Slashdot Mirror
Death By Metadata: The NSA's Secret Role In the US Drone Strike Program
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Glenn Greenwald reports at his new independent news site 'The Intercept' that according to a former drone operator for the military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the NSA often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. In one tactic, the NSA 'geolocates' the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist's mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device. The technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against US forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have 'absolutely' been killed as a result of the NSA's increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic. One problem is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA's reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system while other top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA's targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 2,400 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. Greenwald's source says he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata. 'People get hung up that there's a targeted list of people. It's really like we're targeting a cell phone. We're not going after people – we're going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.' Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program of targeted assassination, he and his top advisers have repeatedly made clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation and takes full responsibility for it."
You're it.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Do you really know if you're the first person to have used the particular SIM in your phone? Sure the vendor said it was new, but do you really know? Particularly if you live in a third world country where there's no big-name corporate retailers?
The much more significant point would seem to be that the use of military assets to bomb civilian criminals is not the sort of thing the U.S. government is supposed to have the authority to do.
These "terrorists" sound like they're criminals not soldiers, and as such they should be a matter for the Afghani police. They should be apprehended, brought to trial and if found guilty sentenced according to Afghani law.
Whether it a drone that fires the missile, or a cell phone meta-data-mining program that provides the target is rather less important than the fact that blowing up a building to kill a target is an act of war and really not an appropriate solution.
What makes you think A is really X's friend and not some random guy that bought what they thought was a new SIM and which turns out to be used one last owned by X?
If the government has the SIM's ID to gather metadata then they have full access to tap the phone to listen to all conversations. So it's not just that A talks to B. It's that A talks to B discussing an attack.
PR-wise, it doesn't matter because we (USofA!) will still claim that we killed their #2 or #3 sub-commander.
But you do raise an interesting point. Could those SIM cards be sold/donated to the enemies of X? So we (USofA!) end up killing X's enemies for him?
Cut the speaker and display wires (no sound and no lights) and you now have a "homing beacon" for a drone attack that can be hidden just about anywhere.
The world is much more terrifying than you realize. The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters. You sleep at night, content and happy, because good people are protecting you. This isn't a fascist plot - I've stood literally a meter a way from a man who would have no compunction murdering your entire family. And we actually did shoot him. This is life, this is the world. And please don't delude yourselves.
You Americans - you sit in safety without understanding what's happening around you. The world is full of horror, and there are people who are trying to protect you, and they do care about the Constitution. The darkness is around you, and you're oblivious to it. This is history. You have no fucking idea what the world is actually like. This is not a game. So please try to understand what the NSA is doing for you.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Ok, this women and children thing needs to stop. Not all women and children are innocent, and not all men are militants.
and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect,
So someone could take a box with a dozen or so of the SIM cards and place it in a mosque, wedding, or other gathering of completely innocent people. Suddenly it's a meeting place with many "high value" targets and a bunch of innocents die, known SIM cards get destroyed and the bad guys need to get new phones. Or SIM card anyhow. So this harmless metadata, or so the NSA says, is enough information to fire missiles at people. But it's not something that I should be concerned with being tracked if it's from my phone?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 2,400 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration.
That's considerably more than I would have thought the total of all drone strikes ever. As scary as the cold war was, this "war on terror", or what ever it's called these days, is far creepier to me.
takes full responsibility for it.
That phrase doesn't seem to mean what it used to.
Gitmo closed yet?
Obama ordered Gitmo closed on literally his first day on office. Congress overruled him. Sorry that constitutional checks and balances are inconvenient.
The story of al-Awalaki's 16 year old son doesn't get enough coverage. Presumably, he's one of the 4 americans that have been (officially) killed by drone strikes.
Obama's campaign staff said that the boy should've "had a more responsible father."
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you honestly think that the "world out there" is "full of horror" and "monsters", you've got serious mental issues. Maybe you can help yourself by travelling the world - not in an army uniform, and not just to places where you are sent to shoot people your employer dislikes.
Maybe you would realize then that people all around the world have much better things to do then to conspire against people living in some remote country. Unless of course, they are being approached by you dropping bombs on their houses.
If you want to be scared about dangers to you life, why not calculate the probabilities of dying early from car accidents, lack of health insurance, being shot randomly by some disgruntled gunman on a rampage at home - all in relation to the risk of becoming the victim of some sinister terror plan?
And BTW: You might have noticed that there are many developed countries in the world that run nothing remotely similar to the NSA, CIA and DOD that have not seen any significant amount of attacks from foreign "monsters".
Well...
His Executive Order for closing same pretty much had all the loopholes it needed, since it required that prisoners be returned to their countries of origin if possible (and most of the countries of origin didn't want those guys back).
Plus there was the part about "The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃnamo are eligible for such transfer or release.", which implies strongly that there are also a number NOT so eligible.
Then there's the "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." part, which provides plenty of cover for the DoJ to determine that any particular inmate is NOT eligible for release.
In other words, the Executive Order was written so as to cover Obama's ass first and foremost, with the actual closing of Gitmo a bonus, if it happened.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm getting seriously tired of the "We're not as bad as the Taliban/Russians/Chinese/Storm Troopers/..." argument.
You're supposed to be a whole lot better, not just slightly better!
Also, it's not a question of what could happen, it is happening. It's even happening to US citizens. Your government now asserts that it's allowed to arbirtarily kill its own citizens. I don't care how much worse someone else is. That's BAD.