Slashdot Mirror
Former NSA Director: 'We Kill People Based On Metadata'
An anonymous reader writes "An article by David Cole at the NY Review of Books lays out why we should care as much about the collection of metadata as we do about the collection of the data itself. At a recent debate, General Michael Hayden, who formerly led both the NSA and the CIA, told Cole, 'we kill people based on metadata.' The statement is stark and descriptive: metadata isn't just part of the investigation. Sometimes it's the entire investigation. Cole talks about the USA Freedom Act, legislation that would limit the NSA's data collection powers if it passes. The bill contains several good steps in securing the privacy of citizens and restoring due process. But Cole says it 'only skims the surface.' He writes, 'It does not address, for example, the NSA's guerilla-like tactics of inserting vulnerabilities into computer software and drivers, to be exploited later to surreptitiously intercept private communications. It also focuses exclusively on reining in the NSA's direct spying on Americans. ... In the Internet era, it is increasingly common that everyone's communications cross national boundaries. That makes all of us vulnerable, for when the government collects data in bulk from people it believes are foreign nationals, it is almost certain to sweep up lots of communications in which Americans are involved.' He concludes, '[T]he biggest mistake any of us could make would be to conclude that this bill solves the problem.'"
Calling Dr. Arnim Zola to the white courtesy phone. Dr. Arnim Zola to the courtesy phone please.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
As Jefferson would say, only eternal vigilance can protect us.
GHCHQ can monitor US citizens and then tell the NSA the stuff they need. What we need are spying restrictions to EVERYONE not just the americans. The only exception should areas where the US is at war.
Erdös Number.
If they can store 3 phone call hops of metadata of who a suspect called over the last 2 years (or was it three) then they have everyone's metadata forever.
That's one obvious bit of mathematics that the god damn media missed in the latest lies from the White House.
They have your metadata forever because you're ALWAYS 3 phone call hops from a terrorist who after all once called for a plane ticket or a pizza or a taxi or called someone who did.
And nice to know that they kill people based on metadata, and that they've made sure that none of your secure communications are secure. The ghosts of Stazi secret police are dying a second time from orgasming all day and night.
Canada is richer then most people of the US.
I would hope a developed first world nation would be richer than most private citizens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This new America that was invented by Bush and refined by Obama is nothing short of terrifying.
I want leadership that cares about the people more than the whims of big business, and can provide meaningful change instead of "lightweight" legislation designed to appease a small segment of people superficially, such as drug legalization and immigration reform.
Ending our pointless war on terror and dismantling the domestic spying program would be a huge step in the right direction. We can't justify either one of them at all, and both were developed as unworkable solutions to hypothetical problems. They cost too much, they hurt too many people, and they are ultimately pointless.
Sad thing is, in the next election neither major party will have anyone to offer who is significantly different from what we've seen before. The Democrats will have a lukewarm nice guy who's soft on the major issues, and the Republicans will have a hard-right nutjob who talks directly to God. And the third parties will offer the same crackpots who have more interest in building marijuana dispensaries and legalizing ferret ownership than the hard issues that impact our rights, our privacy, and our way of life.
Sucks when "None of the above" is the only option. I'll still vote Democrat because they are "less evil", but these days, not by very much at all...
.. a well crafted and up to date hosts file helps to deal with that!
So that's not going to be an improvement.
TFA is an off-kilter criticism
1. Here's a way to head off alot of pointless banter on this issue:You're either a full pacifist or it's a question of **when** to use deadly force...that's first in any conversation about military action. You can't criticize just *one* military decision to kill without any context or comparison unless you are a 100% pacifist for all situations...because if you're not a total pacifist, then it's just a question of what conditions your think justify lethal force.
2. In war, we kill on all kinds of imperfect data...**it's all we ever have**
3. The US military can legal engage in lethal force without a formal declaration of war on another country by Congress.
4. Both drones & piloted craft shoot missiles at enemies that cause collateral deaths, and any criticism of the use of either is a criticism of the use of both
I'm sick of the banter & want real discussion on this issue
Thank you Dave Raggett
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The bigger discussion should be who's doing the killing, is it our professional military, civilian intelligence agencies (CIA, etc.), civilian law enforcement (DEA, etc.), or civilian contractors? The first step towards getting our military policy back on a sort-of moral foundation would be to reinstate the monopoly of the regular uniformed military on using lethal force in the name of national security. IMHO, there are just too many agencies using lethal force, each with their own ROE, chain of command, tactical priorities, etc.
This former military officer (Iraq 2006-2008) has experienced first hand how external agencies have targeted individuals in his area or responsibility without coordinating with the ground commander. The results have been mistaken identity (killing the wrong person(s)), use of unnecessary force (if they just asked, we could have had him turn himself in), and having to deal with the negative second-order effects which made accomplishing our own mission more dangerous and difficult. Often the second order effects make the targeting not strategically worth while. But I would speculate that these questions tend to not get raised at the higher levels, where the mission is targeting and killing and not achieving some desired end state. At some point we need to ask ourselves, how old where theses targeted individuals on 9-11. Most were probably around six to ten years of age. We're killing them via drone because they became terrorists. They became terrorists in part because we killed their relatives, friends, etc. via drone, and now we're targeting them. It's a cycle that needs to be broken. The other priorities need to be helping these countries get their economies back on track and putting their young population back to school and work.
so what's the difference between the NSA's plan and Hydra's plan in Captain America Winter Soldier? absolutely nothing as far as i can tell. can anyone tell me if i am mistaken?
Don't worry folks, it's only meta data. Nothing to worr.....
NO CARRIER