a particular anonymous person's actions. Much of what you just referred to as "public information" would fall under the umbrella of the second kind of private information, and is no less private. For example, two people arguing in their living room might, by some people's definitions, be "public" since they are technically broadcasting light and sound to the outside world through a window whose glass vibrates with the sound and also transmits light. Also, when you venture out into the public world outside your home, you still enjoy privacy. Sure, various buildings might have security cameras that can track your moves, but because they're not networked, no one can easily track anyone person. Now, suppose that you implement a retinal scanning system and network all of the cameras together. Suddenly you've lost that privacy, because it is now easy for someone to track you. What has always been technically public information is being used to infringe upon your privacy.

That's not the only thing surveillance is good for.

Ok, so you increase surveillance to get marginal gains in safety from criminals as well as terrorists. Great.

This makes no sense.

If there were security cameras placed in every room of every home in the country, could you have a democratic government? I sincerely doubt it.

But, of course, it will quickly move up the list if nothing is done to curb it.

You've confused "nothing more" with "nothing." I'm claiming that the FBI, CIA, and NSA already have all the tools they need to prevent a substantial amount of terrorism, and that increasing their power can only harm us. I never said that nothing should be done to curb it, just that the status quo is fine.

And, oddly, your interpretation of the quote is in exactly the opposite direction from how I would have interpreted it. I see you interpreted it as:

The price of freedom is that others' freedoms may kill us.

Except that's not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as meaning that complete security and complete freedom are mutually exclusive ideas, so that you cannot have both.

 

[Hurkyl]

The point by point is giving me a headache. Hopefully I'll get my reply reorganized before anyone responds to it. (And hopefully it will be more cohesive)


The right question to ask is almost never "Is there any bad?", but "Does the good outweigh the bad?"

Manchot: I'm going to assume that the thrust of your posts is to reject mass surveillance. (I don't think you've actually said it explicitly)

The problem I have with your posts is that your intent never seems to be to argue that the good outweighs the bad... but instead to overwhelm the reader with fear of mass surveillance. In other words, you're making a fallacious appeal to emotion.

I'm claiming that ... increasing their power can only harm us.

You've finally made an itty-bitty nod towards the question if the good outweights the bad. It would be great if you could center your argument around this.

(Incidentally, no matter now much bad you think will come of it, do you really think that not one iota of good could come out of mass surveillance? Avoiding hyperbole like this would also be a good thing)


Another thing on this is that your posts are phrased as if you're talking about the very concept of mass surveillance, but sometimes it sounds as if you're actually discussing something more specific. Could you clarify for me?



The other thing is that you are not talking about privacy, but are talking about obscurity. And "security through obscurity" is known to be a flawed concept (at least in computer-land). (and, AFAIK, there are no legal protections for obscurity)



Bleh, I have more to say, but can't figure out how to say it yet. Maybe I'll post it later.

 

[Duncan]

Mass surveillance - Not Needed

Not really sure what the thread is about, simply because serveillance is obviously needed. Mass surveillance is a different matter, this page has some interesting points.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html"

If there a few hundred terriosts in a country of millions, how much mass surveillance do you think you will need to have a chance to catch even one? How many false positives would result?

 

[edward]

OMG how, talk about over reacting.

F-15s escort airliner to Boston after incident with passenger
By Brooke Donald
Associated Press

BOSTON — Fighter jets escorted a London-to-Washington, D.C., flight to Boston’s Logan airport Wednesday after the pilot declared an emergency because an apparently claustrophobic passenger caused a disturbance, federal officials said.

The federal security official for Logan said there was no indication of terrorism and denied reports that the woman had a screw driver, matches and a note referring to al-Qaida.

Passengers were taken off the plane and loaded onto a bus, and Naccara said the passengers were being interviewed. Their luggage was spread out on the tarmac, where it was rechecked by security officials and trained dogs

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2038857.php

A zanax tablet (antianxiety drug) costs about 25 cents, and probably would have solved the problem. It did turn out that the woman had a jar of vasoline and three cigarette lighters in her carry on luggage. Those should have been removed by security at Heathrow.

Throughout the day the news media made frequent references to the nonexistant screwdriver and al-Qaida note.

How totally bizarre our society has become.

 

[Skyhunter]

Isn't it? I think Murphy's Law very much applies here. Again, regardless of any checks and balances, people as powerful as the president can and do get away with breaking the law. (For example, here we are nine months after the NSA wiretapping debacle story broke, and there has been no court case confirming whether the president's actions were illegal or not. Most legal experts do not think it was legal, and here we are.)

Well that has finally changed.

Here is the most recent ruling.

http://news.com.com/Federal+judge+o...ogram/2100-1036_3-6106772.html?tag=st.ref.goo

The terrorist surveillance program violates the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression and the Fourth Amendment right to privacy--that is, freedom from unreasonable searches, ruled Taylor, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979. It also ignores requirements of a 1978 electronic wiretapping law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and represents an overstepping of presidential powers, Taylor wrote.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," the judge wrote, dismissing the Bush administration's argument that the warrantless program falls within the president's inherent wartime powers as commander-in-chief.

I would have no problem with more aggressive surveilance programs, as long as they were effective, and with the proper oversight. I have no confidence that the current administration is capable of either. And the last person in the world that should have that kind of power is Dick "Shooter" Cheney.

 

[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. 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?