Slashdot Mirror
Eavesdropping Helpful Against Terrorist Plot [UPDATED]
AcidPenguin9873 writes "The New York Times reports that the U.S. government's ability to eavesdrop on personal communications helped break up a terrorist plot in Germany. The intercepted phone calls and emails revealed a connection between the plotters and a breakaway cell of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad Union. What does this mean for the future of privacy in personal communications? From the article: '[Director of national intelligence Mike McConnell's] remarks also represent part of intensifying effort by Bush administration officials to make permanent a law that is scheduled to expire in about five months. Without the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. McConnell said the nation would lose "50 percent of our ability to track, understand and know about these terrorists, what they're doing to train, what they're doing to recruit and what they're doing to try to get into this country.'" Update: 09/13 12:59 GMT by J : See followup story.
Proper checks include simple things like getting a court order to run the wire-taps.
And if that led to terrorists succeeding and killing some people, you'd say it was worthwhile. Right? And you'd tell the families that it was worthwhile, right?
I would explain to them that their loved ones gave their lives in the war against facisim, communism, whatever that the american people are fighting.
I'm not sure the families of the dead are going to want to hear wacky rants about fascism or whatever the socially acceptable cause of the week is. They'd be more interested if you were actually a serious person who made a serious choice and were willing to stand up in the face of the consequences.
What [if] these hyperthetical [sic] terrorists were overlooked because there was ... so much "noise" that the "signal" was lost.
Whereas if there had been oversight the people doing the wire-tapping would have been kept more "on task".
Then the people who were trying to catch the terrorists could say they did their best, but didn't succeed. They would tell the families of the dead that.
But judges aren't there to make the process of data collection more efficient. That's not even in question.
I'm arguing for people to be serious and responsible. This is a life and death situation, not a bumper-sticker slogan contest. Any policy choice is going to lead to some danger or potential danger, and the responsibilities and risks on both sides should be weighed seriously in light of the actual realities.
If things go wrong, are you willing to tell people you made the right choice?
I've made my choice. If someone's innocent phone conversation is overheard I'd be willing to tell the person we were sorry but we seriously thought we were doing the right thing. We tried really hard to avoid listening to any innocent people on the phone. We got a warrant almost every time, but a few times we didn't have the information to justify a warrant and we chose to listen to those conversations anyway. And if terrorists succeed despite our efforts, we think we did the right thing trying to stop them. We did what we could. I'd be willing to stand behind that policy because it's a serious, responsible policy.
I think it beats:
Our hands were tied. Your family died. We didn't do everything we could. We didn't put much serious thought into it. We followed the rules. Don't blame us, we didn't write the rules. And privacy is important too. I know your children were killed in the bombing, but what if someone's innocent phone call was overheard?