Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell

Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."

Comments

That's what I'm wondering

[TubeSteak]

For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security." Can't they use his admission in the AT&T trial?

You kinda wonder who thought it'd be a good idea to let him say what he did.

Re:That's what I'm wondering

[arivanov]

Not quite so.

The world has changed dramatically since the mid 80-es. In the mid-80es the world was a world of national telco monopolies. French traffic stayed in France not traversing a single US fibre. German traffic stayed in Germany and so on. If you wanted to tap a conversation you had to get down and dirty and tap it locally. And most importantly the spooks had to do this themselves. Backdooring ATT switches did not really give them anything as far as Alcatel switches in France or the Marconi ones in the UK were concerned.

That is no longer the case. Nowdays a packet from a point A to a point B outside USA has a fair chance of passing across at least several pieces of USA owned infrastructure that are not on USA soil. USA telecommunication companies operate franchises and services all over the world. One of the conditions to do so is that they are regulated under the local legislation. Local legislation in most of the world explicitly prohibit such shit and so far US companies have usually stayed clear from such activities.

What Mr McConnell wants is essentially to give himself a free reign regarding forcing them to engage in surveillance for him globally and for purposes completely different from fighting terrorism. Just read the first 2 paragraphs from his interview and add to that the rabid insistence of this USA administration that USA laws apply to a USA corp or cittizen regardless of where it is.

This is a very different ball game compared to the 80-es and frankly this is likely to backfire very badly.

Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill USans

[sepluv]

Last week, he also said that, if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".

Here's a quote from the interview with El Paso Times:

Q. So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?
A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing.

What's this guy smoking? Or maybe it is a threat to the members of congress à la the film, Enemy of the State.

Re:We're all aiding the terrorists

[Billosaur]

There's something wrong with McConnell.

Yes, he was being candid. Does that make him a loon? No. Look, half the trouble with domestic surveillance and spying in general is that people know it's going on, in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them. Take work for example -- you hear stories all the time about people being caught at work doing illegal things, usually because of emails or browsing records or surveillance video. Most of us are being spied on in the workplace and a) think nothing of it, b) are blissfully unaware of it, or c) are skeeved out by it. The vast majority of people fall into a) and b). The same holds true for what the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. do. But it's one thing when it's your employer spies on you -- you can always change jobs. It's another thing entirely when it is your government, working behind closed doors in a nebulous fashion and screeching "State Secrets!" with every other breath.

I think he was trying to let out enough information that some people might have their fears somewhat allayed. Of course he couldn't say too much without going into details that would compromise operations or get into hot water with the White House, but he did the best he could.

Secrecy for its own sake ?

[richg74]

... the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security.

One of the things that is so ridiculous -- almost surreal -- about the government's position on this is that they seem, on the one hand, to attribute almost mystical powers to potential terrorists (they can blow up a plane with 4 ounces of nail polish remover !!!), and on the other hand to assume that they're dumber than rocks. The administration has said they're snooping on phone calls and E-mail; I don't think it takes a terrorist Einstein to figure out that they might be getting assistance from folks like AT&T.

To take another example, the administration claimed, a while back, that national security was threatened by a story that they were monitoring international funds transfers through SWIFT. Of course, various members of the government had given speeches urging that financial links to potential terrorists be blocked. And, the last time I looked, SWIFT (the international body that develops standards and procedures for funds transfers) had 8,000+ member banks. Its existence is hardly a closely-guarded secret, and I don't think it would take too many Nobel Prize winners to figure out that transfers through SWIFT might be monitored.

This is a managed interview

[E-Sabbath]

Look how much the man speaks, compared to how little the interviewer speaks. There are no slips in this interview, and there are a very large amount of omissions. Of course, all the omissions are of things that would be blatantly illegal, and we do know some of them are occurring. (Surveillance of all American phone calls at the switch level, for example. The taps are in, even if unused.) It only makes me exceptionally curious as to what he's hiding, because I certainly get the impression he's hiding something.

Re:well not exactly

[Xonstantine]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist. I'm more concerned about my civil liberties. In the end, government can do very little to protect us but can certainly make our lives miserable while trying. The problem with all these terrorism laws is, despite ostensibly to fight a temporary battle, they stick around and get used for every day mundane law enforcement. Sort of like the telecom tax used to pay for the Spanish American war...these things tend to stick around long after their original purpose has lapsed.

And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.

Odds of Dying

[Khammurabi]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist.

According to a nifty study done in 2003, your odds of dying (per year) due to a terrorist act (assuming you're not blowing yourself up) are 1 in 77,292. And that number was calculated by lumping roughly 30 other causes of death in along with it (that's a fair bit of data skewing). The actual odds are likely 3 times as remote as that (if not more) if the real data would be taken into account. (What's it been pre and post 2001, like under 500 each year before and after if you include school shootings and such?)

Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.

By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?

America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.

So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.