Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying

[Patsy Stone]

Source: NYT

By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 29, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.

<snip>

Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Kagemusha]

1. The plot thickens. Pretty much literally.

Now the veil is starting to slowly lift...

[aquart]

2. Clinton was technically correct about not having "sexual relations."

[Kibitzer 2006]

3. "Illegal because it does not comply with the law" (WTF?)

Occasionally I can't help chuckling at some "explanation" that our press offers. From this article:

Critics have called the surveillance illegal because it does not comply with the FISA law.

Yes, I get it. That's what "illegal" means. I suppose you could phrase/punctuate it a little differently so that it made some sense. E.g., "Critics said the surveillance does not comply with the FISA law, and is therefore illegal." But as it stands, the quote roughly says, "Critics have called the surveillance illegal because it's illegal."

I'm reminded of a piece several years ago in the Washington Post. I don't have the exact quote, but it was roughly, "...according to sources who requested anonymity because they did not want their identities revealed."

--Kibitzer

[Kurovski]

6. Frustrating, even infuriating.

"...Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

But members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have been briefed on the program, called the testimony deceptive."

Welcome to DU, Kibitzer. I love your name. :-)

K&R.

[Zensea]

4. kick

:)

[bleever]

5. Worse than warrantless wiretaps.

They collect EVERYTHING and look for potentially naughty bits.

Big Brother, meet Bigger Brother.




:hi:

[bleever]

7. Thank God that saving democracy

is, to some extent at least, again the interest of our free press, and not just left up to those of us who don't own newspapers or television networks.

That doesn't mean I'm relaxing.