by Ugh
As I'm sure many of you know, the USA PATRIOT Act (or at least certain provisions of it and perhaps other laws) expired last night. It's hard to tell, however, because I'm still here typing this and we do not have ISIS raising it's flag over the White House, imposing Sharia law, and – most disturbingly – mooching off my wifi.
For some reason the bleating from the White House and National Security Apparatus seemed muted this time, at least to me. Oh sure, we have Mitch McConnell and John Brennan saying things like "We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive" and "'terrorist elements' are watching Congress's actions 'very carefully' and are 'looking for the seams to operate within.'" Seams. Also, too, WH press secretary Josh Earnest "On a matter as critical as our national security, individual senators must put aside their partisan motivations and act swiftly" – partisan! Interesting definition.
But really, AFAICT there hasn't been a full court press. I surmise this is because either (i) these tools aren't all that critical to National Security after all, and serve a sort of CYA function, and if they're taken away now there's a person to blame; or (ii) the administration has decided it has authority to do all this in the name of national security so whether Congress approves doesn't really matter.
I suppose the third possibility is that things will be renewed on Tuesday anyway so they're just going to keep on rolling. Feh.
UPDATE: Oh, Iowans, you disappoint me so….
“‘terrorist elements’ are watching Congress’s actions ‘very carefully’ and are ‘looking for the seams to operate within.'”
Terrorists are, after all, known for their extreme subtly.
My understanding is that the NSA’s efforts have seen extensive use in circumventing the 4th amendment, for conventional law enforcement, though the mechanism of “parallel construction”. That’s where the NSA takes information they’ve collected by means that are not admissible in court, and provides it to law enforcement, who then, knowing exactly what they’re looking for, arrange to “stumble across” the evidence they use in prosecuting you.
And then don’t mention in court that the only reason they knew where to find it was that the NSA had tipped them off, because if they did mention it, all that evidence would get thrown out as illegally obtained.
That “parallel construction” is also practiced in the news media is a reasonable extrapolation; All the NSA has to do is tip off a reporter on where to find the dirt, and the reporter doesn’t have to reveal where they got the tip from, if they even know.
These uses, circumventing the 4th amendment, and providing dirt for going after political foes, probably represent the chief utility of the Patriot act, not fighting terrorism. Essentially, we’ve got our secret police now, Bush arranged that over the objections of Democrats, who now want to keep them around because they find them useful.
I used to say that we were building a police state, and had better do something about it while there was still time to stop. I now think the window for doing something about it passed several years back. We’re living in a police state, the state just doesn’t find it expedient to admit to being one.
Yet.
Not to go off on too much of a tangent (meaning that I’m going to do exactly that), but my job involves infrastructure, which could possibly, maybe, but I kind of doubt it, become targets for terrorists.
We have reason to provide documents detailing various elements of this infrastructure to outside parties from time to time. Some of this information could, hypothetically, be used to plan an attack. We’re talking engineering stuff here.
We have a department that worries about such things and has developed administrative procedures to keep these documents out of the wrong hands. It’s all very silly AFAIAC, and not just because information is simply too easy to copy and distribute without anyone knowing.
What’s really silly to me is that terrorists aren’t trying to build copies of the structures in question. They’re trying to destroy them, which isn’t quite as complicated.
If someone had the expertise to analyze a set of plans (to blow something up just right?), they wouldn’t need the plans. It would be obvious to them what to do, not to mention that the things I’m talking about follow fairly consistent designs that could be studied in countless text books, anyway.
But, you see, it’s always some super-technical mastermind kind of thing – like in the movies! (cool…) – rather than someone filling a box truck with stuff that goes “BOOM!” and setting it off where it will fnck sh1t up.
are they worried that someone will find the vulnerability that allows a small one-man fighter to take it out with a single lucky shot?
I think most of those vulnerabilities are kind of obvious. Like the expensive transformers in substations, that you can take out with one shot with a rifle.
A lot of this is security theater: Efforts to make it look like something is being done have displaced actually doing something.
“have displaced actually doing something.”
What?
And by whom?
are they worried that someone will find the vulnerability that allows a small one-man fighter to take it out with a single lucky shot?
I guess it’s possible that they’re worried about that, but that would be a ridiculous thing to be worried about.
An ironic thing about one of our security efforts, known as “hardening,” is that it was done to prevent a particular sort of attack, but the way it was done, to an astute observer, reveals exactly what we were trying to prevent.
I’m actually more supportive of physical security in general, because it’s real. Gates, fences, big steel doors, humans with eyes and guns (cameras are okay, but usually only matter after the fact) and such are more worthwhile than making people promise not to show other people pieces of paper or whatever.
But, even then, we’re talking about places that are generally open to the public, anyway, so it’s like putting a bank-vault door on the side of a barn, while the barn doors at either end are wide open all the time.
I can even understand keeping the details of response plans under wraps. I can reasonably see where someone might use that kind of information to do something to the greatest possible effect. But that’s not the kind of stuff I’m talking about.
Has someone hijacked Brett Bellmore’s ID? He’s actually making sense for the first time in living memory.
The highly visible terror attacks of recent years – 9/11, Murrah building, the ’93 WTC bombing – were done fairly cheaply, by people who were well known to each other, and who had a variety of ways available to them to communicate, transfer money, etc.
In the case of 9/11, at least, at least some of the folks were known to the intelligence community. Sufficient information was in hand to interrupt the attack. Information was not the problem, organizational and bureaucratic bung-ups were.
It’s not clear to me how capturing every freaking communication mediated by any form of technology that occurs anywhere anytime will improve our chances of identifying and preventing planned attacks.
If anything, IMO it may well make it harder, because there’s that much more noise to filter out.
Our technology is really really good, and so I think we look for technological solutions by default. But the tool that happens to be the best and most powerful tool in our toolbox may not be the best tool for the job.
And, as Brett notes, and as has been the case for over a decade, shiny powerful tools end up being used for lots of purposes. They’re often fun and exciting or at least interesting to use, and they’re usually so efficient and effective at doing whatever it is they do that they can convince you that whatever it is that they do is what you really wanted to do in the first place.
As far as rights go, in general, I don’t think most folks really care all that much about the 4th A, or even most of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. They aren’t of much practical import for most people. Most people aren’t engaging in political speech, or assembling, or petitioning their reps. Most people don’t think all that much about whether their private communications or their personal information is free from search or interference.
So, the freedom from search aspect of the whole surveillance thing doesn’t get that much traction.
Last but not least, there are staggeringly large piles of beautiful green money on the table, and there are just a hell of a lot of people who are incapable of saying no to that. And many of those people find their way to government and to corporations who feed off of government, like zombies drawn to a giant tasty brain.
So, there’s that to deal with, also.
Well done, Rand Paul, a johnny come lately is better than no johnny at all. I’m not that concerned about the purity of his motives if it gets the job done.
But this beast ain’t dead yet.
Essentially, we’ve got our secret police now, Bush arranged that over the objections of Democrats, who now want to keep them around because they find them useful.
Well, we’re not quite there yet. If only because the Congress had the rare foresight to write sunset provisions into the Patriot Act.
But I would say that the reason that they did so was because they were quite clear, even at the time and under all the hysteria about 9/11, that they were going way overboard. Voting for everything that was asked for was pretty much a CYA move on their part. But it could have been worse — i.e. permanent.
Terrorists don’t bother with attacking infrastructure for one simple reason. They aren’t interested in actually hurting us. They just want to scare us.
Something that kills (or injures) lots of people immediately will do that. Whereas damaging infrastructure can have long-term effects which are as bad or worse, but won’t be as spectacular.
“Well, we’re not quite there yet. If only because the Congress had the rare foresight to write sunset provisions into the Patriot Act.”
Assuming that the night following that sunset lasts more than a day or so, and assuming that the NSA actually cares if what it’s doing is legal. Thing is, you might need laws to create a police state, but once you’ve created one, it doesn’t need laws to continue.
Theo, I’ve been complaining about security theater since 9/11, and government survailance of the civilian population since the 90’s, at least.
IMO, pols are simply too afraid to be seen in hindsight as having not done everything possible to prevent an attack. it’s safe for their careers to err on the side of voting for anything that anyone says could possibly stop an attack.
Paul apparently thinks he’ll be able to “Freedom! Liberty!” his way out of being called “soft on terror”, if something should happen. it’s a bet i think he’ll lose. but, it would be better for everyone if he wins.
and maybe if he does win, others will join him.
longshots, IMO.
Something that kills (or injures) lots of people immediately will do that.
Depending on the infrastructure in question, killing lots of people might well be the intended result of attacking the infrastructure. The longer-term economic damage would be a beneficial (to the terrorists) side effect.
and maybe if he does win, others will join him.
14 years ago, it was the kiss of death.
we’ll see how much times have changed.
what I think most of the time is that 9/11 showed us how important basic civil liberties were to us when the rubber meets the road.
how much have we changed in 14 years?
i’m somewhat surprised, and pleased, that nobody has tried on the “threat level orange!!” thing in the context of this vote. i mean, it would have been a pretty blatant play, but that hasn’t stopped folks before.
so, maybe things are different now, somewhat.
I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.
Considering how much trouble they are having capturing their own nations, it seems wildly improbable that they are leaving infrastructure alone here on the theory that they will capture us. I mean, they have partially captured some places which were already in government meltdown. But places which didn’t have the government already experiencing civil war or otherwise in serious military trouble? Nada.
Terrorism isn’t exactly the tactic of rational, objective people, though. And I can see why they’d think they were making progress; They’re doing pretty good on the intimidating our media into self-censorship front.
Yeah, the idea that “teh terrorists” aren’t attacking infrastructure in foreign developed nations because they’re banking on capturing it intact in the short term goes so far past misguided that I’d feel entirely comfortable labeling it delusional.
Actually, Brett, I think it’s very dangerous to assume that terrorism is predicated on wildly irrational thought. It’s really very much a tactic of rational, objective people; the most typical assumptions involving irrationality would be terrorist calculations that their victims will behave in an irrational or disproportionate manner in comparison to the actual threat posed. Irrational? No. It’s just not the tactic generally chosen by people who perceive themselves to have other viable choices… and even then, it still gets chosen sometimes. Shock and Awe, amirite?
Don’t know about the short term, but, yes, they actually do think they’re going to take us over. As goofy as that is.
“I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.”
Ah, the answers to the questions “What?” and “By Whom?” above, regarding “actually doing something”, start to come into focus.
Keep going. I can’t wait for the cessation of civil liberties to kick in under your scheme to actually do something.
Maybe the terrorists will await the final crumbling of our defunded infrastructure and other depredations visited upon the American people under a Walker/Paul Administration and the rest of us might ask the terrorists in to take care of business?
See, you managed to get several folks to dive off the low board into the pool of agreement with Rand Paul regarding NSA data collection, and you immediately climb to the highest diving board and do a double twist kip cannonball into a shot glass and expect folks to follow.
I have a feeling you are not to concerned with al Qaeda’s Navy and Air Force.
Please expand, until you pop.
“They’re doing pretty good on the intimidating our media into self-censorship front.”
Ah, I see, a little reasonable, responsible self-restraint on the cartoon front and the next thing we know, the terrorists will be arriving at the White House via our pristine highway, railroad and airport infrastructure.
No, wait. They are ALREADY in the White House, beavering away at mandating school kids eat their carrots at lunch time?
Am I getting warm?
Has someone hijacked Brett Bellmore’s ID? He’s actually making sense for the first time in living memory.
Ummm, I’d say no: “I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.”
Actually, the entire media, bar none, has worked feverishly the past 15 years to scare the living crap out of everyone.
The only folks regretting that we don’t have an “Orange Alert” right now are the producers of every news and political talk show in existence. Not to mention, the folks who do the surround sound music of doom and graphics clogging our screens.
Also, the terrorist “experts” and “consultants” hired by the media who have been twiddling their thumbs of late, well, until the Republican primary race started to heat up and so we have the usual suspects all over the media going “Boo!” into the camera all over again.
“I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.”
And, eight minutes later it’s:
“Don’t know about the short term, but, yes, they actually do think they’re going to take us over. As goofy as that is.”
Pick one and stick with it. Or someone’s going to accuse you of trolling.
Not me. But someone will.
“I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.”
And, eight minutes later it’s:
“Don’t know about the short term, but, yes, they actually do think they’re going to take us over. As goofy as that is.”
Pick one and stick with it. Or someone’s going to accuse you of trolling.
Not me. But someone will.
Yes, it is just terrible how AQ brought down the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi, and killed those innocent people.
And what did Obama do to stop the attack? NOTHING!
It’s not too late for Pres. Paul to bring the perpetrators to justice, I hope.
I wonder if terrorists aren’t refraining from infrastructure attacks because they’ve come to think they can capture the nation, and don’t want to capture a ruined nation.
dude, that’s nutty.
“Pick one and stick with it”
This kind of implies those two statements contradict each other, when they represent different ways of stating the same thing.
Islamic extremists think they’re the wave of the future, that they’re eventually going to take over the world. Why should they break what they plan to take over?
I’m always amazed at how following a logical train of thought can lead to such a crazy place.
Actually, Obama blew up that bridge, and ISIS was miffed because they were just about to cross it to join up with Tea Party troops marching on Washington to defund Obamacare to save them the trouble of beheading yet another 12 million Americans who will expire uninsured anyhoo.
NOBODY likes the guy.
My fear is that those Jade Helm troops down there in Texas are false flags, and will soon strip off their uniforms, revealing their inner mujahideen, and that State will be lost to ISIS/al Qaeda, thwarting my plan to cede the entire joint back to Mexico.
ISIS doesn’t want to capture the US. they want to establish their caliphate in Iraq/Syria and have their own little theocracy. to the extent they want to hurt the US or the west it’s to try to convince us to leave them alone.
neither does Al-Q want to capture the US. they want the US to stay away from the ME. they attack the US to try to convince us that mucking around in the ME isn’t worth the pain.
the claim that Muslims want to take over the US is propaganda.
No, they’re quite explicit that they expect to eventually conquer the entire world. Having priorities doesn’t change that.
My demand that Brett switch to LED lightbulbs is based on my nefarious plan to take over the world, and I’d like a bit less atmospheric CO2 and a bit more remaining energy resources for my planned 1000ys glorious reign.
(ys = “yottosecond”)
There is never a scarcity of people that firmly believe that they will take over the world one day. Religion is often involved, not necessarily though. Some have been trying to do so for a few thousand years by now.
No, they’re quite explicit that they expect to eventually conquer the entire world. Having priorities doesn’t change that.
I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taking over the entire world, but to the extent that they do say they want to, it could simply be because that sort of big talk appeals to potential recruits.
But, even if they were seriously aiming at taking over the world, if destroying the infrastructure got them closer to being able to do that, I doubt they would worry about taking over a country with wrecked infrastructure. That’s pretty much all they do, as it is.
“I’m always amazed at how following a logical train of thought can lead to such a crazy place.”
Exactly.
It’s the crazy train.
Self-driving.
The head whackaloon conductor will be along shortly to punch our tickets, and buss our cheeks, muss our hair, and cut our ties off at the knot, before being dragged by the hair by Moe Howard, Moe Lane, Moe Wittgenstein, and Five Guys Named Moe into the caboose for their daily 2+2=5 tutoring.
In the meantime, in the dining car today, we are serving the mid-morning snack of nutcakes with paranoia-infused camel butter, and a stewpot of loon hoot broth, heirloom smoked WTF paprika, and the preserved frontal lobes of Peter Lorre.
Bon appetite!
Oh, I’ve no doubt that, if they decided crashing the US electric grid was necessary to make the US an Islamic nation, they’d do it in a heartbeat. I think they believe that it isn’t necessary, that they’re winning.
Given the luck they’re having with censoring images of Muhammad in the US media, that belief isn’t entirely unfounded. Imposing dhimitude on us is underway, at the very least.
Regardless of the world-historical ambitions of ISIS, the general pattern of terrorist actions, going back basically forever, is that they are directed toward persons.
Not Citizens United persons, natural human persons.
Terrorism, as a tactic, is oriented toward causing fear, rather than toward achieving some pragmatic tactical or strategic goal.
The goal is political or social coercion, rather than conquest.
See, for instance, the definition of terrorism in the US code.
Killing and maiming people is scary. Blowing up a bridge, per se, is extremely inconvenient, but not really scary.
Of course, you could redefine “terrorism” to include acts of war between states, where the goal is actually conquest. No doubt many of them are terrifying.
You might even redefine “terrorism” to mean anything scary at all, in which case we are going to have to send the entire extended Kardashian family to Guantanamo.
But the generally accepted definition of terrorism doesn’t really encompass actions intended to take and hold territory.
It’s a tactic, with particular aims. Other tactics, with other goals, have their own names.
Brett, you are loving this, aren’t ya?
You turned this thread directly into the superhighway to your element.
Here’s how nuts I am.
There is no Brett Bellmore.
You are a shadowy committee of NSA operatives communicating via some embedded code in your comments, and unwittingly ours that you have elicited, with a ventriloquist microprocessor inside the wooden body of Charlie McCarthy, which resides at the Smithsonian, and which at the appointed time, will pop his monocle, drop his wooden lower jaw, turn to Mortimer Snerd, and say “Who’s the dummy now, Dummy?” and then explode, ruining our infrastructure.
Brett, you are loving this, aren’t ya?
You turned this thread directly into the superhighway to your element.
Here’s how nuts I am.
There is no Brett Bellmore.
You are a shadowy committee of NSA operatives communicating via some embedded code in your comments, and unwittingly ours that you have elicited, with a ventriloquist microprocessor inside the wooden body of Charlie McCarthy, which resides at the Smithsonian, and which at the appointed time, will pop his monocle, drop his wooden lower jaw, turn to Mortimer Snerd, and say “Who’s the dummy now, Dummy?” and then explode, ruining our infrastructure.
Well, we agree at least, that they’re not attacking infrastructure because they don’t see it as in their interest, not because they couldn’t.
We’d better hope they don’t change their minds about that, because a lot of our infrastructure is sadly vulnerable. Though I’d be more worried about a Carrington Event taking down the grid.
are they worried that someone will find the vulnerability that allows a small one-man fighter to take it out with a single lucky shot?
Nah, no one around here has the necessary womp-rat bulls-eye expertise and all the T-16s were mothballed a long long time ago.
I will say that ISIS and company have shown a Chico and Harpo ability to hornswaggle the United States into turning over its military infrastructure fully loaded and intact.
Imposing dhimitude on us is underway, at the very least.
tell that to the capicola sandwich i just ate.
You turned this thread directly into the superhighway to your element.
Yeah, Brett’s back.
Let’s all play.
I would like the entire set of resources available to the US intelligence services, in all of the formidable power and efficiency, trained like a laser on the right wing insurrectionist sovereign citizen nutjobs who plague us like locusts.
If anybody is plotting an overthrow of the US government, it’s them.
They’re infesting the military and the police forces, they’re poisoning the mind of the nation with their hateful and bizarre rhetoric and violent paranoid fantasies, and they regularly threaten kill their fellow citizens in the name of imposing their warped vision on us all.
I’d like those guys under a microscope. If they so much as take a crap, I want to know how many turds and how much each one weighed.
If we’re going to play blog comment Calvinball, I want to play, too.
Well, we can’t send the in-laws.
Blowing up a bridge, per se, is extremely inconvenient, but not really scary.
That strikes me as fairly ridiculous. If the Brooklyn bridge, or the golden gate was destroyed by terrorists, that would be ‘really scary’ to a large number of people.
Or any other major bridge.
ISIS and AQ utterly lack the ability to do so, of course, so the whole thing is an academic argument, I suppose.
yeah. what russell said.
You’d be more worried about a Carrington Event?
What happened to the meteors heading straight for my head that you WEREN’T worried about yesterday?
I’d say that it’s more likely that one of us will be shot in the testicles by a guy juggling his cellphone, a grocery bag, and his gun that he forget to put the safety on.
I will say that a Carrington Event would have the upside of giving blogging a rest.
I think it’s very dangerous to assume that terrorism is predicated on wildly irrational thought. It’s really very much a tactic of rational, objective people
I think the way to put this is that the decisions about what to do are generally rational. It’s the motivations that seem so wildly irrational.
They must have imposed dhimitude at the Founding, because I don’t believe the media ever published images of Muhammed, during peacetime at least, until recently.
Of course, they felt free to publish and film caricatures of slit-eyed Japs, Negroes pop-eyed and saying “Yowza” to their tap-dancing Mammies, and that other old bestselling chestnut, the crook-backed, hook-nosed Jew making change by grasping with one hand while pickpocketing with the other.
Before, of course, they were FORCED” to curtail their unlimited First Amendment rights.
But maybe we should get back to that ethos. It will go great with open and concealed carry.
You and your black neighbors could have a good belly-laugh together.
Just wait until ISIS takes over Iran and uses all the nukes the mullahs got from Saddam on Colorado Springs, the Kristian(TM) heart of the US. Except the one used to EMP the US grid out of existence of course (but only after the news of the first strike had a chance to spread).
I don’t know about capicola, but I communicate through private channels and frequencies, pastrami on rye, with Brett on a regular basis.
He comes through loud and clear.
I kid.
If the Brooklyn bridge, or the golden gate was destroyed by terrorists, that would be ‘really scary’ to a large number of people.
Major bridges in the US have actually collapsed or otherwise failed. Not through terrorist action, but due to other reasons.
People were upset, but they did not really freak out.
When I say damage to infrastructure is “not scary”, I mean it is not likely to create the kind of fearful reaction that was created by, for example, 9/11.
Long story short, I disagree.
ISIS and AQ utterly lack the ability to do so, of course, so the whole thing is an academic argument, I suppose.
AQ knocked down the WTC. Second try, of course, but they got it done.
I suspect that they could figure out how to knock down a big bridge. They have, actually, planned to attack the Brooklyn, but the plot was foiled. Apparently, the intended approach was plausible.
If they did go after a bridge, they would more likely go after something iconic, like the Golden Gate, or the Brooklyn, for the symbolic value more than as a way of tangling up infrastructure.
There are a number of items of infrastructure that, if damaged or destroyed, would actually be tremendously disruptive. Many of them are no doubt fairly vulnerable.
I’m frankly surprised, also grateful, that terrorists tend not to be interested in less dramatic, but potentially far more damaging, targets like that.
“a lot of our infrastructure is sadly vulnerable”
Describe the vast, expensive security surveillance state, run by government and its massive battalion of private security contractors, and believe me one size WILL fit all, because Vermont ain’t opting out, that will be required to correct this vulnerability.
Also, it’s attendant inconveniences and constitutional improprieties.
I already get my car searched on a random basis when I enter a federal facility to play softball as a holdover from your friend and not mine, Timothy McVeigh, the well-known terrorist murderer.
Weren’t you arguing two hours ago against NSA data collection?
Be explicit and tell us about your alternative security state and who it will target.
Be bold.
clearly we need to arm the bridges and electric substations. auto-turrets everywhere. it’ll be just like HalfLife.
Transportation infrastructure is inherently vulnerable, be it briges, tunnels, or rail systems. If you don’t let people, en masse, in or on them, they serve no purpose. You can’t search every truck that goes over the Golden Gate bridge or every backpack anyone brings onto a NYC subway train.
Destroying that sort of infrastructure, in and of itself, would be not so terror-inspiring. Purposely causing a traffic jam at rush hour on the Golden Gate and detonating a McVeigh-style truck bomb at mid-span might be a different story, for reasons not limited to the damage to the bridge.
I don’t know how likely that sort of thing is, and I don’t think it’s very likely at all at the places my work concerns, but I don’t see that it couldn’t be sufficiently terroristic if done “right.”
“You’d be more worried about a Carrington Event?
What happened to the meteors heading straight for my head that you WEREN’T worried about yesterday?”
Well, a Carrington even would effect everybody, world-wide. You may take it as a given that I’d be worried about a meteor shower that would hit everybody, world-wide, in the head, too.
“Describe the vast, expensive security surveillance state, run by government and its massive battalion of private security contractors, and believe me one size WILL fit all, because Vermont ain’t opting out, that will be required to correct this vulnerability.”
Circuit breakers on critical grid components would require a survailance state???
I mean, you do understand that Solar flare induced EMP isn’t the same as nuclear bomb EMP, right? It’s very low frequency, the plasma hits the magnetosphere, pushing it towards the ground, and the field lines crossing wires induce voltage.
Induce quite high voltage if the wires in question are hundreds of miles long. If the wires are hundreds of feet long? Trivial voltages.
A Carrington event is something you deal with at the level of utility interconnects and substations, not homes and businesses.
Your “sadly vulnerable” reference was to the infrastructure being subject to terrorism, not to the Carrington Event, which you threw in at the end, presumably to take my mind off the meteors, as I read it.
Just so you know, my mother in her day was able to worry about meteor threats, terrorist threats, Carrington Events and the danger of me facing a lefthanded pitcher who was wild, all happening simultaneously in one big lollapalooza of universal anxiety.
“I mean, you do understand ..”
Yes, I do, Mr. Peepers.
But I haven’t heard the phrase “the plasma hits the magnetosphere” before, but since such a thing happening anywhere near me is against my religious convictions and my business model, I’ll be demanding an exception.
clearly we need to arm the bridges and electric substations
The plot against the Brooklyn was to cut suspension cables.
The cops keep patrol cars on the bridge entrances, and a police boat under the bridge. They locked the compartment where the cables are vulnerable, and put up some security cameras.
That was apparently sufficient for AQ to call off the plot as not doable.
You’d be more worried about a Carrington Event?
What if we had a reprise of the New Madrid earthquake?
What if the Tunguska event is repeated, only in downtown Chicago?
What if the something like the Chicxulub asteroid landed in Times Square?
At a certain point, there just ain’t a lot you can do.
Yellowstone exploding.
Suppose we see Yellowstone exploding, or a Carrington Event, or any one-time other natural disaster (i.e. not a hurricane or tornado or such like).
Anyone want to be that we won’t be subjected to pronouncements that it must have been due to some kind of terrorist action? And demanding further actions to reduce freedom in order to improve security against another such terrorist action.
Because, after all, there are no votes in saying “natural disaster, beyond human power to prevent” and moving on.
When I say damage to infrastructure is “not scary”, I mean it is not likely to create the kind of fearful reaction that was created by, for example, 9/11.
I think if a major bridge was destroyed with a fair number of people on it, it would be remarkably fear inspiring. If multiple bridges were targeted, similar to 9/11’s multiple targets, I imagine the response would be similar. While I’m surprised by your description of not scary, I suppose its a fairly irrelevant point.
I suspect that they could figure out how to knock down a big bridge. They have, actually, planned to attack the Brooklyn, but the plot was foiled. Apparently, the intended approach was plausible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alleged-al-qaeda-plot-in-us/
The statement said that Faris researched the bridge on the Internet and traveled to New York in late 2002 to examine it, concluding that “the plot to destroy the bridge by severing the cables was very unlikely to succeed” because of its security and structure.
Terrorism is both difficult and easy. In theory, there are a lot of soft targets, and there are some targets that simply can’t be hardened.
But recruiting someone who has the mental and emotional ability to carry out an attack, who has access to the US, and who is motivated to kill a lot of people, is hard.
Even executing an attack, without mistakes, is hard. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253#Bombing_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot#Incident
I’m frankly surprised, also grateful, that terrorists tend not to be interested in less dramatic, but potentially far more damaging, targets like that.
While I am likewise grateful terrorists aren’t more prevalent and successful, I’m not very surprised. The threat of terrorism in the US is ludicrously overblown: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
But recruiting someone who has the mental and emotional ability to carry out an attack, who has access to the US, and who is motivated to kill a lot of people, is hard.
There is a lot to that middle part. The oceans really do protect us in large measure. Plus there are plenty of targets right in the non-U.S. neighborhood.
While I am likewise grateful terrorists aren’t more prevalent and successful, I’m not very surprised. The threat of terrorism in the US is ludicrously overblown:
But that’s just evidence that the powers granted to the national security state worked! And now you want to take away the only thing that keeps us safe™! For shame.
Ugh: exactly.
Once they’re in the US, they don’t really have to fool around with bombs and stuff.
Just go to a gun show with a stack of cash and arm up. Then head to a movie theater, a school, a sporting event, and they’re good to go.
Interesting that the Aurora shooter’s diary, showing his attack planning, showed up on the internet today.
The TSA – works every time.
But never fear, “Today, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of protection, both seen and unseen…” Ah, the ever present yet fully effective “unseen” security measures.
They’re the dark matter of airport security, apparently.
“The threat of terrorism in the US is ludicrously overblown:”
True, but it’s such a dandy excuse to attack civil liberties. Kind of like the campus rape crisis, in that regard, or school yard shootings, or whatever crisis of the moment is being plastered across the headlines, with destroying some civil liberty as the purported solution.
I’m hoping, with little basis, that enough members of Congress will regain their senses in the next few days to defeat renewal of the Patriot act. And I’m thanking Paul for giving them the chance to do that, as unlikely as they are to take it.
And I’m hoping that if, (Probably when.) in the next few months, various nasty revelations come out about the few members who voted against renewal, people realize that just as nasty of revelations about those who voted to renew are being withheld, BECAUSE they voted to renew. And realize they’re looking at proof the survailance really IS being used for political purposes, not that opponents of it are rotten scum.
Not that they aren’t, but this doesn’t distinguish them from those who vote for the survailance state. Having some remaining concern for our liberty does.
Just go to a gun show with a stack of cash and arm up. Then head to a movie theater, a school, a sporting event, and they’re good to go.
I’ve probably mentioned this half a dozen times just on this blog, but the best place to kill a bunch of people at a sporting event is while they’re standing in line waiting to get through security (oh, the irony!). It’s like a really wide cattle-chute packed with people when the entry rate is peaking.
HSH – same with airports.
I think if a major bridge was destroyed with a fair number of people on it, it would be remarkably fear inspiring.
Yes, I agree, because the people on it would probably be killed.
The point I was trying to make, probably poorly, was that terrorism as a tactic generally targets people, rather than infrastructure. Because targeting people – killing and maiming people – is more disturbing than damaging infrastructure.
Bridges are probably a poor example, because if you destroy a bridge, you are probably also going to kill people.
To pick a different example, had Al Qaeda, instead of flying airplanes into the WTC, found a way to (for instance) cause a power outage in a major city, my sense is that the public reaction would have been quite different.
Other examples might be blowing up the entrances to the Hudson River rail tunnels, without causing loss of life. Or blowing up all of the rail crossings of the Mississippi river in one go, again without causing loss of life.
I doubt that any of those would have, for example, inspired two military campaigns. Or, even one. Or provided the political juice to pass something like USA Patriot.
All IMO, there’s no way to know how folks would respond to things that didn’t actually happen. But, IMO, things that damage property but don’t cause massive loss of life are less effective as acts of terror.
My intent in all of the above was to counter Brett’s somewhat zany (IMO) contention that terrorists don’t target infrastructure because their goal is actually to take over the country, and they want it in physically good order when they do so.
To the point of the Brooklyn bridge case, the reason the attempt was abandoned was not that it was physically impractical to damage the bridge, but because the security measures put in place after 9/11, modest as they were, made it unlikely that Faris would be able to carry out the attack without being detected. A security review after Faris’ arrest found that it would not have been all that hard to cut suspension cables, which was the plan.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/fun_nsa_surveil.html
I found quiz one to be darkly humorous.
Because targeting people – killing and maiming people – is more disturbing than damaging infrastructure.
Sorry, I get your point now. Yes, I agree.
But, IMO, things that damage property but don’t cause massive loss of life are less effective as acts of terror.
And agree, as well as with all of those examples.
but because the security measures put in place after 9/11, modest as they were, made it unlikely that Faris would be able to carry out the attack
I don’t disagree, but I wanted to underline this concept ‘modest as they were’ security measures are what stopped him. A police cruiser parked near the bridge entrance (iirc…it was something like that) that would have been able to see the guy taking a gas cutter to the main support cables.
Another example, locking cockpit doors (although there are downsides to that). Metal detectors. Etc.
Security doesn’t have to be advanced and expensive to significantly ablate the threat of terrorism.
“Today, all air travelers are subject to a robust security system that employs multiple layers of protection, both seen and unseen…”
The real problem with that statement is with one word” robust. There is lots of “seen” security (aka “security theater”). But for real security?
Lets ignore the fact that, as with the sporting events mentioned above, there is a great opportunity to attack the densely-packed crowd waiting to go thru security.
Then there is the fact that it just isn’t that hard to get out onto the field. There was a case near here last year (at San Jose International) where a guy was out running around on the ramp. In fact, they have had five (5!) occurrances of such a breach in just the past year. (Including one guy who snuck into the wheel well and was only discovered when he was wandering around the ramp in Hawaii after the plane landed.)
Somehow I doubt that this lack of security is just an anomaly at this one airport. It’s just that they have gotten hit more — or, at least, have noticed more that they have gotten hit.
Sorry, I get your point now
No worries, I think my initial example was poorly chosen for the point I was trying to make.
Security doesn’t have to be advanced and expensive to significantly ablate the threat of terrorism.
Completely agree.
The problem is that the less expensive but more effective solution of putting a cop or cops in the right place(s) is that it requires hiring someone and increasing the operating budget, which we can’t afford. Buying barriers and gizmos is capital, in which case you can never be too safe, and nothing is more important than security.
Only the unceasing vigilance of the open carry movement is keeping the American Way of Life from becoming the laughingstock it has now become.
And I’m hoping that if, (Probably when.) in the next few months, various nasty revelations come out about the few members who voted against renewal, people realize that just as nasty of revelations about those who voted to renew are being withheld, BECAUSE they voted to renew. And realize they’re looking at proof the survailance really IS being used for political purposes, not that opponents of it are rotten scum.
The absence of evidence is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but keep in mind that opponents, by definition, are rotten scum.
I think you meant “yoctosecond”.
Seriously, Bobby: Assume, for the sake of argument, that the NSA, in the course of it’s massive and illegal surveillance of Americans, collects blackmail data on members of Congress. Assume that they leak such information about members that cross them, to the press, as anonymous tips.
How do you expect to learn of it? By the head of the NSA making a tearful confession? Or by the NSA’s foes, and ONLY the NSA foes, suddenly having dirt going public when it hurts the most?
Or maybe you figure that there’s just something about members of Congress who’d oppose the NSA going through your email, that they’re uniquely dirty, and prone to it coming out right before elections?
Just wondering how the government finds (has found) leads on terrorists prior to or without electronic surveillance. For example, six Somali-Americans were arrested last month in Minneapolis and San Diego.
How did the government establish probable cause? Was it anonymous tips? Racial profiling? Saw “something suspicious” that wasn’t illegal, and mixed that up with the ethnicity of the suspects? Not sure that’s a whole lot more “constitutional” than collecting neutral data, and obtaining a warrant to search it for certain things. (Well, clearly what they do is “constitutional,” being tried and true and all, but is it more just?)
nobody tell Brett that his credit card company, bank, cell phone carrier and grocery store already know enough about him to send him away forever, if he gets too close to The Truth.
Seriously, Brett: The argument would be essentially non-serious, so there is not reasonable reason to make such an assumption.
Hoover had more class. He didn’t resort to anonymous tips in the press. He blackmailed the old fashioned way.
As I recall, right wingers and conservatives just loved the guy. Makes you wonder, does it not?
Like yeast, the scum also rises.
Maybe the NSA would leak the names and addresses of the secret donors to Congresscritters’ campaigns, thus doing the country a service.
Maybe the NSA would run across communications of one kind or another by members of Congress, particularly to and from conservative and libertarian ones who are desperate to cause harm to the White House leading up to the 2016 election, which speak of undoing NSA data collection activities to raise the chances of a catastrophic terrorist attack (also giving a tacit nod to conservative terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIS that they a have window of opportunity for such a move) more probable, thus ensuring a massive reaction of fear in the country, which would certainly redound to the conservative movement’s purposes for security and future excuses to invade endlessly in the Mideast and ensure their ascendancy in all three branches of government in order to achieve their core domestic malign goals for the country, beginning with the murder of 12 million Americans now ensured through Obamacare and Medicaid.
Just for the sake of argument.
I have nothing to go on here, except that conservatives rise every morning and hold press conferences and put forth legislation on nearly a weekly basis attempting just such murder and announcing their war plans and their gutless desire to cause, by whatever ruthless methods, whatever harm they can to moderate Barack Obama and liberalism.
They’ve called it Civil War in their manifestos.
At least they got the name right.
How did the government establish probable cause? Was it anonymous tips?
Most likely that and a bit of “watch the Somalis” profiling. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding the data collected only has a record calls made, but not the actual conversation?
Perhaps you can point out court documents where the government specifically testifies that this particular aspect of the NSA data mining operation provided the initial evidence leading to more investigation and eventual arrest?
That would help.
Hoover had more class.
He did.
He wore a designer dress, high heels, and carried a handbag as he went undercover as Vivian Vance, not that there is anything wrong with that, while he murdered Martin Luther King, and at least one Kennedy, or at least kept the intelligence to himself about what was going down.
caught me, slarti. I should have looked it up, but I was feeling a bit rushed.
Perhaps you can point out court documents where the government specifically testifies that this particular aspect of the NSA data mining operation provided the initial evidence leading to more investigation and eventual arrest?
No, actually. I can’t provide anything. My impression is that looking for “terrorist plots” (which I think is a legitimate national security concern) has involved ugly methods, including racial profiling. The white people get upset when their metadata is subject to search, but nobody even bothers to inquire how the Somali-Americans come under the scrutiny of the feds.
By the way, I’m in favor of foiling terrorist plots. But racial or ethnic profiling makes me every bit as uncomfortable as NSA collection of metadata. I guess the question is “How then?”
Has someone hijacked Brett Bellmore’s ID? He’s actually making sense for the first time in living memory.
Well, that didn’t last long.
How did the government establish probable cause?
According to your linked article, it was a CI. Given the FBI’s track record with CIs, I’m not too trusting, but I have no specific information about this case.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
Nearly half the prosecutions involved the use of informants, many of them incentivized by money (operatives can be paid as much as $100,000 per assignment) or the need to work off criminal or immigration violations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding the data collected only has a record calls made, but not the actual conversation?
NSFW, but entertaining and informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
Just imagine, for a minute, how incredibly unjust the use of confidential informants can be.
As I mentioned, confidential informants and racial profiling are the two traditional ways that terrorist plots are investigated. Consider the justice of this versus race-neutral (and grudge-neutral) algorithms to search metadata.
I guess the question is “How then?”
As per russell’s 3:17 PM (which I missed in our back and forth…that would have clarified things, my bad):
The cops keep patrol cars on the bridge entrances, and a police boat under the bridge. They locked the compartment where the cables are vulnerable, and put up some security cameras.
That was apparently sufficient for AQ to call off the plot as not doable.
We can stop most (but not all) terrorism by taking basic, non-invasive security measures. No measures will ever prevent all attacks. People are too fragile and unpredictable for even the most draconian measures to be 100% preventative.
We can stop most (but not all) terrorism by taking basic, non-invasive security measures.
We can station police around bridges, tall buildings, etc.?
Sorry, but that’s not practical. If there’s a known organization that is likely to plot terrorist attacks, we should try to figure out whether they’re doing so, and thwart them (perhaps by stationing cops at the presumed point of attack).
Oh, and this doesn’t just apply to terrorism. This applies to all kinds of organized crime. Rumor, confidential informants (usually coconspirators who are made to turn), anonymous tips, etc. – a lot of police work is done that way. But tell me that’s not just as (or more) subject to abuse as targeted, judicially approved queries of metadata. I mean, ask the Innocence Project. What could possibly go wrong with traditional police methods?
Just imagine, for a minute, how incredibly unjust the use of confidential informants can be.
No need to imagine. The entire CI system is fraught with injustice.
Consider the justice of this versus race-neutral (and grudge-neutral) algorithms to search metadata.
Propose an algorithm, and I will consider its justice. Indeed, knowing what algorithms are deployed would be a welcome level of transparency.
In return, consider the injustice of dragnet surveillance of billions of innocents.
Propose an algorithm, and I will consider its justice. Indeed, knowing what algorithms are deployed would be a welcome level of transparency.
I’m happy for investigators to propose an algorithm to a court, and I would be happy for it to be a more transparent process. I’m not at all opposed to creating a better, more transparent framework for data to be searched and analyzed. And I’m not lobbying for a Stasi-like approach. Due process can be built into the system.
The word “dragnet” tells us nothing except for the fact that an abuse is happening. I’m against “dragnets” because I’m against abuse, just as you are.
Consider the justice of this versus race-neutral (and grudge-neutral) algorithms to search metadata.
Good morning, mr. phelps. The ongoing War on Terror has gone from noun to adverb. This tape provides a link (that you should transcribe very carefully) to an internet site containing information on gazillions of phone calls. You task is to figure out which of those calls are being made by bad people intent on destroying our Way of Life and may or may not be, but most likely are young muslim hotheads of Middle East and/or Arab ancestry. We leave it to you to figure out effective algorithms for this task as it is beyond the capabilities of our huge, and infinitely funded bureaucracy. We will give you a hint, but it did not come from us: Try screening for names such as Sufia, Ubah, or Awa. Your’re a smart guy. You know the score.
If you chose to accept this mission, we will deny all connection to you. This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds. The MSDS on the resulting fumes is provided for your use in Appendix A (after the first beep).
Okay, bobbyp, substitute “an internet site containing information on gazillions of phone calls” to “an internet site containing a list of Somali-Americans living in Minnesota”.
I’m pretty sure the my substituted scenario happens as we speak, and “those people”, not us, are being targeted with “normal police tactics” pretty much every day of the week. Wouldn’t it be better, if they’re looking for something, that they look at all of us, instead of a racially or ethnically profiled subset?
Oops, getting close to bedtime. Just wanted to throw some ideas out there, that the reason “we’re” concerned is that, for the first time, the targeted community is us.
Night all.
Consider the justice of this versus race-neutral (and grudge-neutral) algorithms to search metadata.
Briefly, algorithms are as prone to abuse as any other technique or means for searching for information.
It’s as easy, and as hard, to make an algorithm “neutral”, in terms of any factor you like, as it is to do so for any other form of intelligence gathering.
Maybe you should just state your point in a straightforward way.
Not only are algorithms subject to abuse. As anyone who spends their days up to their elbows in computer code can tell you, anything coming out of a computer is subject to just as much human error as anything else people do.** Unfortunately, too many people who do not spend their days like that just assume that, if it came out of a computer, it must be rock solid.
So it’s not just deliberate leaks of information. It’s bad information being acted upon as if it were real.
** A line from one of my co-workers a couple of decades ago: “All of American business is critically dependent on millions of lines of computer code, which was written by people with no visible qualifications to have done so.”
A Carrington event might actually be something worth worrying about, as the event that it’s named after occurred in the mid 1800’s and so they aren’t the same as a 1 km asteroid that might hit every few hundred thousand years or a Toba or Yellowstone scale eruption that might occur every hundred thousand years. I read about asteroids and super volcanoes and think “cool”, because the danger of dying from one of those is pretty tiny. I read about Carrington events and feel a bit queasy. Last time I read, though, not everyone agreed on how bad it would be.
“Terrorists don’t bother with attacking infrastructure for one simple reason. They aren’t interested in actually hurting us. They just want to scare us.
Something that kills (or injures) lots of people immediately will do that. Whereas damaging infrastructure can have long-term effects which are as bad or worse, but won’t be as spectacular.”
Along the same line of reasoning, this is why the US targeted Iraqi infrastructure in the Gulf War, with the understanding that sanctions would make repair difficult. You can do a lot of harm and create a lot of pressure and do it in a deniable and not very media photogenic way. Terrorists want the media attention when they hurt people, countries these days usually don’t.
propose an algorithm…
Effectively, it was proposed quite some time since:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread
And guess what happened to its proponents ?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
Essentially the problem with a race neutral algorithm, it that race neutral algorithms will accurately reflect the underlying reality, which typically isn’t race neutral.
You know, disparate impact?
Your Somali-Americans are still going to turn up more often than average.
[gets out ten-foot pole]
nope. not touching that.
briefly, “somali” doesn’t refer to a race or racial group. ethnically – i.e., in terms of genetic heritage – they are a mix. the horn is a crossroads.
what makes somalis somali is mostly shared language and culture.
Oh, Iowans, you disappoint me so….
Well, they are on the bleeding edge of terrorist activity.
FWIW, the focus here is on 4th A abuses, but other rights can be / have been compromised by NSA surveillance.
Upthread Brett mentioned the practice of parallel construction, where criminal cases are built based on information gathered through “terrorism” surveillance. Plaintiffs often are not allowed to know the source of the information, and are unable to challenge it on constitutional grounds. They may not even know the existence of the information used to build the case against them.
Information collected in the name of national security is also commonly used to target groups engaged in lawful, peaceful domestic political activity. Occupy, and/or folks opposed to the Keystone pipeline or fracking expansion, are subject to intrusive surveillance for engaging in activities that are protected under the 1st A as well as the 4th.
I’m actually more concerned about the likely use of parallel construction in journalism…
The NSA database amounts to a staggering potential source of material for blackmail, or just destroying one’s foes. It’s not in the nature of politicans to leave sources of power untapped.
I’m actually more concerned about the likely use of parallel construction in journalism…
That “parallel construction” is also practiced in the news media is a reasonable extrapolation
Other than your sense that using secret or classified information to destroy one’s foes is a “reasonable extrapolation”, do you have anything that demonstrates that it actually occurs?
The only example I can think of is the Valerie Plame case. There may be others, I’m just asking if you know of them.
At minimum, if we are going to look especially at Somalis, we ought to look beyond our own foreign policy tunnel vision. The folks in the southern part of the country, for example, ought to get more attention than those from Somaliland. (Which we really should have recognized as a separate country long since. After all, they are running a country in reality, and one which looks far more like one with the values we like than the “government” in Mogadishu.)
How are you going to detect that, anyway? At least in court the prosecution has to make a show of explaining how they found out about the crime. “Parallel construction” is them generating a ‘just so’ story to hide how they really did it.
But the media routinely conceal how they found out about the things they report. They’re SUPPOSED to act on anonymous tips, and then keep the sources secret!
How are you, or they, going to figure out the anonymous tips are coming from the NSA? Except by noticing a political pattern to whose dirt is getting exposed?
But, that’s what worries me, because, yes, politicans are not the sort of people to leave a source of power untapped.
wj: “we ought to look beyond our own foreign policy tunnel vision. The folks in the southern part of the country, for example, ought to get more attention”
Damn right, after all they fought a huge war against the US, continue to agitate for radical fundamentalism, and a source of all kinds of violent extremism.
Oh wait, you were talking about Somalia, not the US.
I’ll worry about media “parallel construction” when the NYT has the power to put someone in a federal prison.
How are you going to detect that, anyway?
OK, so you are assuming it does, or will, go on, because you find it to be a reasonable extrapolation.
Maybe the FBI has taken over for the NSA.
The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.
i’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that not only was ‘parallel construction’ not invented by the NSA in the last 20th C., but that it’s been SOP for law enforcement / snoopy little sisters everywhere since the beginning of time.
and i’ll also assume that it’s the job of the defense attorneys / accused big sisters to challenge the sourcing of evidence.
last = late
brain = dead
“I’ll worry about media “parallel construction” when the NYT has the power to put someone in a federal prison.”
Yes, exposing dirt on the party in power’s enemies, thanks to criminal misuse of the intelligence services? No big deal in a democracy.
Maybe you think it’s no big deal because you’re sure which party would do it?
“OK, so you are assuming it does, or will, go on, because you find it to be a reasonable extrapolation.”
Yes, I find it a reasonable extrapolation of what’s been going on at the IRS and other three letter agencies. I’m not sure why anybody would expect the NSA to be the only TLA not politicized.
Cute:
A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones “solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment” and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities. A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes.
Huh, wonder where that comment went?
“OK, so you are assuming it does, or will, go on, because you find it to be a reasonable extrapolation.”
Yes, I find it a reasonable extrapolation of the way the other three letter agencies have been turned into political weapons. Why would the NSA be left out of the fun?
My robotic butler hired a driverless car to take it to the ATM and was tracked by an unmanned drone there and back. The images and data were uploaded by telemetry to a satellite and downloaded to a computer algorithm.
I assume I’m free and clear.
@Brett: “Huh, wonder where that comment went?”
NSA eated it.
Yes, I find it a reasonable extrapolation of the way the other three letter agencies have been turned into political weapons.
That’s actually not a point I’d dispute.
I was just curious about where the press angle was coming from.
I’m not sure that’s a point I’d dispute, either, to be perfectly honest.
I’d say (and perhaps Brett would concur) that the proper way to describe “parallel construction” is “conspiracy to commit perjury”.
It’s not really surprising that it could happen, the (truly) appalling feature is that even when exposed it’s unlikely to have any significant consequences for the conspirators.
I put a significant part of the blame on judges; they should bring down the hammer HARD on anyone who is part of, or condones, such conspiracies.
Yes, I’d concur.
The tough thing about policing parallel construction, is, how do you prove it? The police take the tip from the NSA, and arrange for an officer to be in the right place, or claim they got an anonymous tip, or whatever, and then present a case in court which is in no way dependent on the NSA information, facially, though in reality they’d never have known to bring it without the NSA.
Short of a cop confessing, how’s the judge to know?
But, yes, it’s appalling what judges will not sanction even when they do get proof of wrongdoing by the prosecutor.
Glory days:
Majid Khan said interrogators poured ice water on his genitals, twice videotaped him naked and repeatedly touched his “private parts” – none of which was described in the Senate report. Interrogators, some of whom smelled of alcohol, also threatened to beat him with a hammer, baseball bats, sticks and leather belts, Khan said.
…
Before the Senate report detailed the agency’s interrogation methods last December, CIA officials prohibited detainees and their lawyers from publicly describing interrogation sessions, deeming detainee’s memories of the experience classified.
I knew the bolded part, but that really is some fncked up bullsh1t.
And the BS continues:
The former deputy CIA director made a series of factual misstatements while defending the agency’s harsh treatment of detainees in his recent book, Senate intelligence committee staffers assert in a 54-page document filed [sic] with citations from CIA records.
It’s interesting that the committee is not letting this kind of thing go un-rebutted. One encouraging sign, at least.
how does a judge find out? after the fact, the same way judges find out about all inds of things: FBI sample mishandling or expert witness lying or conflicts of interest. sometimes, that’s the best the system can do because the system is made up of people who lie and cheat and cover-up until they get caught. and it’s the fear of getting caught and punished that keeps things under control.
also… if we assume the NSA knows everything and we also assume that someone in the NSA will selectively leak to benefit politician A, we should probably also assume that someone is going to leak something that will benefit A’s opponents at some point – maybe even leaking the fact that A previously benefited from an NSA leak. in other words, we can’t just assume all the crooked spooks all have exactly the same loyalties. some will leak for personal benefit, some (ex Snowden) will leak out of a sense of duty. and we call some of those crooked snoops ‘whistleblowers’.
“if we assume the NSA knows everything and we also assume that someone in the NSA will selectively leak to benefit politician A, we should probably also assume that someone is going to leak something that will benefit A’s opponents at some point.”
Like we should assume that the IRS will be slow-walking applications from liberal groups this year, and leaking their donor lists to the RNC, I suppose.
For better or worse, the bureaucracy have chosen their side, and it isn’t mine, and you know it.
It would also be a rather explosive story for a journalist to report that the national security apparatus was leaking political dirt on Congresspersons that displeased it – a much bigger scoop than the dirty laundry of politician A.
Not that it couldn’t happen.
Like we should assume that the IRS will be slow-walking applications from liberal groups this year
No man, that was a few years ago.
time to find some new bait, Brett. there’s no worm left on that hook.
No, that wasn’t a few years ago, either.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. But I knew that already.
For better or worse, thebureaucracy corporate class have chosen their side, and it isn’t mine, and you know it.
kinda’ sorta’ fixed for you.
I’m trying to remember whether, back in the day, left wing groups (say, the Black Panthers) ever tried to persuade the IRS that they were an organization that should get special tax benefits. The way some right wing groups were doing. Anybody remember?
oh, crap. another html
malfunction.No, that wasn’t a few years ago, either
I provided several links documenting IRS “slow walking” and otherwise impeding the 501(c)3 status of liberal groups, long prior to the dreaded Tea Party issue, in whatever thread it was where we dug into this in depth.
If you want the information, go dig. If not, it’s on you.
The idea that intrusive federal interference with legitimate political activity singles out conservative groups is, to me, risible. The folks in Occupy, folks in the Keystone XL protests, folks in the environmental movement generally, are all completely familiar with being investigated, surveilled, infiltrated, and generally f***ed with, all for engaging in activities that are protected 1st Amendment activities. I have friends who have been arrested for participating in Keystone protests.
I have very good friends who were active in the Catholic Worker movement in the 80’s and 90’s, who were constantly subject to investigation, infiltration, surveillance, what have you. Those folks have also been jailed for engaging in civil disobedience. Some folks in that movement have spent years and decades in jail for engaging in peaceful, non-violent acts of civil disobedience.
In the meantime, the sovereign citizen vigilantes of the world run around with firearms yelling about how they are going to overthrow the government, and they’re patriots. They gather, armed, and draw down on agents of the federal government in the name of liberating Cliven Bundy’s f***ing cows, set up freelance road blocks around NV, and generally act like terrorists, and they are heroes.
The tea party folks got flagged because “Tea Party”, like “Progressive”, is a big red flag saying your interests are partisan. They got slow-walked because, being a relatively new movement, more of their applications were forwarded to DC or other regional offices for review, rather than being handled purely in the field offices. The operative term there is “precedential definition”.
Left-leaning organizations have been singled out for every kind of harassment that the feds could find to dish out to them, ever since the freaking Palmer raids.
The poor put-upon tea partiers can cry me a freaking river.
For better or worse, the bureaucracy have chosen their side, and it isn’t mine, and you know it.
and this means the NSA will leak to protect Democrats?
it’s just so fucking silly.
russell, you might as well just copy that slab o’ text, save it away, and have it ready the next time Brett brings up the fucking IRS. which he will. again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
Mike Huckabee thinks he preempted an NSA leak about himself yesterday by admitting that he wished he could have faked transexuality in high school so he could have played grab-ass with the naked high school girls.
I don’t quite believe it.
Isn’t it a well-known fact that at the time he was in high school white conservatives in Arkansas, mostly from formerly Southern Democrat segregationist families, hadn’t yet taken up bathing?
The poor put-upon tea partiers can cry me a freaking river.
You go russell. anybody with the slightest familiarity with our history will be cognizant of the proclivities of our federal government to come down like a ton of bricks on left wing ragamuffins…and I’d go back further-to the great waves of labor unrest after the civil war. but yes, a bunch of partisan crybabies claiming to be non-partisan so they would not have to reveal the names of their donors just doesn’t cut it as far as oppression goes. they are simply whiners.
sometimes i let the contempt show. i blame it on the drink and a lack of vitamins.
I’m trying to remember whether, back in the day, left wing groups (say, the Black Panthers) ever tried to persuade the IRS that they were an organization that should get special tax benefits.
Attempts to revoke the tax exempt status of lefty groups used to be federal SOP when conservatives were in charge of the Witch Hunt portfolio.
Here’s just one google search.
Enjoy.
Not that turn-about justifies bad behavior against conservative groups, of course. But it takes a serious ignorance of history to argue that the government is necessarily out to get conservatives.
Which is to say, something more than the occasional anecdote is required to make the case. With details of exactly who was doing what, under what circumstances, when they got subjected to exceptionally (i.e. not also applied to others, in other circumstances) severe treatment.
I put a significant part of the blame on judges; they should bring down the hammer HARD on anyone who is part of, or condones, such conspiracies.
Well, perhaps in part. “The law in its majesty…. yadda, yadda”.
See also SEC consent decrees for some real horrors.
…and it looks like its option 3:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/152beb08a4d14bd7ba9ccfaa23b17684/either-way-no-more-nsa-collection-us-phone-records
and it looks like its option 3:
Hope this solves everything.
“The legislation remakes the most controversial aspect of the USA Patriot Act — the once-secret bulk collection program that allows the National Security Agency to sweep up Americans’ phone records and comb through them for ties to international terrorists.”
This seriously, and critically, misstates what had happened. A court has already ruled that the bulk collection program was NOT actually authorized by the Patriot act. The NSA was doing it illegally.
So it wasn’t an “aspect of the Patriot act” in the first place.
Brett, think of it as “belt and suspenders”. Worth doing if you really care.
No, I don’t think authorizing the NSA to continue an illegal program for 6 months in order to “phase out” what it had already been ordered by a court to immediately cease, qualifies as “worth doing if you really care.”
More like, “Worth explicitly prohibiting if you really care.”
The bulk collection had already been stopped, at least theoretically. (Assuming you believe the NSA cares about complying with court rulings, which I have my doubts about.) No need to phase it out.
Assuming you believe the NSA cares about complying with court rulings, which I have my doubts about.
Me too. I think the NSA would care if POTUS specifically tells them to care. If POTUS tells them not to care, they won’t care at all. If POTUS equivocates, they won’t care except superficially.
We could put a stop to this once and for all if Congress passed legislation renaming the agency the Tea Party Security Agency and making it a sub department of the IRS.
Any time anybody raises a question, all the computers will crash simultaneously.
Thus the bi-partisan nature of this proposal.
Briefly, algorithms are as prone to abuse as any other technique or means for searching for information.
It’s as easy, and as hard, to make an algorithm “neutral”, in terms of any factor you like, as it is to do so for any other form of intelligence gathering.
Maybe you should just state your point in a straightforward way.
The above comment was made by russell last night after I had retired. Unfortunately, I’m busy at the moment and only have time to respond now, then go to bed.
Of course, everything can be abused. From the beginning of time, there have been abuses. The good about the possibility of searching metadata is that an inquiry (let’s assume that it can be fashioned to be legitimate – not abusive) is not targeted to a specific community. The bad is that the inquiry reaches everyone, and if its too broad, it is a dragnet.
I’m not sure how to state my point in a more straightforward way. What I’m trying to say is that the way data is used, not the fact of its use, is abusive or not. If we’re looking at specific ethnic groups or immigrant communities, we’re automatically being on the verge of abusive. And that’s how we’ve proceeded so far. Did we hear loud objections to the fact that Somali-Americans from Minnesota, who have gone abroad to train as terrorists, were caught? I didn’t hear those objections. Why? Because the FBI or the NSA were looking at that community, not all of us, and found some people.
What if Lilly White, the white lady, were to train with the terrorists. Wouldn’t we want an equal opportunity search for her? Doesn’t everyone realize that informants, wire taps, electronic surveillance, etc., have always been used, with secret court orders? Just not on you – just in other neighbothoods. All I’m saying is that those techniques are valuable, and when used within a valid search warrant (which would yield a narrow algorithm), searching everyone is more just than searching the targeted ethnic group neighborhoods. Do you dispute that?
No more energy tonight.
thanks for the thoughtful and expanded comment sapient.
briefly, two points,
first, I don’t really have a problem with surveillance done under a court order.
second, as a practical matter, algorithmic analyses are going to be based on some attributes of interest in the population being searched. those àre not going to be any more neutral than the criteria used to do other kinds of investigations.
i’m not sure it’s possible to avoid targeting specific communities. some kinds of people are more likely to be drawn to Islamic militant activity, just like some kinds of people are more likely to be drawn to white supremacy, or sovereign citizen vigilantism. and, investigations of those activities are probably going to reflect those facts.
using computers doesn’t alter that.
sorry, one other thing.
I disagree with your perception that folks object to the massive and indiscriminate collection of communications because now lily white folks are affected. people object to the massive and indiscriminate collection of comms, full stop.
as far as surveillance having been done basically forever via secret court orders, I know many lily white folks who almost certainly have been subject to that. it’s not unlikely that I have been subject to that.
I’m not seeing àn “it’s OK when they do it to the wogs” dynamic in this issue. at least as regards the nsa stuff.
“What I’m trying to say is that the way data is used, not the fact of its use, is abusive or not.”
I can’t agree with that. The 4th amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
“Everybody” ain’t exactly particular.
their persons, houses, papers, and effects
the phone records being searched belong to the phone company, not to you. the NSA is not searching your stuff, it’s searching Verizon’s stuff.
So? Get a search warrant againt Verizon, and it still better be “particular”.
Brett,
that assumes that Verizon isn’t okay with turning over everything to the NSA voluntarily, no court order required.
From what we’ve seen in the past 15 years, I think it’s pretty clear that Verizon, AT&T, etc etc (except for QWest, which had to be muscled) are perfectly fine with letting the NSA set up a data tap on their networks, and suck out everything of interest.
If you want to add a ‘libertarian’ perspective, I suggest that it be in the direction of ‘who owns the data?’, and also suggest that if you want any semblance of actual privacy, people have to have at least 50% ownership of data that is created about them, so that Verizon voluntarily shipping your data to NSA becomes a matter of ‘theft’, not of ‘regulation’.
I think that would be an excellent policy, but here I’m focused on the actual constitutional mandate to get a warrant, and make it specific. Which the NSA’s mass data collection policy utterly blew off.
As for whether most of the phone companies complied voluntarily, how would you know, in a country where there are “national security letters”, which not only demand that you hand over the requested data, but that you not tell anybody it was requested, and even lie about it if asked, under penalty of law?
Given the existance of national security letters, I think it’s questionable to assume that compliance to any demand is actually voluntary, since if it weren’t, they might be compelled to say it had been.
So, if the police knock on the door and ask to search your house, and you say “go ahead”, they still have to get a warrant?
No, because the only thing the warrant does is give them the right to do the search even if you don’t want them to. If you voluntarily agree to a search, they don’t need anything.
They need warrants for the phone survailence, because they don’t want the phone companies to have the option of refusing.
they still have to get a warrant?
of course, because there’s no such thing as ‘voluntary’ in our police state of maximum violence and coercion. it’s basically North Korea here.
From the various leaks that have come out, it is completely obvious that telcoms have mostly handed over data voluntarily, without a warrant.
The exception being QWest; and ~ six months later their CEO was facing federal charges. I’m sure the rest of them got the message, if they hadn’t already. No NSL needed, I doubt that the telecoms care if the NSA has the data, as long as that data doesn’t get to their competitors, and as long as it’s kept quiet so there’s no PR consequences.
I have to back off of my previous comment: even if you have a 51% ownership interest in the call records from your phone line through Verizon, Verizon can still consent to a search. Thanks to our ever-protective USSC, whatever random person answers the door when the cops come knocking, they can consent to the search, even if just visiting for the afternoon.
And good luck getting Verizon to sign a contract that explicitly protects your data from “voluntary” disclosure.
So if you want to make it so that a warrant is required, you’ll just have to bite the bullet and demand regulatory action by the FCC.
Or just do all your calls over Tor and hope for the best.
six months later their CEO was facing federal charges
him and six others, for insider trading. and he was convicted and did time.
The US isn’t North Korea, but it’s not remotely the country I grew up in, either, what with this total survailance state.
And, I’m not entirely certain how you can be confident a NSL wasn’t needed, when if one HAD been used, they’d be legally obligated to say that it hadn’t been.
Could be that Verizon even asked for an NSL, so they could keep their peons from leaking embarrassing information.
Brett, it’s very simple: what is the business downside from Verizon cooperating with NSA? NSA has plenty of budget for buying and installing its own equipment, the
wiring closet, power, and a/c requirements are minimal.
(And yes, there were reports of stuff like this happening) Are they going to lose customers? Well, other than one “B. Bellmore, curmudgeon”, no way. As long as that data doesn’t wind up in the hands of competitors, there’s almost no downside.
In fact, keeping a bunch of lawyers employed checking warrants against phone#s and cell IDs IS a significant expense. Which they’re not going to do, unless mandated by law or regulation.
it’s not remotely the country I grew up in, either, what with this total survailance state.
I think we’re approximately of an age.
The gear’s better now, but surveillance practices nowadays are likely more transparent and accountable than when we grew up.
See also “family jewels”.
The US isn’t North Korea, but it’s not remotely the country I grew up in, either, what with this total survailance state.
total? hardly.
and, the only reason the govt wasn’t recording phone calls and phone call records 40 years ago is because the tech to do it simply wasn’t available.
The US isn’t North Korea, but it’s not remotely the country I grew up in, either, what with this total survailance(sic) state.
I would posit that is due to the confluence of massive computer power (algorithms, data mining) and our oligarchic system of “private property” (your personal information and the electronic track of your activities are somebody else’s property).
Combine with perceived existential threat from those “others”….and the politics follow.
Combine with perceived existential threat from those “others”….and the politics follow.
the politics have always been there. the cold war replaced WWII, and then the cold war was replaced by ME terrorism – with only brief gaps between.
if the tech to track phone calls en masse in real time was available during the cold war, the govt would have certainly used it.
there are plenty of instances of the FBI and CIA over-reaching during the cold war. and WWII was pretty crappy for civil liberties, too.
I disagree with your perception that folks object to the massive and indiscriminate collection of communications because now lily white folks are affected. people object to the massive and indiscriminate collection of comms, full stop.
Well, yes and no. Yes, people object, full stop. However, the reason that those objections are coming out now is that the searches are now more widespread — including, inter alia, against lily white folks. The critical factor isn’t that they are white; it’s that there are so many more of us getting searched.
Lots of people, IMHO, were against those kinds of searches all along. But most of them weren’t highly motivated to do anything about them, as long as they figured it didn’t impact them personally. It wasn’t so much that the sweeps were only against racial minorities. It was that they were against other groups — whether racial, economic, religious, or whatever. The critical part of them not caring enough to actually do anything about it was that the pain went elsewhere. (And yes, while he doubtless objected in principle all along, I suspect that even Brett wasn’t upset enough to raise a stink as long as it wasn’t the Bellmores who were getting caught in sweeps.)
And that actually is still in evidence today. Witness all the comments from supporters of “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have to worry.” I guess what they don’t understand is this: the laws have gotten so complicated that it is pretty much impossible to live your life without unknowingly breaking some of them.
The only thing is, most of the ones most commonly broken don’t actually get enforced. Until they find that there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove in court that you are breaking a law that they care about. So they run the table, and get you on something else instead.
Yes, with that, and with “parallel construction”, and the enormous pressure that the DOJ can bring to bear on co-defendents, you can be pretty sure that if the Feds want to get you, then can.
For me, at least, it’s not a matter of “if you haven’t done anything wrong, don’t worry”, it’s more like “don’t worry, there’s nothing you can do anyway”.
“I suspect that even Brett wasn’t upset enough to raise a stink as long as it wasn’t the Bellmores who were getting caught in sweeps.”
Hm, when would that have been? Back in the 80’s, when I was an activist in a 3rd party, and being published in anarchist Bob Black’s ‘combozine’? Or in the 90’s, when I was attending Michigan Militia rallies?
Probably you mean the 60’s, when I was a little kid, or the (early) 70’s, before I’d become politicially active. Probably the last time in my life I wasn’t on some kind of watch list.
When it comes to civil liberties, the right’s common refrain has traditionally been “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.
So when did they get off that bus?
And yes, what cleek, wj, and snarkiloki said.
That folks such as the otherwise sensibly liberal Sapient, who should know better, now recite this line is simply distressing, to say the least.
Brett, if I have misjudged you personally, I do apologize.
But if you are going to argue that most of those objecting are in that group with you, I’m going to take some convincing. Not least because the 3rd party you were with never made a significant showing compared to the other two.
(And yes, while he doubtless objected in principle all along, I suspect that even Brett wasn’t upset enough to raise a stink as long as it wasn’t the Bellmores who were getting caught in sweeps.)
I’m inclined to take Brett’s word on this one that this isn’t some new-found objection he has regarding the surveillance state. But I’m also inclined to think there are plenty of other people who fit the description quite well.
This has been another episode of refresh before commenting.
Probably are, but a former LP activist who was involved in the Michigan Militia isn’t going to be one of them. I haven’t just been subject to survailence, I’ve been subject to survailence through a rifle sight.
I’d hardly be considered a typical Republican or conservative.
That folks such as the otherwise sensibly liberal Sapient, who should know better, now recite this line is simply distressing, to say the least.
I don’t subscribe to the concept of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, not at all. I just think that if we agree that there is a problem with criminal conspiracies, such as terrorism, organized crime – including mafia and gangs (that engage in human trafficking and other horrible abuse), we need to have tools to find the perpetrators. Whereas criminals used to have person-to-person meetings, or used the mail to do bad acts (which could be surveilled, to a certain extent, by following people around, or looking on the outside of envelopes, without a warrant), now they use the Internet and cell phones.
It seems to me that some degree of electronic surveillance (and there should certainly be a discussion of how much, and how to go about it) should be allowed without a warrant until probable cause can be established. Metadata (which is “outside the envelope information”) seems analogous to the traditional kinds of preliminary surveillance (following suspicious people, questioning people in neighborhoods where thing seem suspicious, listening to the statements of not-necessarily credible people who have already been caught for something, etc.)
The old-fashioned ways of following people around, or snooping through trash, etc., aren’t going to work for people who do all of their business by cell phone.
“Metadata (which is “outside the envelope information”) seems analogous to the traditional kinds of preliminary surveillance (following suspicious people, questioning people in neighborhoods where thing seem suspicious, listening to the statements of not-necessarily credible people who have already been caught for something, etc.)”
Except for being more like demanding that somebody whose business takes them into the neighborhood do the work for you, and hand it over, or do jail time. It’s not like the cops just get this data on their own. They’re demanding it from somebody else.
Well, demanding something from somebody else is what warrants are for.
It seems to me that some degree of electronic surveillance (and there should certainly be a discussion of how much, and how to go about it) should be allowed without a warrant until probable cause can be established.
Why? If there is no probable cause, why should there be surveillance?
And more to the point, why should there be surveillance of this scale? Why should everybody’s digital life be searchable?
Why should the government construct a historical database of who called who? How is a list of contacts, of that scale, not an invasion of privacy?
Why?
to keep Lindsey Graham from having a nervous breakdown.
Sapient,
Clarification appreciated.
(and there should certainly be a discussion of how much, and how to go about it)
Precisely. However, making even the mere existence of such a program and its extent a deep dark secret to begin with kinda’ short circuits having the discussion, no?
“to keep Lindsey Graham from having a nervous breakdown”
I consider causing Lindsey Graham an nervous breakdown reason enough to abolish such a program, by itself.
I guess they take comrade chairman Mao at his word. All the fish have to get caught* and if they swim in the sea of the people, the big net has to be dragged through all of it/them.
Commies may be caught by just adding words to the Plegde of Allegiance that they are unable to utter but those Islamists have a special dispense to lie (like the stinking Jews before they became part of US** since we need them against the Other Semites***)
*the one not caught will be the one doing the damage.
**signified by the the replacement of Christian with Judaeo-Christian in the context of OUR culture/heritage.
***One day the Muslims will be included in US too when it goes against those stinking non-Abrahamites that are and have always been the sworn enemies of our proud Sinaitic heritage.
The old-fashioned ways of following people around, or snooping through trash, etc., aren’t going to work for people who do all of their business by cell phone.
Sure they will. But are not the defenders of the super security state not actually asking for something that is widely perceived as a radical departure in this regard?
I get the impression that is the rub here.
Why? If there is no probable cause, why should there be surveillance?
Because limited surveillance (following suspicious people, digging through trash, reading the outside of envelopes, and pen register information) is sometimes necessary to establish probable cause that would actually allow obtaining a search warrant to invade someone’s home or listen to their phone conversation. The Pen Register Act is an example of people having thought about limited use of wide net electronic surveillance. Nobody’s listening to anyone’s phone calls at that stage.
making even the mere existence of such a program and its extent a deep dark secret to begin with kinda’ short circuits having the discussion, no?
I agree that more transparency is welcome. I’m also glad that we’re perhaps seeing the end of the 9/11 scare era. That said, privacy has always been an evolving concept with regard to new technology.
Frankly, I think the surveillance drones (and public surveillance cameras, for that matter) are way more of a threat to privacy than the NSA data collection. But again, it’s all in how they’re used.
“Metadata (which is “outside the envelope information”) seems analogous to the traditional kinds of preliminary surveillance (following suspicious people, questioning people in neighborhoods where thing seem suspicious, listening to the statements of not-necessarily credible people who have already been caught for something, etc.)”
Could be. Could be that metadata is much more descriptive. Could be that Smith v. Maryland (which was 5-4 in the first place) would come out differently if the facts were that the government was collecting pen register information on every single phone in the country at once and storing that information more or less permanently for later searches at its leisure.
sorry, Smith v. Maryland was 5-3.
Metadata (which is “outside the envelope information”) seems analogous to the traditional kinds of preliminary surveillance (following suspicious people, questioning people in neighborhoods where thing seem suspicious, listening to the statements of not-necessarily credible people who have already been caught for something, etc.)
The Pen Register Act is an example of people having thought about limited use of wide net electronic surveillance.
I believe you are factually incorrect here.
Comms metadata – routing information, records of who communicated with whom, basically anything *about* the communication that would have to be disclosed to the carrier in order to expedite the communication, but excluding the content – is seen, by law, as analogous to telephony routing information.
As such, the law requires a court order to capture the information. The difference between “metadata” and content is that the bar for obtaining the court order is significantly lower.
Pen registers are not wide net comms surveillance, they are directed at particular targets.
The NSA appeared to claim authority to collect comms metadata under USA Patriot Section 215, which allows the collection of “any tangible thing”. The 2nd Circuit decision rejected that claim.
In addition to the Pen Register Act, USA Patriot specifically addresses pen registers in sections 214 and 216.
I generally agree that drones and other forms of physical surveillance are more intrusive in nature than pen register-ish stuff, but they mostly occur in the open, where there is no presumption of privacy.
So, they will likely be more difficult to challenge.
Also, if I understand all of this mess correctly, Smith found no constitutional protection for pen registers and other “outside the envelope” stuff, however those protections were provided subsequently at a statutory level by the Pen Register Act in 1986.
Last but not least, speaking of the “outside of the envelope”, it appears the USPS is recording what’s written on the envelope of every piece of mail processed in the US.
That’s about 660 million pieces of mail per day.
Law enforcement doesn’t need a court order to see that stuff, they just have to ask the USPS.
What Ugh and russell said.
Although, if the USPS is recording everything on the outside of envelopes, that presumably means whatever is written on post cards as well.
Time was when the Post Office was forbidden from disclosing anything about the mails. Guess that disappeared a while ago — but was it when they ceased to be a government department, or when 9/11 made ev erybody hysterical?
Sapient: The Pen Register Act is an example of people having thought about limited use of wide net electronic surveillance.
russell: I believe you are factually incorrect here.
Also, if I understand all of this mess correctly, Smith found no constitutional protection for pen registers and other “outside the envelope” stuff, however those protections were provided subsequently at a statutory level by the Pen Register Act in 1986.
Not sure where I was factually incorrect. In fact, the Pen Register Act was an example of Congress considering metadata, and building statutory (not 4th amendment) protections for large scale out-of-the envelope data. If you read the statute, you’ll see that “probably cause” is not the standard, as it is for Constitutional, 4th amendment warrants. Rather, an affidavit has to state that information is likely to be “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation”. (18 USC 3122).
In other words, Congress did want to protect the contents of communications, (sec. 1301) and didn’t want the use of metadata willy
nilly (a bare showing of relevance was necessary).
Similarly, the FISA court allowed the NSA to collect data based on a similar allegation. “That order specified that the items were to be produced to the NSA; that there were “reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought [were] relevant to authorized investigations.”
In other words, the FISA court was not only relying on Smith’s holding that there was no Constitutional right in the metadata, but was relying on a statutory standard that exists for using a metadata collection system.
We can talk about the 2nd Circuit decision another time – it’s worth doing – but its effect is pretty weak considering that it remanded the case without enjoining the NSA, and anticipated the sunset of the law that the NSA was relying on, which is now amended. It basically tried to shield itself from Supreme Court review. Several of its holdings were fairly weak (like the one on standing).
Anyway, I’m not sure how my analysis of the situation – that Congress has made an attempt to tackle this issue in light of the holding in Smith – is factually incorrect. Maybe I misunderstood you, russell.
Finally, all I’m saying is that “a warrant” for searching metadata is overkill.
For some reason, I frequently type “probably” for “probable”. Sorry.
wj, if you’ve stood in line to mail something lately, you’ll see exactly what they do at the USPS, which is similar to what happens at private mail carriers. The attendant will type in the destination address, and check its accuracy (zip code, etc.), and perhaps there’s a record kept of the return address as well (although I haven’t witnessed that). You are given a tracking number if you request one. I doubt the clerks have time to type the note on a postcard, or care to do that.
It seems just a tiny bit paranoid to worry about this too much. Sure, I would have qualms about conducting criminal activities through the mail or by phone. Hasn’t that always been true?
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. What I thought was said what the the USPS was scanning the outside of envelopes. Just having the clerk type the address information and create a bar code is a rather different thing.
Yes, it creates some metadata, which presumably is accessible. But it’s a long way from scanning the outside of the envelope.
Not sure where I was factually incorrect.
I wouldn’t speak for russell, but the thing that jumps out at me is describing pen register as “wide net electronic surveillance”.
My understanding, perhaps wrong, was that a pen register was typically attached to a single line, which is very much not ‘wide net surveillance’.
I think it does a disservice to treat the newer dragnet abilities as a difference in scale (e.g. it’s the same as we’ve always done, just to everybody, all the time) and not as a fundamental difference in kind.
Take a random person who works for a journalism outlet. Its possible the FBI could attach a pen register to their line ‘just because’, but its very unlikely. If for no other reason then those would be resources that are not used for more relevant goals.
That’s profoundly different that having a backwards searchable database of who everybody called.
Finally, all I’m saying is that “a warrant” for searching metadata is overkill.
Why? Has this metadata database proven valuable in stopping terrorism? Is there some reason that terrorists evade a probable cause standard? What makes a warrant “overkill”?
What I thought was said what the the USPS was scanning the outside of envelopes.
That is correct. See russell’s NYT link.
scanning the outside of envelopes
Maybe they do scan the outside of envelopes, but probably (just my guess – maybe something more nefarious) it’s to facilitate the search and matching of the correct address. I’ve been responsible for bulk mailings being sent on behalf of a not-for-profit. The charity’s mail service (working with USPS data) is able to give us changed addresses from the charity’s database. That’s very convenient for the charity, and I’m sure much cheaper for the USPS than forwarding undeliverable mail. Just saying, sometimes a cigar is really a cigar.
in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.
slightly different than punching in a zip code
The Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program was created after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed five people, including two postal workers. Highly secret, it seeped into public view last month when the F.B.I. cited it in its investigation of ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. It enables the Postal Service to retrace the path of mail at the request of law enforcement. No one disputes that it is sweeping.
e.g.
Why? Has this metadata database proven valuable in stopping terrorism? Is there some reason that terrorists evade a probable cause standard? What makes a warrant “overkill”?
First question: Has this metadata database proven valuable in stopping terrorism?
If it’s not valuable, Congress shouldn’t fund it. (I find the idea that Congress didn’t know about any of this to be laughable. Their bad in appropriating money without requiring accountability.) That’s a different issue than whether a warrant (probable cause warrant, we’re talking about here) should be required.
Second question: Is there some reason that terrorists evade a probable cause standard?
No, we’re talking about searching metadata with a “less than probable cause” court order (such as reasonable suspicion), then getting a real live warrant to listen to real live communications.
Third question: What makes a warrant overkill?
So suppose some police officer knows that a mafia boss lives in a certain home. Does the police officer need a warrant to park his car outside the home and take notes about who is going in and out? No. The warrant is required when it’s time to go into the house, or search any of the visitors’ houses, or try to establish a case against the conspirators. So, do you understand that “probable cause” for a “warrant” is to obtain evidence to be used at trial? Whereas investigations and police work and figuring out who might be helping a mafia boss (a conspirator, a gang member, a trafficker, a terrorist) – all of these people need to be prosecuted.
Suppose people don’t do business by visiting their mafia boss anymore? They only send email to a friend who sends it to a friend who sends it to a friend. Police shouldn’t be able to read all of those emails, but perhaps they should be able to use a lesser standard to establish that certain data exists (reasonable suspicion) before they ask a judge (probable cause) to read it.
But Ugh,
The mail covers program, used to monitor Mr. Pickering, is more than a century old but is still considered a powerful tool. At the request of law enforcement officials, postal workers record information from the outside of letters and parcels before they are delivered. (Opening the mail would require a warrant.) The information is sent to the law enforcement agency that asked for it. Tens of thousands of pieces of mail each year undergo this scrutiny.
Okay, more than a century old, but now we’re freaking out.
And, yes, it’s been abused.
Maricopa County will have to pay former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and her husband $975,000, according to a federal appeals court ruling issued Monday.
And the victim was compensated.
Folks, listen! It’s hard for law enforcement to be perfect. Abuse happens and needs to be called out. That doesn’t mean you take away the tools.
thompson: I think it does a disservice to treat the newer dragnet abilities as a difference in scale (e.g. it’s the same as we’ve always done, just to everybody, all the time) and not as a fundamental difference in kind.
Exactly. The right to be let alone. The government monitoring and recording data about all of its residents (and many non-residents) communications all of the time should cause a shift. The limited nature of the resources in Smith v. Maryland is doing a lot of the work behind the Court’s reasoning. As is the accident of history of how phone companies kept records.
Indeed, it’s fairly clear from that opinion that if the phone companies had been recording everyone’s conversations from the get go, there would be no privacy right in a phone call and warrants wouldn’t be required to listen in.
But hey, because we’ve voluntarily turned over our location to cell phone companies whenever we walk around with our phone on, then it’s just fine for the government to record all that information and then backwards search it for any reason or no reason.
(From russell’s article), this also happened:
Okay, so we want people sending ricin through the mail and exploiting sex workers?
But hey, because we’ve voluntarily turned over our location to cell phone companies whenever we walk around with our phone on, then it’s just fine for the government to record all that information and then backwards search it for any reason or no reason.
No exaggeration here at all (should have recopied your whole comment). C’mon Ugh. How much privacy is there in people you”visit” by phone. Anyone can follow you when you use your physical self. When you send your electronic zombies, why shouldn’t people be able to follow you there?
Has this metadata database proven valuable in stopping terrorism?
If it’s not valuable, Congress shouldn’t fund it.
Sapient, did you notice that you are talking about two different things here? The program may have little or no value in stopping terrorism, but still be valuable as far as Congress is concerned. Specifically as a CYA program for them personally — where voting against it could be taken, at election time, as proof of lack of concern about terrorism.
Not sure where I was factually incorrect.
“wide net”
No, we’re talking about searching metadata with a “less than probable cause” court order
No, we’re talking about collecting the metadata in the first place, absent any cause whatsoever other than the possibility that we might want to look at it later.
When you send your electronic zombies, why shouldn’t people be able to follow you there?
Again, the issue is not surveillance per se. If there is reason to investigate somebody sufficient to justify a court order, surveil away.
But we don’t follow the physical self of every person in the US, or anywhere else we can find a way to make it happen, everywhere they go, all the time, every day.
The issue at hand in the NSA program is the collection of information about every electronic communication – email, web browsing, social media, everything – that they can find a way to intercept, by everyone, everywhere, all the time, every day.
With no warrant and no court order, at all.
Just in case they might want to look at it later.
That is the program that has been found to be illegal.
Specifically as a CYA program for them personally — where voting against it could be taken, at election time, as proof of lack of concern about terrorism.
Sad thing about democracy (republic, as russell will insist). Congress represents the people.
And the bill of rights doesn’t necessarily solve stupid Congressional appropriations.
That is the program that has been found to be illegal.
Found to be illegal by one federal appeals court in a decision that is grossly inadequate, and somewhat cowardly. (The opinion came out just in time for the sunset provision to happen. It did not (which it could have) enjoin the program, or call for the destruction of stored metadata. It remanded the issue to the district court, knowing that it was extremely unlikely that there would be review of the opinion or any action based upon it. Again, we should talk about that separately. Or, if you want to talk about it tomorrow, I’d be happy to do so. Sure – easy for a very divided country to find some judges to issue a very political opinion.)
If it’s not valuable, Congress shouldn’t fund it.
What wj said. Also, congress can’t function effectively without robust public data and government transparency.
No, we’re talking about searching metadata with a “less than probable cause” court order (such as reasonable suspicion), then getting a real live warrant to listen to real live communications.
I’m aware what we are talking about. Is there some reason why terrorists evade probable cause prior to getting the metadata?
They only send email to a friend who sends it to a friend who sends it to a friend. Police shouldn’t be able to read all of those emails, but perhaps they should be able to use a lesser standard to establish that certain data exists (reasonable suspicion) before they ask a judge (probable cause) to read it.
So, you say ‘perhaps they should be able to use a lesser standard’. And again, I ask why? What’s the justification for the lesser standard?
Okay, so we want people sending ricin through the mail and exploiting sex workers?
Nobody has said that, and I’m curious what indicates to you that those cases would have been insolvable if a warrant was required.
And, yes, it’s been abused.
An opaque government program which provides a lot of personal information with minimal oversight? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say!
How much privacy is there in people you”visit” by phone.
Apparently not much…which is what people are complaining about.
Anyone can follow you when you use your physical self.
True, anyone could. Could anybody follow everybody, all the time? No, hence the difference.
Kind of dumb and inaccurate, but funny ish.
thompson, don’t have time for a tit for tat tonight as I’m going night night.
Most of what you mention, if I replied, would be you and I going on and on: boring for us and for all.
But this I do find interesting:
I said: Okay, so we want people sending ricin through the mail and exploiting sex workers?
You said Nobody has said that, and I’m curious what indicates to you that those cases would have been insolvable if a warrant was required.
Well, it’s always the argument posed against NSA data collection that “They can’t prove that it got any terrorists!” Well, this is an example where searching metadata solved something. Sure, maybe other techniques would have found these people in five years or so, after many other people
The true libertarian pony is that we should all self-police. And, of course, we should.
oops, I meant “after many other people were harmed”.
You can see it’s time for bye.
found to be illegal by one appeals court and had the lights turned out by congress. for now.
that’s a stronger legal basis than was used to create the program.
if the feds think somebody needs watching, they can go to fisa and get a court order. for a lot of stuff, they don’t even need that.
what’s been turned off,for now, is the feds themselves capturing and keeping a record of all comms, regardless of whether they have anything to do, whatsoever, with any person place or thing of interest.
I don’t understand why that is a problem.
It is highly likely that a lot of the time they don’t even know where to search.
Okay, so we want people sending ricin through the mail and exploiting sex workers?
My initial response to this was, “Go fuck yourself”, but in the spirit of comity I’ll dial it back to get a fucking grip.
sapient:
Most of what you mention, if I replied, would be you and I going on and on: boring for us and for all.
Well, that’s generally why I get into conversations. But if it bores you, don’t engage.
Well, it’s always the argument posed against NSA data collection that “They can’t prove that it got any terrorists!”
Well, they can’t. But that’s not what I object to. I object to the depiction of ‘so we want people sending ricin through the mail and exploiting sex workers?’ based what seems to be a binary assumption that if you are against bulk metadata collection, you are for ricin and sex work. Which is a stretch, to say the least.
Sure, maybe other techniques would have found these people in five years or so, after many other people
What are you basing that timeline, and increasing victim count on? Why is there this assumption that getting a warrant is an impossibly high bar?
The true libertarian pony is that we should all self-police. And, of course, we should.
I just have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody here (or at least I’m not) is arguing for self-policing.
Have a good night.
‘Well, it’s always the argument posed against NSA data collection that “They can’t prove that it got any terrorists!”‘
It seems like a relevant point.
“Why is there this assumption that getting a warrant is an impossibly high bar?”
FISA – not a high bar.
“Why is there this assumption that getting a warrant is an impossibly high bar?”
Because they want to collect EVERYTHING. And, even with the fix being in, a warrant to collect EVERYTHING is difficult to get.
Basically, people object to safeguards, when they want to do exactly what the safeguard was set up to prevent…
“Why is there this assumption that getting a warrant is an impossibly high bar?”
FISA – not a high bar.
The House of Representatives has a web page that explains what kinds of authorizations are necessary under FISA, and other things. (Reading this makes me doubt the concept that the House “knew nothing!”).
Oh, and I knew I wasn’t crazy, that Snowden’s “revelations” weren’t actually revelatory. (Hat tip, Kevin Drum). Which is one of a few things the Second Circuit got wrong. (But Lesley Cauley’s reporting was greeted with a shrug in the middle of the Bush administration’s horror show, and only became an “Oh, my!” when Snowden and Glenn Greenwald wanted to pin “Executive overreaching!” on Obama.)
Oh, and I knew I wasn’t crazy, that Snowden’s “revelations” weren’t actually revelatory.
I’d like to quote from your link:
It wasn’t until Snowden revealed far more about the NSA’s activities that the bulk collection program finally got the attention it deserved.
It’s true, some have been talking about this problem for awhile. It’s even percolated into the mainstream media on occasion. And people have brought up the specter of government overreach and dragnet surveillance, and they have been smirked at, had eyes rolled at, ‘take off your tinfoil hat, mmkay’, etc, because the government totally isn’t doing that surveillance.
(I can say that from personal experience).
Snowden showed, with a lot of detail, the breadth of the NSA’s programs, and has been exiled for it. If your point is that the clues were there all along, you have zero argument from me. But the sheer scope of the problem wasn’t demonstrated until Snowden, and he’s paid a heavy price.
Your weird tic with Greenwald aside, Snowden has done a profound service to this country.
Which is one of a few things the Second Circuit got wrong.
Look, circuit courts can certainly be wrong. But if you’re going to say that, it’s incumbent on you to at least give the analysis why. Tell me the lines from the decision that are factually incorrect, and give the citations to show they are factually incorrect. You can’t just offhandedly say the circuit court was wrong without saying why. Not and have me take you seriously.
Regarding the Drum article, he cited Leslie Cauley’s reporting done in …. 2006, when the American population was just a tad bit more batsh*t crazy than they are now in the thrall of those who were scaring the living bejesus out of us, al Qaeda and Cheney alike.
I suspect that Cauley’s reporting was largely ignored by conservatives and libertarians, well, everyone at the time who believed this was just another instance of the liberal media and their surrender-monkey knees jerking.
Since Brett doesn’t partake of the mainstream press, he probably missed it altogether.
I think Snowden did the American people a service too, but he was not “exiled”.
He fled, most justifiably, but that he ended up in Putin’s Russia, yet another bastion of the nationalist, paranoid, sociopathic, ravanchist conservatism plaguing the entire world (which will be dealt with violently the world over), codependent with the similar infestation the U.S. suffers from, is no credit to him, a naive guy.
Maybe we could have run a Snowden underground railroad, shifting him from house to house.
I’m no fan of the NSA and its data collection megalomania, but maybe they can be put to good use against something like this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nsa-expands-online-spying-search-hackers-report-213025336.html
This is a serious problem. EVERYONE wants my data. Government, corporations, and every clever code monkey in their mother’s basement.
The technology is a monster.
What do I have to do? Go off grid.
I’ve had my data hacked several times, the latest probably being today’s revelations about the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
America: The Land of the Brave and the Home of the Full of Sh*t
2005
Probably stuff before that, too.
The general response until recently was some combination of “you’re just making that stuff up”, “why do you hate America” and “shut up hippie”. People didn’t follow up because (a) nobody except cranky civil libertarians gave a crap and (b) nobody wanted to go to jail for disclosing classified stuff.
What Snowden did was put the documentation in the public record. And, now he’s an exile.
What Snowden did was put the documentation in the public record. And, now he’s an exile.
And I’m glad he is. Because putting classified information out there is wrong. Just like it was wrong for Cheney to expose Plame. We were all against that, remember?
thompson, I’d be happy to analyze the Second Circuit opinion with you. Did you read it? If not, here’s a link.”>http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5b758b27-c77d-44a2-b6e5-dbf456f5c142/1/hilite/”>link.
On the whole, the opinion worked to move Congress to discuss the NSA data collection issue. That is a good thing. On the law, however, I think the Second Circuit’s reasoning did not stand up to scrutiny.
It would be a seventy page treatise to go through the opinion, but I’ll say a few things.
The court’s background statement implies that the NSA program is “abuse” that is similar to what inspired the Church hearings. Really? Assassinations? Drug dealing, etc? That set an extremely political and partisan tone to a legal opinion that was supposed to be about interpreting a statutory provision. Similar “climate”? How vague is that?
In Section III, the court states that “Americans first learned about the telephone metadata program that appellants now challenge on June 5, 2013, when the British newspaper The Guardian published a FISC order leaked by former government contractor Edward Snowden. The order directed Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (“Verizon”), a telephone company, to produce to the NSA “on an ongoing daily basis . . . all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”
Actually, not true. This information had been reported extensively previously, as I mentioned in another comment. And the reporter didn’t have to publish classified documents, and take other classified stuff to China and Russia.
The court offered a very strained analysis of the Administrative Procedure Act in order to justify standing. Also, it recited this: “Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” How this was demonstrated I do not know. The court wanted to find standing, and did so. Records about the plaintiffs (which did not belong to the plaintiffs) were collected by the government. (Say, if I gave the government a collection of digital photographs I had taken of people – would those people have standing to sue the government if the government merely searched those photos? Explain how that would work.)
As to the relief granted, why did they not grant an injunction to stop the illegal data collection after all that heroic rhetoric about the Church hearings? Well, they kicked it back to Congress (while in the meantime that horrible “abuse” went on). That actually turned out to be a good thing (since nobody was actually being harmed). Bad law though.
Snowden is still in Putin’s Russia, because it was shown quite convincingly what lengths the US would go to, to keep him from going to Ecuador.
Poor Snowden. For that matter, poor Greenwald, who is voluntarily exiled, allegedly because he couldn’t gay marry (or wouldn’t pay taxes, more probably). Now, I’m sure he will allege that he’s persecuted on other grounds.
Lots of folks want to live in the U.S. It’s okay with me that Greenwald and Snowden don’t.
Because putting classified information out there is wrong.
I would just note that this assumes a fact not in evidence. To wit, that everything that is classified actually ought to be — for reasons of national security. As opposed to because it would be embarrassing.
I agree that revealing the kind of classified information that puts the nation at risk, or its agenta abroad — that’s wrong. But that’s a long ways from all classified information.
sapient: I am a bit unclear as to why you pivoted to Greenwald, given that russell’s claim re: exile didn’t include him. Was it to get the “allegedly” and “probably” digs in (ie, where you were mind reading)?
Please don’t assume a particular opinion from my end one way or another as regards GG; it just strikes me your rhetorical move was a sleight.
“The court’s background statement implies that the NSA program is “abuse” that is similar to what inspired the Church hearings. Really? Assassinations? Drug dealing, etc?”
Magnitude times frequency. Any given instance of a warrant-less, probable cause deficient search isn’t likely as bad as any given instance of assassination. But, then, they didn’t assassinate EVERYBODY, did they?
here is my question about the Metadata program.
do people want it? by “people” I mean the population of the US.
do we, by and large, want it? have we consented to it?
if they don’t, should it exist?
Did you read it?
I have, but links are always helpful. Thank you.
The court’s background statement implies that the NSA program is “abuse” that is similar to what inspired the Church hearings. Really? Assassinations? Drug dealing, etc?
Specifically, they said: the intelligence‐
gathering and surveillance activities of the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA came under public scrutiny.
And indeed, surveillance overreach was one of the important facets of the Church committee. It is entirely topical and appropriate to reference back. It was clearly on Sen. Church’s mind:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62999_Page2.html
Sen. Frank Church took his seat on “Meet the Press.” For months, as the first chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Church had been conducting the first in-depth investigation of America’s growing intelligence community.
When he looked into the NSA, he came away shocked by its potential for abuse. Without mentioning the agency’s name — almost forbidden at the time — he nonetheless offered an unsolicited but grave warning:
“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter,” Church said. “There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
“I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
So, your criticism seems weak, to say the least. The court referred back to a prominent congressional investigation which heavily involved surveillance. A very reasonable thing to do and hardly setting an extremely political and partisan tone to a legal opinion.
Similar “climate”? How vague is that?
I’m clearly not as gifted a mind-reader as you are, but I’m guessing they are probably drawing a comparison between the fear of the Soviet Union of yesteryear with the fear of terrorism today.
Actually, not true. This information had been reported extensively previously, as I mentioned in another comment.
If this is the extent of the factual inaccuracy, I’m underwhelmed. First of all, anonymous sources behind the original disclosures were not convincing to many people. The a copy of the FISC order to Verizon was. While, again, some information was out there, there was limited hard evidence until Snwoden’s leak. Glossing over prior anonymous sources and speculation, I would agree, strains the definition of ‘learned’, but as the documentary evidence wasn’t available prior to the court’s claim, and most americans remained unaware of the program, I think their wording is fine. Further, the exact date American’s learned of the program really has little relevance to its legality, so this particular factual failing does little to argue against their legal reasoning.
Also, it recited this: “Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” How this was demonstrated I do not know.
Perhaps you should read the ~6 pages of the decision which discuss each component of the standing requirement and how they are met in this case. Somebody has helpfully linked to the decision, it would be worth your time to read it carefully.
would those people have standing to sue the government if the government merely searched those photos?
Why wouldn’t they? The involvement of a 3rd party has no bearing on standing. If the government took an action, which resulted in a particular injury, and was redressable if the case was won on merits, they have a case for standing.
To use your example of pictures: Let’s say a couple emails each other intimate photos using gmail. The government comes along, gets the photos from google (meanwhile enjoining google from revealing the photo release), and publicizes the photos. The government took action (acquiring the photos and releasing them) which injures the couple (by stripping away privacy), and this is fixable (by preventing further release of the photos).
Finally, this is offensive, imo:
For that matter, poor Greenwald, who is voluntarily exiled, allegedly because he couldn’t gay marry
do people want it?
indeed, it looks like they/we do want it.
Finally, this is offensive, imo:
Greenwald would probably disagree.
Or maybe they/we don’t.
It’s remarkable the extent to which you can manipulate the outcome of a poll by the wording and ordering of the questions.(Which was not revealed in either of our links.)
In fact, it is scarcely unheard of for a polling organization to be paid to run multiple permutations of a question, and then release the version that came out “right”. It’s become a standard PR tactic.
There are, today, and have been for some time, two types of polls being run: Polls for the purpose of learning something about public opinion, and polls for the purpose of influencing public opinion. How do you tell which is which?
If you didn’t have to pay to see the results, it was the latter…
Greenwald would probably disagree.
What I was offended by was the caviler dismissal (‘allegedly’) of Greenwald’s entirely legitimate reason for self-exile.
It’s callous to imply Greenwald’s relationship (and the US government’s refusal to recognize it) doesn’t play a role in his residency, but is just a cover for tax reasons.
indeed, as NPR reported, it does depend on the question. they link to a Pew study about this:
that was done in 2013, and the mood on this stuff changes all the time, depending on what Congress is up to.
but it really sounds like most people want the bulk collection to continue, but with some unspecified changes which would protect their privacy. they want to be able to pretend their communications are private while guaranteeing no terrorist will ever hurt them.
It’s remarkable the extent to which you can manipulate the outcome of a poll by the wording and ordering of the questions.
There’s one other feature of polls, which I have run across myself occasionally: offer a series of options for the answer, but do not include “None of the above” as one of them. And then insist on some kind of answer to continue.
To take an obvious example: ask about the ages of the minor children. Without providing for the possibility that there may be none (either because all the children are grown, or because there were none in the first place). The same irritating approach gets used on lots of subjects.
I would just note that this assumes a fact not in evidence. To wit, that everything that is classified actually ought to be — for reasons of national security. As opposed to because it would be embarrassing.
Or that it’s concealing illegal activity, or that it’s merely more convenient to classify it rather than allow its release, or that it’s easier to classify a document rather than have it reviewed by a qualified authority to determine which parts – if any – of its contents are sensitive.
We as a nation classify far, far more than we should.
A general problem of opinion polls, is that they’re attempting to measure something which, much of the time, doesn’t actually exist. By which I mean, that people don’t actually have opinions about many things, and will just invent one on the spot if asked, according to whateve cues they’re provided.
Poll results tend to be much more robust against wording changes, when it comes to topics people actually have opinions about.
NV,
Well, I’d generally classify illegal activity as embarrassing. But I suppose that may not be true for some.
thompson, this, to me is funny:
If the government took an action, which resulted in a particular injury, and was redressable if the case was won on merits, they have a case for standing.
To use your example of pictures: Let’s say a couple emails each other intimate photos using gmail. The government comes along, gets the photos from google (meanwhile enjoining google from revealing the photo release), and publicizes the photos. The government took action (acquiring the photos and releasing them) which injures the couple (by stripping away privacy), and this is fixable (by preventing further release of the photos).
First of all, yes, that couple would most definitely have had standing if such a ridiculous thing had ever happened. But it didn’t, and that couple is not in court, are they?
No, the ACLU is in court. Please describe the “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” harm that they’ve suffered that is “fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling”. Have fun with that. But it’s okay, because (as the court knew) the case won’t be reviewed.
This is funny too: It’s callous to imply Greenwald’s relationship (and the US government’s refusal to recognize it) doesn’t play a role in his residency, but is just a cover for tax reasons.
Glenn [Rule-of Law] Greenwald left the country so as not to have had to answer for his six figure tax dodge. Just another reason why I have no respect at all for him.
If I recall correctly, the ACLU would have standing because the harm to them is the degredation of civil rights in general. And the courts have held that to be sufficient.
Snowden has an op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/opinion/edward-snowden-the-world-says-no-to-surveillance.html?_r=0
If I recall correctly, the ACLU would have standing because the harm to them is the degredation of civil rights in general. And the courts have held that to be sufficient.
Well, the court did hold that to be sufficient in the 2nd circuit case. You’d have to show me other cases where that has been held to be a basis for standing without a real live injured plaintiff.
sapient:
But it didn’t, and that couple is not in court, are they?
I would point out that it was in response to a hypothetical you proposed (“Say, if I gave the government a collection of digital photographs I had taken of people – would those people have standing to sue the government if the government merely searched those photos?”) to answer the question you posed (“Explain how that would work”).
If you don’t want explanations using hypothetical you pose, don’t ask for them.
No, the ACLU is in court. Please describe the “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” harm that they’ve suffered that is “fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling”.
The plaintiffs are current and former Verizon customers. This is all in the decision, and is trivially searchable otherwise. But since it grows increasingly obvious you aren’t going to inform yourself about the decision you are criticizing, I’ll pull a relevant quote:
On June 11, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “ACLU”) and the New York Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “NYCLU”) – current and former Verizon customers, respectively
As to the question of standing, I refer you AGAIN to the thorough discussion of standing in the decision.
Have fun with that.
I wouldn’t describe copy pasting data trivially available from a link you posted fun. But it certainly was easy.
Glenn [Rule-of Law] Greenwald left the country so as not to have had to answer for his six figure tax dodge.
Prove it, and demonstrate the relevance to the topic at hand. Otherwise, I’m left concluding its nothing but a hollow insult leveled against someone who’s politics you don’t like.
You’d have to show me other cases where that has been held to be a basis for standing without a real live injured plaintiff.
ACLU is the injured plaintiff. Even a cursory review of the case documents shows this. It’s even on the wikipedia page about the case.
Prove it, and demonstrate the relevance to the topic at hand. Otherwise, I’m left concluding its nothing but a hollow insult leveled against someone who’s politics you don’t like.
You can google it yourself or not. I’m not inclined make false factual statements about people.
ACLU is the injured plaintiff. Even a cursory review of the case documents shows this. It’s even on the wikipedia page about the case.
Of course ACLU claims to have been injured, and their claim was accepted by a highly respected court. I never said that the claim was made in bad faith, or that the court was “wrong”. My opinion is that it was a weak argument for the kind of particular injury that standing usually requires (especially in recent years, where standing is harder to prove than it used to be), and that if the court hadn’t been predisposed to rule against the NSA, they might as easily have rejected the case for lack of standing. To say that the ACLU was injured is not really a gotcha, thompson. Obviously the court bought their argument.
If you want (for fun) to read a summary of cases on standing and see whether they are consistent or make sense, here’s a link. Standing has become a way for courts to avoid deciding a case on the merits, or for accepting a case that they want to decide.
But I’m not interested in any more back and forth on this. I find it entertaining to discuss court opinions – but doing so is not really going to change the world.
Glenn [Rule-of Law] Greenwald left the country so as not to have had to answer for his six figure tax dodge.
…
You can google it yourself or not. I’m not inclined make false factual statements about people.
I see that Greenwald owes money to the IRS. I see nothing that says that’s the reason he’s not in the country.
How Would a Patriot Act, Glenn asks in the title of his book. He would pay his taxes, I answer.
What Ugh said.
I never said that the claim was made in bad faith, or that the court was “wrong”.
No, you said:
Well, the court did hold that to be sufficient in the 2nd circuit case.
where ‘that’ was:
the ACLU would have standing because the harm to them is the degredation of civil rights in general.
Which is not what the court held. The court held that the ACLU and its co-plaintiff were specifically injured by the bulk collection.
And despite my repeatedly raising the point, you have not seemed to familiarize yourself with the standing arguments made in the decision. Or if you have, you haven’t shared any specific criticisms of them. Instead you say:
How this was demonstrated I do not know.
When there is a thorough discussion of each facet of standing in the decision.
But I’m not interested in any more back and forth on this.
Bluntly, it isn’t obvious you were ever interested in any back and forth.