Slashdot Mirror
Member of President Obama's NSA Panel Recommends Increased Data Collection
cold fjord writes "National Journal reports, 'Michael Morell, the former acting director of the CIA and a member of President Obama's task force on surveillance, said ... that a controversial telephone data-collection program conducted by the National Security Agency should be expanded to include emails. He also said the program, far from being unnecessary, could prevent the next 9/11. Morell, seeking to correct any misperception that the presidential panel had called for a radical curtailment of NSA programs, said he is in favor of restarting a program that the NSA discontinued in 2011 that involved the collection of "meta-data" for internet communications. ... "I would argue actually that the email data is probably more valuable than the telephony data," ... Morell also said that while he agreed with the report's conclusion that the telephone data program, conducted under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, made "only a modest contribution to the nation's security" so far, it should be continued under the new safeguards recommended by the panel. "I would argue that what effectiveness we have seen to date is totally irrelevant to how effective it might be in the future," he said. "This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11 and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened."' — More at Politico and National Review. Some members of Congress have a different view. Even Russian President Putin has weighed in with both a zing and a defense."
*speechless*
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Before anyone pipes up with "oh, this doesn't affect me, I'm just a nobody", then try thinking further ahead than the next quarter.
You may be one among, say, millions of students, but what about 5-10 years from now when you do or invent something important and it's in conflict with what the government of the day wants you to do ?
That's the point at which your student past is dug up and it's explained to you that unless you play ball your past will be revealed.
Even if you are the most boring person in the world, then what about the people one or two steps removed from you, ie: members of your class. Guilt by association and all that.
I really dislike it when people think about where they are today instead of where they may be a few years from now. People like these will sleepwalk into this future without realising it until it's too late.
Obama is Bush 2.0, even though he led us to believe he was the anti-Bush. We all thought he was going to undo the draconian actions of the Patriot Act, to restore personal liberty and freedom, but that's sure not what we got, is it?
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
... you know your doing something wrong.
Be seeing you...
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Also were suggested to put all americans in maximum security prisons, to avoid to be attacked by foreigners. They could keep working from jail for their safety, but their salaries will have a cut to maintain the jail system safe for them.
Other options like killing all the americans to avoid them to be killed by terrorists, and killing everyone with a doomsday device to avoid the same, if well would be effective for the security of american goals, were discarded as, for now, excessive.
I'd contend that after 9/11, no measures were necessary to fight terrorism. In fact, it would've been far better to shrug and move on.
Think about it: What better move to show the world that you won't budge to terrorism by showing you aren't intimidated, and what better way to do that than to just ignore the whole thing, except for mourning your dead and putting the building back together?
You can always get your own back later. But nooo, you had to fight. Right away. And give up scads of freedoms to do it. And everyone else's too. And wage two wars that have now destabilised the entire area. Destabilisation that is causing yet more people to die and more terrorism to leak back into the rest of the world. These drastic measures have compounded the problem several orders of magnitude. So really, you're reaping what you've sown.
Instead, what was necessary was to fire every last single intelligence agency in its entirety and rebuild from scratch. For they've been at it for sixty-odd years, had their feelers in every network, and... didn't see this one coming. And they still don't. But in the meantime they've grown that much more in size, power, budget, influence, access, hunger for data, you name it. The intelligence community is completely out of control. So the only fix is still, only much more so, to get rid of it entirely. That, or we'll have to get rid of the entire state of the USoA. Or we'll indeed end up with a permanent state of war.
A permanent state of war is not good for any society.
It's good for the people in power. What makes you think that they care whether or not it's good for society.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
According to the Globo report, Mr. Snowden said the NSA hasn’t produced evidence to suggest the disclosures have caused harm. He said U.S. law doesn’t distinguish between a whistleblower revealing illegal programs “and a spy secretly selling documents to terrorists.”
The biggest offense one can commit in the U.S. isn’t to damage the government, but rather to “embarrass it. It’s clear that I could not possibly get a fair trial in my country,” he said, according to the report.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/22/snowden-criticizes-u-s-panel-overseeing-surveillance/
I don't think the powers that be would like it to ever end. The expression "War is Peace" sums this up...as long as there is a constant threat of war(in this case, "terrorism"), the populace can be made to accept nearly any unreasonable demand in the name of that defending against that threat.
Imagine if you are the commander of a military force - would you rather a mediocre budget because of peacetime? Or would you rather have a "buy anything and everything no questions asked" mandate because of the imminent threat of war? This also appeals to the sense of power the government leaders have - it allows them a constant state of martial law, effectively letting them act with impunity while "defending us" from war(or in this case, imminent terrorism).
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Yes but that's the scary thing about this whole metadata thing. If they tapped every backboned and could archive every packet it would effectively not matter you encrypted it along the way. They'd still know who you're talking to, where you surf online, the whole bit. Also, given how much crap snowden found, the scary question is what is so classified he didn't find it?
Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened.
Because "YOU THINK"? That is a good enough reason to rape Americans' of their privacy?
And if we station armed soldiers at every interstate entrance and exit, every state border, every entrance and exit to every major cvity, to interrogate all travelers, strip search everyone driving -- demand to see and record the "metadata" (identification of all vehicle passengers, and their reported origin and destination) --- just maybe we stop the next 9/11 or carbombing too.
The terrorists will just have to use a different technique...
Let me see if I get this right: Three letter agencies refuse to work in compliance with the Constitution and pre-Bush era FISA law... where few people can remember why the original FISA was passed (look it up, it has everything to do with illegal three letter agency data collection on US citizens during the early to mid-20th century, very much like what we're facing now)... where people forget that NSA lawyers were directed by Darth Cheney to find every means of justifying to the secret court (what? a secret court in America? really???) four (that we know so far), count 'um, four illegal spying programs... which the aforementioned secret court accepted with few, if any limits!... so Baby Bush could wave a court signed piece of paper that granted his illegal spy programs legitimacy... and that anti-American "socialist" Obama continually supports... where citizens of the Formerly Great Country of the USA demand safety in nearly gleeful exchange for freedoms... and not one single person involved in these clearly illegal activities has been put on trial... while the US Government hunts those who might reveal aforementioned illegal activities...
Problem? What problem? Oh. Right. Ice cold Busch and NASCAR await. Gotta go...
Actually, the "drastic measures" were largely a reaction to the events. As a country, we went into shock and some people took advantage of this to push security theater that would make them rich and/or would score them votes.
All that was really needed was three things beyond pre-911 security:
1) Lock and reinforce the cockpit doors so a terrorist couldn't burst in and take over.
2) Instruct pilots that, in the event of a terrorist trying to take over, they are to report it, fly to the nearest airport, and make an emergency landing. They are NOT to unlock the cockpit doors no matter how many people the terrorists kill. Pilots would be shielded from being sued for the loss of life while they tried to make an emergency landing. After all, if the terrorists get into the cockpit, everyone might as well be dead.
3) Passengers were not to simply "do as the terrorists say" as they did in pre-911 times. Back then "hijacking" meant you go to some other location, spend some tense hours being captive, and then more likely than not get returned home safe and sound. As long as you just cooperated. Now, "hijacking" means you are dead if you don't stop them. Passengers will now rise up and oppose the terrorists. Even if they die doing it. (See Flight 93.)
If we were to reduce airport security to pre-911 levels with the above exceptions, we'd be just as safe from terrorists as we are today and wouldn't be sacrificing as many freedoms.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Why does the public let go unchallenged the claim that there will be a "next 9/11" to prevent?
The 9/11 attacks were the most ambitious terrorist attacks in history. They certainly terrorized the United States, and government officials obviously remain terrorized to this day. So in that sense, they were kind of a success. They also had massive blowback that Al Quaeda might not be keen to repeat.
Before 9/11, bin Laden was a folk hero in some parts of the Muslim world because he fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the atrocity he masterminded, most of his financiers and sympathizers dropped him like he was radioactive. Middle Eastern governments that had formerly turned a blind eye to Al Quaeda started shutting down its finance network and jailing its contributors, raiding training camps and arresting radical clerics. Then there is the US armed response, which was deeply misguided in important ways but which undeniably brought ruin on Al Queada and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Since at least the battle of Tora Bora, Al Quaeda has been struggling to survive. It's hard to see how redoubling American resolve, just now when the public is war-weary, cynical, and worried about the war debt, would advance the aim of a global Caliphate.
It has also been said that the 9/11 attacks were self defeating in the sense that exactly because they were so devastating and well-planned, they are nigh impossible to surpass. Next to them, just bombing an embassy looks like small time. So the effectiveness of typical terror attacks may actually have been diminished because the public's expectations have been raised.
So, even if any organization could pull off "another 9/11", I seriously question whether they would want to. I believe the radicals' current objective is to get the US out of Afghanistan so they can rebuild their safe haven there. In other words, to pick up the pieces from the blowback from 9/11 and get back to where they were on Sept. 10, 2001. There is considerable doubt whether this is possible: the US will definitely pull out, but its drones will still rain Hellfire missiles from the sky day or night, and the US-backed Afghan army is in a position to keep the pressure on for a good long while.
Which brings me back to why preventing the "next 9/11" is something we should be worried about. If bin Laden had 9/11 to do over again, knowing the consequences for his organization and his agenda, would he go for it? I have to go with "no." Why can't any politician stand up and say that? Claim some credit for the progress in the "war on terror" instead of jumping at shadows?
Of course, I can answer my own question. The bogeyman of terrorism serves the authoritarian purposes of the government, so they refuse to abandon it. But please, let's start calling them on it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Mmm hmm. How exactly do you suggest I encrypt the routing information (metadata) of my emails, phone calls, and mail? And still have it reach it's destination I mean? The ISPs, phone companies, email providers, etc. could do such a thing if they chose - but under current law they're all in the back pocket of the NSA and their secret orders anyway, so it wouldn't defend against the elephant in the room (though it would still be a good defense against every *other* privacy-invading parasite monitoring internet traffic.
Sure, it's good advice to encrypt the contents and deny them the ability to dig deeper (though I don't see phone scramblers catching on any time soon), assuming of course you can find an encryption algorithm that hasn't been compromised by the NSA or other spooks, but it accomplishes exactly nothing in terms of the topic at hand.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This whole NSA spying debacle is nothing more than a self-licking ice cream cone if there ever was one, albeit a rather dangerous one for any democracy to be involved in.
In at least two court cases now the government has had to admit that its massive dragnet operation has, over the years, not prevented a single terrorist incident; the ones we did catch on time were thanks to tip-offs and good old fashioned detective work. Yet, why does the establishment seem to double down on this issue, even though it's clearly unconstitutional and public sentiment is against it?
Because of the money involved.
80% of the NSA consists of private companies that do almost all of the work and it's these companies that have such a massive stake in this gigantic data collecting operation. Normally the government should be able to simply tell them to stop, but the problem is that the tail is now wagging the dog: these companies don't want to see any drop in their profits, which is only their main interest and whole reason for being. So, they're fighting back using mainly legal methods, which these days includes the option to make donations to key politicians. Remember: money equals free speech these days.
The politicians involved, especially the members of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Feinstein, Chambliss, et al.), are the most obvious targets for these donations. Like all other members of Congress, they know that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money will win the next election, so they actually spend most of their time raising money while in return doing and saying most anything that their most important donors want. Our representatives don't work for us anymore: they work for their donors. Consequently, the government squanders untold billions on so many unnecessary "employment projects" every year, but this NSA mega-project to spy on everyone and everything is a particularly dangerous one.
That's why we must put a stop to it ASAP: by getting big money out of politics.
Lucky for us, this is actually easier than you might think. It would be very difficult in any other country, but the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).
Is anybody doing this yet? Yes indeed, and you too can get involved! WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.
However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.
It looks to me like this is going to happen. The only question is whether it will be sooner or later. As an ex-pat I can only donate, but if you live in the US you can also contact your favorite State Legislator and ask for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result maybe we can change t
"I would argue that what effectiveness we have seen to date is totally irrelevant to how effective it might be in the future," he said. "This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11 and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened."'
OK, let's take your utterly preposterous claim at face value. Let's say that this program would have prevented 9/11, and would prevent another 9/11 tomorrow, and has done fuck-all in between. That means we'd save 3,000 American lives every 12 years. Call it 3,600 to make the math easy. That's 300 lives per year. Against the 4th amendment. How does that price measure up against some of our other freedoms?
To retain the right to drive automobiles, we spend 34,000 lives per year.
To retain the right to drink alcohol, we spend 34,000 to 75,000 lives per year (depending on how you count alcohol-related accidents).
To retain the right to use tobacco, we spend 440,000 lives per year.
To retain the second amendment, we spend 30,000 lives per year.
To retain the right to be obese, we spend 300,000 lives per year.
With the possible exception of tobacco, I support the retention of all those rights. Three hundred per year for The Fourth Amendment (and the chilling effect on The First)? Even if his preposterous supposition were true, it would be a bargain at ten times the price compared to some of the other rights we hold dear.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
There were numerous reports about the 9/11 hijackers doing things like learning to fly jets and many of them were already on terrorist watch lists.
The issue wasn't a lack of information, it was apathy and incompetence. Gathering *even more* information about innocent people won't help stop anything. Having competent people who do their jobs can.
All that said, freedom isn't safe. If we want to be free, we have to understand that there are those who are unbalanced, criminal, or just downright nasty out there. We need balanced laws and competent people to address this, but spying on everyone isn't the answer. That is all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr