Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans

[Kernel Sanders]

NSA operators admit to abuse of wiretapping facilities

Source [ABC News | Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans]

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.

Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

She said US military officers, American journalists and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and "collected on" as they called their offices or homes in the United States.

Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007.

"Calling home to the United States, talking to their spouses, sometimes their girlfriends, sometimes one phone call following another," said Faulk.

The accounts of the two former intercept operators, who have never met and did not know of the other's allegations, provide the first inside look at the day to day operations of the huge and controversial US terrorist surveillance program.

"There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens are treated with respect," said President Bush at a news conference this past February.

But the accounts of the two whistleblowers, which could not be independently corroborated, raise serious questions about how much respect is accorded those Americans whose conversations are intercepted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007.

"Calling home to the United States, talking to their spouses, sometimes their girlfriends, sometimes one phone call following another," said Faulk.

The accounts of the two former intercept operators, who have never met and did not know of the other's allegations, provide the first inside look at the day to day operations of the huge and controversial US terrorist surveillance program.

"There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens are treated with respect," said President Bush at a news conference this past February.

But the accounts of the two whistleblowers, which could not be independently corroborated, raise serious questions about how much respect is accorded those Americans whose conversations are intercepted in the name of fighting terrorism.

 

[Truth Detector]

NSA operators admit to abuse of wiretapping facilities

But the accounts of the two whistleblowers, which could not be independently corroborated, raise serious questions about how much respect is accorded those Americans whose conversations are intercepted in the name of fighting terrorism.

But here's is the pertinent question to you and your fellow Liberals who think that we can protect Americans from another 9-11 by impugning efforts to monitor potential terrorist communications and giving terrorists Constitutional rights, so what?

Do you honestly think that we can protect ourselves from future terrorism by not monitoring ANY communications coming from the Middle East, even those from our fellow military servicemen?

Do you honestly think that members of our own Government, our own military have never committed treason?

The purpose of stories like these with UNCORABORATED sources are for only one purpose; to further impugn this Administrations efforts to protect us and to suggest that we are "spying" on our own thus somehow taking away our rights.

There's no attempt at honesty here or truth. The truth is there was nothing illegal about this activity; end of story. This isn't about "respect"; this is about the continuing efforts by Liberals to impugn this administrations effort to prevent another terrorist attack.

It begs the question; will Obama end all these communication intercepts? Will Obama make us safer by releasing the prisoners on Guantanamo?

The naive Liberal mental state believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by doing NOTHING. It also naively believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by withdrawing from the Middle East. It also naively believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by talking to our enemies or even by the simple effort to elect Obama, whom, they apparently believe will be better liked by our enemies.

Yes, Obama is the preferred choice of our enemies like Osama Bin Laden, but not because he will be effective, it's because they see him as naive and someone they can manipulate in their own interests.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

But the accounts of the two whistleblowers, which could not be independently corroborated, raise serious questions about how much respect is accorded those Americans whose conversations are intercepted in the name of fighting terrorism.

But here's is the pertinent question to you and your fellow Liberals who think that we can protect Americans from another 9-11 by impugning efforts to monitor potential terrorist communications and giving terrorists Constitutional rights, so what?

Do you honestly think that we can protect ourselves from future terrorism by not monitoring ANY communications coming from the Middle East, even those from our fellow military servicemen?

Do you honestly think that members of our own Government, our own military have never committed treason?

The purpose of stories like these with UNCORABORATED sources are for only one purpose; to further impugn this Administrations efforts to protect us and to suggest that we are "spying" on our own thus somehow taking away our rights.

There's no attempt at honesty here or truth. The truth is there was nothing illegal about this activity; end of story. This isn't about "respect"; this is about the continuing efforts by Liberals to impugn this administrations effort to prevent another terrorist attack.

It begs the question; will Obama end all these communication intercepts? Will Obama make us safer by releasing the prisoners on Guantanamo?

The naive Liberal mental state believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by doing NOTHING. It also naively believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by withdrawing from the Middle East. It also naively believes that we can protect citizens from a future 9-11 attack by talking to our enemies or even by the simple effort to elect Obama, whom, they apparently believe will be better liked by our enemies.

Yes, Obama is the preferred choice of our enemies like Osama Bin Laden, but not because he will be effective, it's because they see him as naive and someone they can manipulate in their own interests.

I think that if your plan requires sweeping wiretapping of every American regardless of even probable cause to prevent terrorist attacks, you need a new plan. What was wrong with the original FISA law that crippled efforts to combat terrorism? Where did it fall short? Why do you need to infringe on my privacy?

Also, they corroborate one another. Neither had knowledge of the other's accusations, yet their accusations are the same. Hell of a coincidence if it isn't true, huh?

 

[RightinNYC]

NSA operators admit to abuse of wiretapping facilities

Source [ABC News | Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans]

Even assuming that every word those guys say is true, how does that constitute abuse? It's not abuse if people who don't turn out to be targets are accidentally eavesdropped upon and the records are then deleted, it's only abuse if the people are known not to be targets, yet are targeted purposefully anyways.

If a cop is walking down the street and hears a radio that a 6'3" white guy with brown hair and a black jacket was waving a gun around 2 blocks away, and then sees a guy fitting that description with a bulge in his waistband, will he stop the guy and frisk him? Yes. Might he even detain the guy for a few minutes and call it in to be sure it's not him? Yes. Is that "abuse"? Not in the slightest.

Now if the cop heard that report and stopped a 5'8" black guy, frisked him, arrested him, and brought him down to the station, that's abuse. And there's no evidence that anything like that happened here.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think that if your plan requires sweeping wiretapping of every American regardless of even probable cause to prevent terrorist attacks, you need a new plan. What was wrong with the original FISA law that crippled efforts to combat terrorism? Where did it fall short? Why do you need to infringe on my privacy?

Also, they corroborate one another. Neither had knowledge of the other's accusations, yet their accusations are the same. Hell of a coincidence if it isn't true, huh?

Where did the article say it was every American? Or even every American overseas? Or even every American in Iraq/Afghanistan? Or even every American in Iraq/Afghanistan using a satellite phone?

 

[SgtRock]

I think that if your plan requires sweeping wiretapping of every American regardless of even probable cause to prevent terrorist attacks, you need a new plan. What was wrong with the original FISA law that crippled efforts to combat terrorism? Where did it fall short? Why do you need to infringe on my privacy?

Also, they corroborate one another. Neither had knowledge of the other's accusations, yet their accusations are the same. Hell of a coincidence if it isn't true, huh?

What do you have to hide from the government Kernel? I think they are doing what is necessary to protect us. Should they stop taping incoming calls from the middle east and god forbid we are attacked again people will say that the government didn't do enough to protect us.

Personally I have nothing to hide and I don't talk to terrorist. The world changed on 911. If we have to give upp some privacy to thwart another attack then so be it.

 

[Travelsonic]

What do you have to hide from the government Kernel?

Aimed at Kernel, but I wish to chime in anyways:

Is called my private life, and Id prefer those who remain oblivious to this fact to keep their ignorant noses out of it.

Need to monitor suspected terrorists? Find, but go through the right channels, and never forget that just because you need to listen in on suspected terrorists doesn't give you free reign to cry ignorant and think it ok to ignore a simple concepts of a private life, due process, and probable cause. Your argument ignores all of this.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Where did the article say it was every American? Or even every American overseas? Or even every American in Iraq/Afghanistan? Or even every American in Iraq/Afghanistan using a satellite phone?

The nature of the NSA's spying methods are such that a specific person can be targeted only after gathering information without bias. The signal is siphoned off from the main fiber optic lines in the nation's major switching stations. If you want more detail I can give it.

What do you have to hide from the government Kernel? I think they are doing what is necessary to protect us. Should they stop taping incoming calls from the middle east and god forbid we are attacked again people will say that the government didn't do enough to protect us.

Personally I have nothing to hide and I don't talk to terrorist. The world changed on 911. If we have to give upp some privacy to thwart another attack then so be it.

Not all sensitive personal information is related to terrorism, or even criminal. Just ask Valerie Plame. Besides which, if you had read the OP or the article, you would know that these operators are talking about the NSA listening in on Americans' phone sex. Not something that can put you in jail, but still something I wouldn't want the federal government to have on record

 

[Truth Detector]

I think that if your plan requires sweeping wiretapping of every American regardless of even probable cause to prevent terrorist attacks, you need a new plan. What was wrong with the original FISA law that crippled efforts to combat terrorism? Where did it fall short? Why do you need to infringe on my privacy?

Also, they corroborate one another. Neither had knowledge of the other's accusations, yet their accusations are the same. Hell of a coincidence if it isn't true, huh?

Your above claim is false in that this plan doesn't require what you claim. Your argument is specious in that it makes claims that are not factual in an attempt to impugn this Admistration for purely partisan reasons.

Carry on.

 

[American]

How is eavesdropping on people in a battle zone anything like listening to people here in the US talking to grandma in another state? Where is the similarity that is implied by the topic title?

"Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans"

This title is meant to mislead the reader into thinking their call to grandma is being listened to.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Your above claim is false in that this plan doesn't require what you claim. Your argument is specious in that it makes claims that are not factual in an attempt to impugn this Admistration for purely partisan reasons.

Carry on.

If you want to understand the technology behind the NSA's program Ars Technica has a lot of good articles. It's a tech blog, not a political blog. Where the two intersect the authors appear to be to the left, but in the way that the EFF is, not in the way any of the typical lefty blogs are. They have written many articles about the technology and legalities behind the NSA's program (not so much the politics), including this one written right after the NYT article revealed the NSA's program, this one written after the AT&T engineer came forward, and this one a few months ago.

Source [Ars Technica | AT&T engineer: NSA built secret rooms in our facilities (Apr 12, 2006)]

According to Klein, this room contained (among other things) a Narus STA 6400 traffic analyzer into which all of AT&T's Internet and phone traffic was routed; Klein himself helped wire the splitter box that made this possible. In addition to AT&T's own traffic, Klein alleges that the company also routed its peering links into the splitter, meaning that any traffic that passed through AT&T's own network could be scanned. Futhermore, San Francisco wasn't the only place such secret rooms were built; Klein claims that AT&T offices in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego also have them.

So what exactly is a Narus STA 6400? It's hard to get precise details for obvious reasons, but Narus does describe the system in general terms. Others have done a bit more digging and claim that the system can analyze more than 10 billion bits of data per second, and point out that the company sells its systems to governments worldwide. Saudi Telecom and Telecom Egypt both use Narus equipment to monitor and apparently block VoIP traffic in their countries, for instance, and they they recently inked a similar deal with Shanghai Telecom.

Given the massive scale of the spy operation in the US (and this is only one company; it's not yet clear if the NSA has partnered with other telecom firms), it's growing increasingly difficult to believe that this is truly "targeted surveillance." The equipment used and the vast scale of the information being monitored both suggest that the NSA is sifting through massive amounts of user data and phone calls. Much of the information that passes through their spy system must therefore be domestic rather than international in nature. It is possible that phone calls, for instance, that begin and end in the US are simply passed through the system without being scanned, but if so, this must certainly tempt the NSA, which has only to tweak their settings to see all that new data. What is actually being monitored is still unclear, but it looks as though this trial could bring much of it to light.

Source [Ars Technica | An overview of the NSA's domestic spying program (Mar 16, 2008)]

I then put the pieces together and asked the following rhetorical question: "Now, does anyone seriously think that the NSA is not collecting transactional data (at a minimum) for Web, email, FTP and other IP-based communications, and/or that they're not tying all of this data to individual users?"

Gorman's WSJ piece provides sourced confirmation that the NSA is doing exactly what I and others suspected they were doing, i.e., they're collecting e-mail headers, Web surfing histories, cell phone call logs, and every other trace of the digital and analog connections that we make to the world, and they're synthesizing this into complete informational portraits of individuals.

I'm not against these programs because I think Cheney trying to dig up dirt on my cat and Karl Rove wants to put mind control serum in my Wheaties. I'm against it because as an engineer and a programmer, I know that the claims of the administration are false and that these programs are sweeping in nature. The technology isn't complicated, really, it's just large scale. The nature of algorithms that are used to collect and analyze this sort of data mean that they can't target only terrorists. In order to effectively identify valid targets you need a great deal of information about a great deal of people, and not just terrorists. The false positive rate is also likely very high.

In short, I think that these programs are infringing on peoples' rights because they would need to in order to accomplish anything useful.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

How is eavesdropping on people in a battle zone anything like listening to people here in the US talking to grandma in another state? Where is the similarity that is implied by the topic title?

"Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans"

This title is meant to mislead the reader into thinking their call to grandma is being listened to.

The title is the title of the ABC piece, as per Breaking News forum rules. I would not have titled it as such had I had a choice.

 

[Truth Detector]

Aimed at Kernel, but I wish to chime in anyways:

Is called my private life, and Id prefer those who remain oblivious to this fact to keep their ignorant noses out of it.

Need to monitor suspected terrorists? Find, but go through the right channels, and never forget that just because you need to listen in on suspected terrorists doesn't give you free reign to cry ignorant and think it ok to ignore a simple concepts of a private life, due process, and probable cause. Your argument ignores all of this.

They have gone through the "right" channels. You may want to stay current on the legislation which, by the way, Obama himself voted FOR.

Even Barack had no choice but to set his partisanship aside knowing it would haunt him in a potential Presidency.

 

[Truth Detector]

.....I know that the claims of the administration are false and that these programs are sweeping in nature.

You know they are false; please educate me on what their REAL nature is then, I could use some more entertainment.

What I do know is that you are a Democrat who supports Obama; am I wrong?

In short, I think that these programs are infringing on peoples' rights because they would need to in order to accomplish anything useful.

Your words suggest that these programs infringe rights because the NEED to. I am confused what your point is anymore.

Is it illegal and should it be stopped?

Frankly, your rights are not infringed by having your calls legally listened in on; they can only be infringed if someone acts improperly on the information they have listened in on.

I am amused that people think that their rights are somehow infringed upon by a Government trying desperately to protect them from terrorists.

As others have stated earlier and in many other conspiratorial threads without merit, if another attack hits our shores, these same people will be clamoring for someone to blame for not doing enough.

Frankly, with the Left, Liberals and Democrats, it really is a no win situation, unless of course you are one of them, then the excuses for failure will of course be blamed on Bush; how easy it must be to be a Liberal and have a single source to blame everything in life on.

Carry on. :rofl

 

[Truth Detector]

The title is the title of the ABC piece, as per Breaking News forum rules. I would not have titled it as such had I had a choice.

He is not suggesting that YOU are the issue, but rather the MEDIA who use these issues to promote their Liberal agenda and desperate desire to get Obama elected.

Don't take it personal. :2wave:

 

[Kernel Sanders]

They have gone through the "right" channels. You may want to stay current on the legislation which, by the way, Obama himself voted FOR.

Even Barack had no choice but to set his partisanship aside knowing it would haunt him in a potential Presidency.

I for one consider the recent FISA legislation to be unnecessary and heavy-handed at best, unconstitutional at worst. Obama's support of it is one of his most controversial opinions among his followers. When he came out in support, a groups formed on his social networking site urging him to reverse course. The group became the largest on the site (dunno if it still is)

I'll ask again. What was wrong with the previous legislation that endangered national security? Why is such a sweeping and badly focused system needed?

 

[Kernel Sanders]

You know they are false; please educate me on what their REAL nature is then, I could use some more entertainment.

I already posted that, which would be clear if you had not pulled a sentence and a half out of my post to quote

According to Klein, this room contained (among other things) a Narus STA 6400 traffic analyzer into which all of AT&T's Internet and phone traffic was routed; Klein himself helped wire the splitter box that made this possible. In addition to AT&T's own traffic, Klein alleges that the company also routed its peering links into the splitter, meaning that any traffic that passed through AT&T's own network could be scanned. Futhermore, San Francisco wasn't the only place such secret rooms were built; Klein claims that AT&T offices in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego also have them.

So what exactly is a Narus STA 6400? It's hard to get precise details for obvious reasons, but Narus does describe the system in general terms. Others have done a bit more digging and claim that the system can analyze more than 10 billion bits of data per second, and point out that the company sells its systems to governments worldwide. Saudi Telecom and Telecom Egypt both use Narus equipment to monitor and apparently block VoIP traffic in their countries, for instance, and they they recently inked a similar deal with Shanghai Telecom.

Given the massive scale of the spy operation in the US (and this is only one company; it's not yet clear if the NSA has partnered with other telecom firms), it's growing increasingly difficult to believe that this is truly "targeted surveillance." The equipment used and the vast scale of the information being monitored both suggest that the NSA is sifting through massive amounts of user data and phone calls. Much of the information that passes through their spy system must therefore be domestic rather than international in nature. It is possible that phone calls, for instance, that begin and end in the US are simply passed through the system without being scanned, but if so, this must certainly tempt the NSA, which has only to tweak their settings to see all that new data. What is actually being monitored is still unclear, but it looks as though this trial could bring much of it to light.

All telecommunications information passes through the system. In order to tell whether the data is from a possible target or not, it must be parsed. All of it, no matter what. It isn't until after the NSA has looked at your data that they know if it's from bin Laden or from your mother in law

What I do know is that you are a Democrat who supports Obama; am I wrong?

Not a Democrat, but I do support Obama. Somewhat unenthusiastically, but fully.

Your words suggest that these programs infringe rights because the NEED to. I am confused what your point is anymore.

You could try reading the second half of the sentence

In short, I think that these programs are infringing on peoples' rights because they would need to in order to accomplish anything useful.

The current system cannot produce any useful information without infringing on American citizens' rights en masse. That's what makes it a bad system.

Is it illegal and should it be stopped?

No, and yes. As an addendum to the former, the law that makes it legal is, as I said, somewhere in the range of unnecessary and heavy handed to unconstitutional.

Frankly, your rights are not infringed by having your calls legally listened in on; they can only be infringed if someone acts improperly on the information they have listened in on.

If the police break into my apartment tonight without a warrant and search the whole place, my rights have been infringed whether they try to arrest me for something or not.

I am amused that people think that their rights are somehow infringed upon by a Government trying desperately to protect them from terrorists.

The government could protect us by making guns and knives illegal, by putting chips in us to track our every movement, and by putting up surveillance cameras on every street corner. I wouldn't want them to do that either.

As others have stated earlier and in many other conspiratorial threads without merit, if another attack hits our shores, these same people will be clamoring for someone to blame for not doing enough.

I for one think the attempts to point fingers, be it at Bush or at Clinton, as petty, partisan, and misguided. The conspiracies are stupid, and the finger pointing accomplishes nothing. The government could keep us perfectly safe by going full out Orwellian on us, but I'm willing to take the risk because I value my freedoms. Likewise, spying on every American without bias probably does make us safer, but the cost is unacceptable to me.

Frankly, with the Left, Liberals and Democrats, it really is a no win situation, unless of course you are one of them, then the excuses for failure will of course be blamed on Bush; how easy it must be to be a Liberal and have a single source to blame everything in life on.

Carry on. :rofl

Well, you could put up a strawman and knock it down, but I would prefer if you responded to something in my post, rather than what you are projecting onto my post.

He is not suggesting that YOU are the issue, but rather the MEDIA who use these issues to promote their Liberal agenda and desperate desire to get Obama elected.

Don't take it personal. :2wave:

Just trying to clear up any confusion about the relationship between the thread title and my opinion

 

[Truth Detector]

I for one consider the recent FISA legislation to be unnecessary and heavy-handed at best, unconstitutional at worst. Obama's support of it is one of his most controversial opinions among his followers. When he came out in support, a groups formed on his social networking site urging him to reverse course. The group became the largest on the site (dunno if it still is)

I'll ask again. What was wrong with the previous legislation that endangered national security? Why is such a sweeping and badly focused system needed?

I for one consider the recent FISA legislation to be unnecessary and heavy-handed at best, unconstitutional at worst. Obama's support of it is one of his most controversial opinions among his followers. When he came out in support, a groups formed on his social networking site urging him to reverse course. The group became the largest on the site (dunno if it still is)

Your opinion noted; but the FACTS remain, there is nothing under handed or illegal about what is going on except in the minds of conspiracy theorists and Liberals in denial that 9-11 ever occurred.

Your words:
Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders
.....I know that the claims of the administration are false and that these programs are sweeping in nature.

I'll ask again. What was wrong with the previous legislation that endangered national security? Why is such a sweeping and badly focused system needed?

That isn’t your argument; you are attempting to assert that the claims to protect Americans from this administration and these programs are sweeping in nature and their reasons are false.

When asked what you mean, you never explain yourself and go onto the next subject.

It begs the question; what part of finding needles in haystacks do you NOT comprehend. Do you think it is easy finding terrorists living among us and eavesdropping on them? It’s naïve at best; but it does conveniently fit into the narrow narrative Liberals wallow in.

It begs another question; why are you so fearful of the very Government trying to protect you from another 9-11?

P.S. When Jfuh thanks you, it's pretty obvious that you just might be on the WRONG side of the argument; just sayin. :rofl

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Your opinion noted; but the FACTS remain, there is nothing under handed or illegal about what is going on except in the minds of conspiracy theorists and Liberals in denial that 9-11 ever occurred.

Why do you continually assign ridiculous opinions to me? I am not a conspiracy theorist, or a truther, or "in denial that 9-11 ever occured"? The FISA law is unconstitutional. The program is currently legal, but still infringes on my rights ans is still unnecessary and heavy handed. If you believe any of what I said to be false, please say why instead of engaging in straw man ad hominem attacks.

That isn’t your argument; you are attempting to assert that the claims to protect Americans from this administration and these programs are sweeping in nature and their reasons are false.

No, that isn't. I explained my argument as I will again in the next set of quotes. What that was was a separate question for you to answer, you know, to debate you.

When asked what you mean, you never explain yourself and go onto the next subject.

Moving on to the next subject? Those questions are in the very first sentences of my first response. Furthermore I explained myself twice now, which isn't changed by the fact that you won't quote those parts of my posts

Source [Ars Technica | AT&T engineer: NSA built secret rooms in our facilities (Apr 12, 2006)]

According to Klein, this room contained (among other things) a Narus STA 6400 traffic analyzer into which all of AT&T's Internet and phone traffic was routed; Klein himself helped wire the splitter box that made this possible. In addition to AT&T's own traffic, Klein alleges that the company also routed its peering links into the splitter, meaning that any traffic that passed through AT&T's own network could be scanned. Futhermore, San Francisco wasn't the only place such secret rooms were built; Klein claims that AT&T offices in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego also have them.

So what exactly is a Narus STA 6400? It's hard to get precise details for obvious reasons, but Narus does describe the system in general terms. Others have done a bit more digging and claim that the system can analyze more than 10 billion bits of data per second, and point out that the company sells its systems to governments worldwide. Saudi Telecom and Telecom Egypt both use Narus equipment to monitor and apparently block VoIP traffic in their countries, for instance, and they they recently inked a similar deal with Shanghai Telecom.

Given the massive scale of the spy operation in the US (and this is only one company; it's not yet clear if the NSA has partnered with other telecom firms), it's growing increasingly difficult to believe that this is truly "targeted surveillance." The equipment used and the vast scale of the information being monitored both suggest that the NSA is sifting through massive amounts of user data and phone calls. Much of the information that passes through their spy system must therefore be domestic rather than international in nature. It is possible that phone calls, for instance, that begin and end in the US are simply passed through the system without being scanned, but if so, this must certainly tempt the NSA, which has only to tweak their settings to see all that new data. What is actually being monitored is still unclear, but it looks as though this trial could bring much of it to light.

Source [Ars Technica | An overview of the NSA's domestic spying program (Mar 16, 2008)]

I then put the pieces together and asked the following rhetorical question: "Now, does anyone seriously think that the NSA is not collecting transactional data (at a minimum) for Web, email, FTP and other IP-based communications, and/or that they're not tying all of this data to individual users?"

Gorman's WSJ piece provides sourced confirmation that the NSA is doing exactly what I and others suspected they were doing, i.e., they're collecting e-mail headers, Web surfing histories, cell phone call logs, and every other trace of the digital and analog connections that we make to the world, and they're synthesizing this into complete informational portraits of individuals.

I'm not against these programs because I think Cheney trying to dig up dirt on my cat and Karl Rove wants to put mind control serum in my Wheaties. I'm against it because as an engineer and a programmer, I know that the claims of the administration are false and that these programs are sweeping in nature. The technology isn't complicated, really, it's just large scale. The nature of algorithms that are used to collect and analyze this sort of data mean that they can't target only terrorists. In order to effectively identify valid targets you need a great deal of information about a great deal of people, and not just terrorists. The false positive rate is also likely very high.

In short, I think that these programs are infringing on peoples' rights because they would need to in order to accomplish anything useful.

I already posted that, which would be clear if you had not pulled a sentence and a half out of my post to quote

All telecommunications information passes through the system. In order to tell whether the data is from a possible target or not, it must be parsed. All of it, no matter what. It isn't until after the NSA has looked at your data that they know if it's from bin Laden or from your mother in law

The current system cannot produce any useful information without infringing on American citizens' rights en masse. That's what makes it a bad system.

No, and yes. As an addendum to the former, the law that makes it legal is, as I said, somewhere in the range of unnecessary and heavy handed to unconstitutional.

If the police break into my apartment tonight without a warrant and search the whole place, my rights have been infringed whether they try to arrest me for something or not.

The government could protect us by making guns and knives illegal, by putting chips in us to track our every movement, and by putting up surveillance cameras on every street corner. I wouldn't want them to do that either.

I for one think the attempts to point fingers, be it at Bush or at Clinton, as petty, partisan, and misguided. The conspiracies are stupid, and the finger pointing accomplishes nothing. The government could keep us perfectly safe by going full out Orwellian on us, but I'm willing to take the risk because I value my freedoms. Likewise, spying on every American without bias probably does make us safer, but the cost is unacceptable to me.

That is why I believe that the NSA's spying program is sweeping in nature. If you would like to debate any of the points I've made instead of calling me left wing and saying I "deny 9-11", I would love to engage.

It begs the question; what part of finding needles in haystacks do you NOT comprehend. Do you think it is easy finding terrorists living among us and eavesdropping on them? It’s naïve at best; but it does conveniently fit into the narrow narrative Liberals wallow in.

I think there are better investigative methods than the government commandeering the entire haystack and going through all the contents at their leisure. Brute force sucks

It begs another question; why are you so fearful of the very Government trying to protect you from another 9-11?

I've replied to that already. Again, editing it out of your quotes doens't mean I didn't post it

If the police break into my apartment tonight without a warrant and search the whole place, my rights have been infringed whether they try to arrest me for something or not.

The government could protect us by making guns and knives illegal, by putting chips in us to track our every movement, and by putting up surveillance cameras on every street corner. I wouldn't want them to do that either.

P.S. When Jfuh thanks you, it's pretty obvious that you just might be on the WRONG side of the argument; just sayin. :rofl

What do you know? A guilt by association ad hominem attack. Not a single part of your post even attempted to refute a single one of my points. Why even bother posting just to attack me?

 

[Kayleigh Katz]

Who cares if the government is listening to what you say? If you're not planning to blow something up or assassinate some leader you're not going to have your plans ruined by the FBI showing up at your party.

Seriously, I get the privacy argument, but it's not your next door neighbor listening, it's the people that hopefully will be able to stop the next 9/11 event before it happens. That's a pretty high priority, isn't it???

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Who cares if the government is listening to what you say? If you're not planning to blow something up or assassinate some leader you're not going to have your plans ruined by the FBI showing up at your party.

Seriously, I get the privacy argument, but it's not your next door neighbor listening, it's the people that hopefully will be able to stop the next 9/11 event before it happens. That's a pretty high priority, isn't it???

Did you read the OP? The NSA's using their new powers to listen to phone sex, not Al Qaeda planning sessions.

Furthermore, the National Research Council released a report this week stating that such data mining does not work for spotting terrorists

Source [Ars Technica | Analysis: data mining doesn't work for spotting terrorists]

"Automated identification of terrorists through data mining (or any other known methodology) is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development efforts."
—Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, pp. 27-28

It doesn't work and is being abused. Why would anybody be in support of this system?

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Ars covers the NSA whistleblowes

Source [Ars Technica | NSA eavesdropped on Americans, journalists in Baghdad]

According to the ABC report, these operators allege that it was common practice at the NSA facility to not only record the phone conversations of ordinary Americans with no connection whatsoever to terrorism, but to single out the exchanges that were somehow novel or salacious for sharing, ridicule, and general discussion.

One of the whistleblowers described to ABC how he would be told by his follow operators, "Hey, check this out, there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'." [...]

In spite of the fact that the agents believed intercepting such calls to be pointless, they were nonetheless ordered to record them and transcribe them anyway. The fact that the NSA remains interested in these calls even after they're identified as non-terrorism-related is truly remarkable, and it leads me to believe that the information collected is being archived for data mining purposes.

I suggest data mining as an explanation for retaining them, because I can't think of any legitimate reason for the NSA to order the archiving of a phone sex call made by an American military officer. But even so, the data mining explanation makes little sense on its face, since why would you feed into a data mining program information that two experienced and trained human agents had already screened and found innocuous. That's precisely backwards, but at least that explanation doesn't involve blackmail, suppression of political dissent, or any of the other nasty stuff that the US government has been known to do with recordings of its citizens' phone conversations.

 

[Kayleigh Katz]

Did you read the OP? The NSA's using their new powers to listen to phone sex, not Al Qaeda planning sessions.

Furthermore, the National Research Council released a report this week stating that such data mining does not work for spotting terrorists

Source [Ars Technica | Analysis: data mining doesn't work for spotting terrorists]



It doesn't work and is being abused. Why would anybody be in support of this system?

I'll be honest I tried to read the ars thing and it didn't make very much sense to me, I'm not a techie person. But I think the NSA probably has a pretty good idea of what they are doing and how to catch terrorists. If they hear some phone sex I don't think it's a huge deal.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

I'll be honest I tried to read the ars thing and it didn't make very much sense to me, I'm not a techie person. But I think the NSA probably has a pretty good idea of what they are doing and how to catch terrorists. If they hear some phone sex I don't think it's a huge deal.

Well do you believe the National Research Council?

"Automated identification of terrorists through data mining (or any other known methodology) is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development efforts."
—Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, pp. 27-28

 

[Kushinator]

Why not just throw the entire 4th Amendment out? That way, the FBI can just go into anyone's house, car, property just to make sure there are not any terrorists there, which will make us a safer society. If i have to relinquish my freedom to prevent another terrorist attack, i say bring it on mother****er! I would rather risk death, then live like a child...