Slashdot Mirror


NSA Had Domestic Call Monitoring Before 9/11?

MarkusQ writes "Bloomberg is reporting that, according to documents filed in the breach of privacy suit on behalf of Verizon and BellSouth, the NSA asked AT&T to set up its domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Could it be that they were intending to monitor domestic calls (and internet traffic) all along, and the 'Global War on Terror' was just a convenient excuse when they got caught?" From the article: "...an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan. Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee."

6 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Illegal? by Homology · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Illegal according to what law? You know that when they are attacking other countries they are not required to obey the laws in that country.

    Invading another country, when not in self-defense, is a war crime ("supreme crime"),
    by the Geneva conventions, and USA has signed those and are bound by them. War crimes
    carries the death penality in USA. As an invader you are also required to follow
    local laws, with some exceptions. Of course, the invader may make new laws, but they
    may be illegal as well. Instituting new laws in order to loot Iraq is not legal, and
    you might have noticed oil companies reluctance to invest there...

    Notice how the Bush Administration tries to avoid beeing persecuted for war crimes:

    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID =10038

  2. Re:Illegal? by Homology · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Do you honestly think that the Hague would indict an American for war crimes?

    They may very well do so.

    > And even if Bush were indicted, do you really think that anyone would try
    > arresting him when the Marines would immediately be sent in to kick ass and
    > retrieve the president?

    It's unlikely that they'll indict while Bush and his croonies while he is in
    office, but hey, there is no limit of stature for War Crimes. Note that the Bush
    Administration has bullied many states into agreements of not delivering US citizens
    (officials only?) to the International Court in Hague. This is an attempt to protect
    themselves from persecution of their war crimes.

  3. All our data are belong to them by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you remember Admiral Poindexter's Total Information Awareness proposal that came out shortly after 9/11? A gigantic database that aggregated all available electronic information on US citizens -- financial and credit card records, grocery store shopper cards, movie rentals, library books, maybe even medical records? And how people raised such a stink that congress cut off funding for it?

    Well, guess what. It's still up and running.. It simply moved over to the pentagon, that's all.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  4. Re:Illegal? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative
    We also found a huge cache of WMD last month according to news reports.

    If you're referring to the cache Hoekstra and Santorum have been parading in front of the news services, they were known about and listed on intelligence reports back in 2003. They were degraded beyond the possibility of use even back then.
    rawstory

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  5. Re:Illegal? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Informative
    That's just silly. We know he did have WMD, we know he wanted various WMD, the point is, did he have any WMD, and was he actively working towards getting any? The answer to both those questions is NO.

    And no, you cannot argue that old, non-functioning weapons are the same as functional weapons. That is just inane. Did you even read the linked article?

    "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991," the Iraq Survey Group reported in 2004. "There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
  6. It's more the "false positives" than the "bogus". by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative
    Even if there was some vast terrorist conspiracy random spying wouldn't be much use anyway. Indeed it might even be counter productive, were such an entity to exist they could create floods of bogus communications.

    The naturally occuring "false positives" would eat up the budget for the program (under any sane spending plan).

    With almost 300 million people ...
    1% false positives mean 3 million people investigated (and the people they know)
    0.1% means 300,000 people investigated (and the people they know).
    0.01% means 30,000 people investigated (and the people they know).

    Now, even if you limit each investigation to just that person and the 5 closest people to him/her ... at the best you're talking about 150,000 investigations per inclusive period. If everyone in the US makes 1 call a month, that's 150,000 investigations a month. If it takes 3 months for them to make a call, that's 150,000 investigations a quarter (plus the percentage of people who make calls every month).

    Spying does not work randomly.