~ Opinion Thread : NSA Spying vs. Real Terrorist Surviellence ~

[rpgamerd00d]

Before you read this thread, I want you to do something for me. I want you to set aside what you know about the NSA spying program, or what you think you know, and I want you to set aside The Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hayden, and the current administration, House and Senate. Instead, simply genericize the Administration, House and Senate, with no particular party in control.

Got that in your mind?

OK.

Now, I want you to think about the following program, and decide for yourself if you think its a good program, both from an effectiveness point of view, and a legal/civil rights point of view. Sound good? OK.

Lets say that I collect the following information, and only the following information:
- Caller phone #
- Callee phone #
- Caller Physical Location
- Callee Physical Location
- Caller, Type of Phone Used (landline, cell, payphone)
- Callee, Type of Phone Used (landline, cell, payphone)
- Date/Time of call
- Duration of call

Got it? No names, no contents, no info of any kind. Just what is listed.

Now, imagine I want to find terrorists.
Lets say I know some information about how terrorists operate.
Lets say that terrorists usually make a series of short calls, all within a single day, to a single number, before ditching the phone they used.

Query: "show me all calls less than 2 minutes duration, where the caller calls the callee more than 3 times within a single day, who have no subsequent calls from that caller # after that date."

Lets say that gives you 1000 hits out of millions and millions of calls.
edit: Lets also say that the remaining data is then eliminated.

Lets also say that this result is legally significant. In other words, even though I have given a very very simple query, lets pretend its a series of very specific, very complex, very detailed queries which result in a set of data that would definitely indicate a need to get more details.

Got that? Pretend its more complex than my example, and legally significant.

Now, you take those 1000 numbers, and you do a simple reverse number lookup, and find out the names associated with all of the numbers. Then, you apply for warrants to get the personal info of those names, and possibly roving taps of those names.


So, here is the $100,000 question: Again, assuming you ignore the simplicity of my example and understand that the real sifting of the data would be far more complex, how do you feel about this from, again, both an effectiveness point of view and a legal/civil rights point of view?

[Duer 157099]

1. Not effective; violation of privacy

It's not even gray to me.

[magellan]

5. Second that. (nt)

[panader0]

2. I don't want the government to listen in at all

The biggest terra-ist in the world is in the white house. The way to stop terrorism is to stop the foriegn policies that engender it. Leave other people's business to them. Not all of the people in the Middle East want the American style of democracy (i.e.-stealing elections etc.) Stop neo-imperialism, mind our own business, become less dependent on foriegn oil.

[rpgamerd00d]

4. You didn't do what I asked in the OP.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Against 4th Amendment

I know too many folks who make short calls to one another on these throwaway phones, and for legit reasons.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. This doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."

Nothing personal was gathered. Its all public info (your phone number is public to law enforcement, even if its unlisted).

[magellan]

7. Then why do cops need a warrant to see records of calls made

...by any phone customer.

[rpgamerd00d]

8. edited

edit: For cell phones, they dont need a court order.

[redqueen]

10. Source? n/t

[redqueen]

9. Sorry, you're mistaken.

47 U.S.C. §1002(a(2))

The definitions section of the law:

The term “call-identifying information” means dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each communication generated or received by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a telecommunications carrier.

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier—
(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains,



From the USA Today article:

"Among the controversies over the database, however, is that it was built without court warrants or the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges established to issue secret warrants, according to people with direct knowledge of the arrangement."

[rpgamerd00d]

13. Ahh, ok. I suppose it could be dont for just cell phones, then

since cell phones get around that law.

[redqueen]

22. Not clear what your subject line means...

but I'm curious to know how exactly cell phones get around that law.

?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. Nothing personal that they will tell about

Sorry, but the government of the US always seems to do more than they say publicly.

[NanceGreggs]

11. Maybe I'm missing the point (which I've been known to do) ...

But I immediately have a problem with the premise, to whit:

Query: "show me all calls less than 2 minutes duration, where the caller calls the callee more than 3 times within a single day, who have no subsequent calls from that caller # after that date."

Lets say that gives you 1000 hits out of millions and millions of calls.


The query you've outlined would produce WAY MORE than 1000 hits. There are millions of calls placed every day that would fall into that category, e.g. calling a repairman three times to check on his arrival time. You may never call him again. Calling a friend from out of town staying at a hotel number that you will never call again. The list is virtually endless.

So with that much info to investigate further, where is the effectiveness?

[rpgamerd00d]

12. No, I said "where a call from that CALLER is never made again."

i.e. the phone is never used again, ever, for anything.

[Duer 157099]

14. premise still flawed

you think they're smart enough to ditch the phone of the caller, but not the recipient?

you assume the recipient uses a land line

think more

[rpgamerd00d]

15. It was a fake example, I have no idea what the real criteria would be.

Can't you read?

[Duer 157099]

17. I can read

can you write? you're the one setting up the hypothetical example, so flesh it out

Tell me, in your example, is the recipient a disposable cell phone or a land line?

If it's a ditched cell phone, the acquired data is completely useless

If it's a land line, the premise is flawed because it assumes these people don't know better

[rpgamerd00d]

20. OK, you can't read.

Here is the flesh out you requested:

(insert good example here)

All clear now?

[originalpckelly]

16. This database is wrong in principle and practice:

As you stated before there are countless technical difficulties associated with this database, but the most important reason this shouldn't be done is the very principle of the matter. In this database ALL Americans are under suspicion, even innocent people.

This is a very fundamental change in our system of jurisprudence that basically boils down to:
You are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

We simply cannot do that because that kind of system leads to innocent people being convicted. The threshold to have ones life invaded by this system is much higher than a limited criminal investigation. Your whole existence on Earth could be turned upside down because you called someone too much or you said a bad word (as I assume there would be wiretapping for the people in the group of 1,000.) Those things might be annoying (mainly the incessant calling), but they are not illegal.

Increasing the number of people under official suspicion will ALWAYS lead to more falsely convicted people. Our system is one made of human beings. As it stands they do sometimes make errors. Imagine what happens when one increases the pool of people in the justice system in one way, shape, or form.

Not only that, but this program is a ceding of power to the government. We now have to trust the people in the government because from what we do know, there were people who so profoundly disagreed with this system, they risked their careers to come forward and talk about it with reporters. That tells me there is no oversight, and that means the system can probably be abused.

How long is it until we hear people using this kind of technology for ones own gain? How long does it take for someone to be blackmailed because they called someone they shouldn't have?

It is a bad idea.

[rpgamerd00d]

18. Not true at all. I'll prove it.

Can a cop pull over ALL cars that weave?
Yes.

Are you guilty at that point?
No.

The only difference between a cop investigating you for a crime he suspects but can't yet prove, and this, is how observation is done. In one case, observation is done with eyeballs. In the other, with a computer.

Note, I changed the OP, see bolded "edit" text.

[originalpckelly]

23. Yes, but in that case the cop has eyes...

and can see someone, he doesn't have to have some form of lawful authorization to see someone.

The government doesn't (or make that didn't) know who people were calling. It wasn't something that they were privy to without a lawful authorization.

Furthermore there have been many court cases that allow cops to pull over a car and search it because it might present a danger to everyone on the road. It is obvious from observation in plain sight and that is what makes it so different. These records were not in plain sight and therefore are not comparable to the police pulling a person over.

[rpgamerd00d]

24. OK.

Good enough for me.

[spuddonna]

19. It is against the law, no matter if the govt or telco is at fault...

If the govt 'forced' the telcos to give up the info, then the govt has violated the 4th amendment by ignoring search and seizure rules. Great article at TalkLeft about this: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014824.html
Excerpt from the above link:
snip
"The real issue --and problem as I see it --is the indiscriminateness of the records requests and turnovers. There is no individualized suspicion that the tens of millions of persons whose phone records were turned over had engaged in criminal activity or had any interaction whatsoever with a foreign person or agent or power who might be connected to terrorist activity.

That's what makes it a wholesale violation of civil rights and one that must be stopped. We cannot allow the Government to collect records on millions of us in a fell swoop because it is searching for the proverbial needle in the terrorist haystack. If it has a reasonable belief (at a minimum) that a particular phone is being used in connection with terrorist activity, fine, get an individualized subpoena for that person's phone records or a court order for a pen register or trap and trace and if the belief evolves into probable cause, get a wiretap warrant."

If the telcos 'gave' the info to the govt, the telcos are in violation of The Stored Communications Act and The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

[rpgamerd00d]

21. Look at my cop example above.

Lets say cops install cameras that can detect if you go thru a red light, at every intersection in the USA. Every single one.
Is that suddenly a violation of your 4th amendment rights just because you are no longer individually being investigated?

The only difference between a physical cop and a set of cameras, is the scope of observation.
In this case, the scope of observation has increased, but the type of observation is the same.

There is a parallel between that and a computer going over records.

[spuddonna]

29. This is an interesting hypothetical...

However, just because the law rules in one case (traffic cameras) that overt surveillance is ok, it does not mean this is transferrable.

The laws on the use of telecommunication devices, specifically telephones in this case, have been around for quite some time. The law dictates that anytime a cop (electronic or not) wants detailed call records on a person, there is a need for probable cause and a warrant.

My point being, there are existing laws that deal with this. Now, if you want to argue that the law is wrong, or out of touch with new technology, and should be changed to accomodate these new uses of computer technology to create some type of 'telephone terrorism early warning system', that's an entirely different argument. And that legal argument - as far as I know - has not been heard by the court or any Congressional body.

[rpgamerd00d]

30. Exactly. Illegal now, but possibly legal in the future.

It all hinges on effectiveness, which I am not convinced of, as per TheWraith's comments below.

[spuddonna]

31. LOL I should have left my last paragraph in!

I cut it because I thought my post was running on, but it's basically what TheWraith said.

I was going to note that as a person who has designed some relatively simple db's, I couldn't figure how they could use the info. There aren't that many fields to really sift through - origin/destination phone number, call duration, uh... what else... time of call, origin/dest. location of call... How do you do any queries that mean anything? There would be tens of thousands of overlaps. And the cost of this, it's gotta be expensive - lots of data warehousing here.

Unless this db was combined with other info, I'd look at it as useless. Well, they can use it to trace who in the govt is leaking info to the press, but that's another scandal! :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

25. Using your sifting method, and probably the NSA's sifting method

You're coming up with a bunch of utterly useless data. The 1000 numbers that you've come up with could, and are probably more likely to, belong to bookies, gamblers, drug dealers, "escort" services, etc. etc., not terrorists. And if you try to use this information which you got illegally, without a warrant, you would get your ass handed to you in court, and would be very lucky to walk away without a heavy duty lawsuit thrown at you for violating privacy.

What you, the NSA, and this misadministration don't get is that these are very hard, very savvy people. They are operating in countries where phone records are not only pulled and analyzed, but are listened into without regards to our sorts of Constitutionally mandated protections. They are very savvy in their communications, and are going to make few mistakes.

But meanwhile, during the course of this data collection and mining, you are violating the civil rights of every single person you're collecting information on. And your hypothetical is making one huge, probably mistaken assumption. That the data is going to be thrown away. C'mon, this is the NSA we're talkng about here. They're no sooner going to throw away this kind of information than a junky is going to throw away a gram of meth, it's just not going to happen.

And you're making a huge assumption friend, that this information is being collected to fight this "War on Terror"(whatever that is:eyes:). Given the revelations that ABC and others are having their records mined in order to find administration leaks and other such information, I would say that such a premise is shaky at best.

[TheWraith]

26. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out so well.

Simply put, there's far too large a sampling for you to ever produce a sifting model which will result in actionable information. You'd be more likely to end up with tens of thousands of numbers instead of thousands, and you'd never be able to get a warrant based on something as dubious as suspicious phone call patterns.

Suppose that your theoretical terrorists used pay phones? Or bought those cheap over-the-counter cell phones that need no name to be given? There are too many ways to beat that sort of system. More to the point, there are plenty of other call patterns which would mimic suspicious patterns.

Even with the most complicated sifting protocols, the signal to noise ratio would be absurdly low. And that's even assuming that there are would-be terrorists in the US, which is something that we have no hard evidence of.

[rpgamerd00d]

27. Now you've got it. That is the meat, right there.

About time someone got it.