Let's change the NSA question. Not "Snowden" or "are we" but "should we."

[Pholus]

I think I want a discussion about principles instead of details.

First, remove "Snowden" from the equation -- not a factor here.

Second, let's remove any question about "what we're actually doing" -- issues of proof are actually not relevant.

Even if you think this is just "Pie in the Sky" play along for a minute, because it won't be at some point.

Start from the premise that even if it is technologically unfeasible to collect all internet and voice communications now, it will be possible at some point.

Consider the following set of information archived by individual citizen, compiled by our government in the course of national security work once it has become a fully mature process:

Start with the TIA initial database description (as this was considered plausible in 2002, it is a reasonable list):

1. personal e-mails,
2. social networks,
3. credit card records,
4. phone calls (content and metadata),
5. medical records,
6. Biometrics -- DNA
7. Biometrics -- Face picture
8. Biometrics -- Fingerprint
9. Biometrics -- gait

and add a few others that have come up.

10. Mobile phone location
11. Public surveillance video
12. License plate reader/EZ-pass information.
13. Web browsing history

And keep in mind that I am not that imaginative:

14. Any other electronic information that you know that could be collected and stored that I missed.

Now let's pretend we are policymakers who have to consider this expansionary uses of this technology and give some opinions:

1) What are limits on the use of this data? Should it be used only for Terrorism? For national security in general (leak investigation and background checks) Should it be used for international crime investigations? Should it be used for federal crime investigation? Should it be used for domestic crime investigation?

2) How long should such data be held? Should there be a mandatory expiration on this data? If so, why?

3) What are the allowed rules for its direct access? Must it be via a warrant with probable cause? Can automated "crime detection" software be run on it to detect certain heinous crimes (like pedos and human slavers)? What about all criminal activity? What about all civil criminal activities (you know, copyright violation)?

4) If some current DARPA research pans out, can algorithms be used that have some value at predicting future criminal behavior (ala Minority Report)?

5) What penalties should be levied on those in authority who misuse it? For example those who use it profit from selling the data they have access to or keep tabs on a cheating spouse? How about those who use it to gain an insider trading advantage?

6) Even if a legal framework is created, under what circumstances can the legal framework be changed? Can an executive order allow a change in the requirements to access that data to drop the requirement for a FISA court for national security reasons, for example?

7) Should participation in the biometric portions of data collection be compelled? Perhaps in school or with voter registration now that the Supreme court has cleared a path for that.

8) What access do individual citizens have to their own data? To others? Could it be used to run background checks? Can a contractor access the data and sell some analysis of the information for a fee, as they do with court records or other federal data? Can a person challenge the information in the data if they can prove it is inaccurate? If so, how onerous would that be on the government?

9) Should there be penalties for circumventing the data collection or can such activities be used as grounds for suspicion in investigating a crime? Let's say someone is murdered and there are no mobile phones in the vicinity. Would it be reasonable to search the database with a starting query being people who were not carrying their phones around the time of the murder and then start investigating those people?

[kentuck]

1. Also, let's not forget satellite TV.

Have you noticed that when you have premium channels, such as Showtime or HBO, and you have favorite shows that end their season, they (Directv, ie) will offer a free trial for a weekend so you do not drop the channel in the slow part of the year?

They know what you watch, when you watch it, and when you might call to cancel it? Do they sell this information to other companies? How valuable is this information?

[Pholus]

3. Oh crap. I knew I shouldn't have been watching "The Americans" and then posting here.... :)

My question is still serious. At what level SHOULD government be allowed to take and use information about my private activities, even if performed on a public network?

Once the data is collected for national security, the other uses are obvious.

[kentuck]

6. I think the entire culture and mindset will have to change.

And technology must be respected but not given a free pass in regards to privacy issues. Just because they have the capabilities does not mean they have to use them. Governments will use technology in different ways and for different purposes than will individuals or businesses. That is why they have to be watched more closely.

[Pholus]

7. I was reflecting on a 4th amendment discussion from yesterday...

that claimed that all of that data exists outside your home so nothing stops it from being collected.

Seems to me that while that is being used to justify the NSA's work, it has obvious implications domestically.

Just wanted to talk about that and find out what people thought.

[randome]

2. Aren't you making the assumption that all this information is being collected?

As far as the FBI/NSA are concerned, I have no problem with the phone metadata records being copied under the current procedures for access.

I have no problem with my country spying on other countries.

I have no problem with legal warrants being required for further electronic access or, in the case of an emergency situation, solid procedures and sign-offs required to do so while a warrant is pursued.

The same situation exists for officers on the beat: if they chase a robbery or murder suspect, they don't need a warrant to capture him.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pholus]

4. AGAIN, this is independent of "are we." The question is on the limits of "should we." nt

[randome]

13. Then where does "Consider the following set of information archived" come from?

Spying is fine for the reasons I stated above.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Pholus]

14. We know that there is a national security goal to compile this information...

how can or should it be used otherwise? That data has immense value to all kinds of law enforcement when you think about it. When can it be used?

[Pholus]

5. Furthermore, if the data is collected for national security.

Should the valuable data set have other domestic uses that should be considered?

[Recursion]

11. That's a very interesting question, and also a difficult line to draw

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Was the Boston bombing a "domestic law enforcement" issue or a "national security" issue? The OKC bombing (that was, after all, a specific targeting of Federal assets)? God forbid another attack, but there probably will be one, and I expect its international/domestic status to be no less murky.

[Pholus]

16. And this is why a discussion needs to be held.

There will otherwise be drift into these murky areas without a clear articulation of what can and cannot be allowed!

[Recursion]

9. I thought Pholus specifically was NOT making that assumption

And asking about what should/should not be allowed.

[Downwinder]

8. This goes well beyond the census forms that people claimed

invaded their privacy.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=census+forms+invade+privacy

[Pholus]

17. I found my Dad apparently lied about his age in the 1940 census.

He had lied earlier to get early admission to the CCC camps when the Depression was in full swing and the family was starving and I think he was figuring they'd catch up with him if he didn't keep up the act.

Of course, that would have involved a very labor intensive comparison between two disparate sets of data and would not have been worth the effort -- then.

Now? It would just the will to think about it and an appropriately crafted query...

[Recursion]

10. I know many say that such a database is itself a temptation for misuse

I have argued before that however great a temptation that is, it has less potential for misuse than, say, our health records, which most of us would like in the ultimate custody of HHS. I more or less still feel that way: I do believe that legal safeguards could prevent misuse -- currently, police require a warrant to pull phone LUDs, for instance, but that data is stored AFAIK indefinitely (and the Baby Bells are partly state actors to begin with, when you think about their history).

[Romulus Quirinus]

12. Part of the problem is that most people are profoundly igonorant of computer science.

Being able to install Windows 8 or unlock an Iphone does not qualify anyone to know what is possible with a supercomputer cluster and large batch of data. It seems that most folks think that they have a measure of "security through obscurity", that there's no way for anyone to look through billions of records and find a specific thing or person in a petabyte pile of data unless they were already highlighted (you know, as a "terrorist&quot . They say they aren't worried at all.

They will then go and use Google and not think twice.

I have no idea how to solve this problem, unfortunately. The resources are out there. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, right? This is my personal experience with bringing up the issue.

[Pholus]

15. I feel like many people are ignorant about why the legal opinions are secret...

If the government position is that "collection" is not "search" but that search can happen on the collected data, there is nothing that says that only applies to national security. If the opinion is out there, it could apply across the board and people would be justifiably quite upset as they saw the natural consequences..

So they handled the legal issues like a teenager deals with parents. It is better to seek forgiveness than ask permission.