Former FISA Judges: Bush's warrantless wiretaps completely legal

[GostHacked]

OH and Canada does not seem to happy about the NSA either

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0501?hub=Canada

But it also seems that Canada is doing some of the same things to Canadians. OH f'n joy.

[BHS]

OH and Canada does not seem to happy about the NSA either

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0501?hub=Canada

But it also seems that Canada is doing some of the same things to Canadians. OH f'n joy.

Do you really believe that it's a bad thing for the Canadian government to be spying on communications between known terrorists outside of Canada and their cohorts in-country? Did you really think that Canada wouldn't be doing this in any case? What's more import to you - protecting the privacy of terrorists or the lives of the people they intend to kill? If your answer is the former, don't complain that the government didn't do enough to prevent terrorism the next time terrorists strike.

And don't for one minute conflate targetted spying on the communications of known terrorists with a program designed to spy on the population in general. Bringing Big Brother fantasies into this is partisan bull.

[Black Dog]

And don't for one minute conflate targetted spying on the communications of known terrorists with a program designed to spy on the population in general. Bringing Big Brother fantasies into this is partisan bull.

This kind of thinking relies on a fallacy that I'm surprised to see anyone from the right side of the spectrum commit: that is, that the government can be trusted to do its job efficiently.

I have to ask: if the people being spied on are "known terrorists", why is the government not arresting and prosecuting these people? the NSA program is supposed to have tapped into the communications of thousands of people: you're telling me with absolute certainty that all these people are either "known terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers? I think one need only look at the case of Maher Arar and others just like it to know that the government doesn't always get it right (indeed, they seem to miss more than they score).

[KrustyKidd]

I have to ask: if the people being spied on are "known terrorists", why is the government not arresting and prosecuting these people?

The government can make these people disappear if they wanted. However, to arrest them alerts those connected that the gig is up with whomever and whatever plans were laid. Hence, the ability to learn more and who is invilved is lost. Taking out one is meaningless, it is the larger plan and the operatives you wish so you maximize the intelligence. In fact, the person being targeted initially may only be a lower teir person with no knowledge of anything other than to simply stand by and wait for instructions or, a person or thing to arrive.

[BHS]

And don't for one minute conflate targetted spying on the communications of known terrorists with a program designed to spy on the population in general. Bringing Big Brother fantasies into this is partisan bull.

This kind of thinking relies on a fallacy that I'm surprised to see anyone from the right side of the spectrum commit: that is, that the government can be trusted to do its job efficiently.

I have to ask: if the people being spied on are "known terrorists", why is the government not arresting and prosecuting these people? the NSA program is supposed to have tapped into the communications of thousands of people: you're telling me with absolute certainty that all these people are either "known terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers? I think one need only look at the case of Maher Arar and others just like it to know that the government doesn't always get it right (indeed, they seem to miss more than they score).

In my post I specifically premised that the known terrorists were to be found outside of Canada (with supporters/sympathizers or possibly cell members being parties of interest within our borders). It follows that the terrorists are beyond Canadian jurisdiction for the purposes of arresting them and prosecuting them as criminals, under "international law". Such an action would be "illegal", and I'm surprised you'd advocate for it. I'm sure that's not what you intended.

I reread my post and nowhere do I use the word "efficiency". The fact that investigators follow more bad leads than good is just the nature of investigation. And unfortunately, people like Maher Arar do get arrested and deported without good cause. I didn't suggest perfection, and I don't think that it's fair of critics to expect it. The benefit of investigating both actual crimes and potential threats to our security is not made less desirable by the fact that innocent (though suspicious) people may be investigated along with genuine perpetrators, and that sometimes these investigations may lead to incorrect conclusions about an individual's activities or intentions. It's a risk that I believe we should take, doing our best to ensure that miscarriages of justice are rectified in the long run.

Arar brings up an interesting point, and one that perhaps supports both of our positions: as in the case of Bill Sampson and Zahra Kazemi, the Maher Arar case made plain that a Canadian citizen falsely imprisoned abroad can't rely on the Canadian (and distinctly Liberal) government for protection or even useful advocacy. Our ambassadors and Foreign Affaris Ministers regularly took the word of terrorist sponsoring rogue governments at face value, even when confronted with visible evidence that torture was occuring and therefore any confessions that had been obtained were highly suspect. If they can't see evil when it's as plain as the noses on their faces, why trust that they could detect terrorism effectively now? And why trust that they would act appropriately if they did?

[Black Dog]

In my post I specifically premised that the known terrorists were to be found outside of Canada (with supporters/sympathizers or possibly cell members being parties of interest within our borders). It follows that the terrorists are beyond Canadian jurisdiction for the purposes of arresting them and prosecuting them as criminals, under "international law". Such an action would be "illegal", and I'm surprised you'd advocate for it. I'm sure that's not what you intended.

Fair enough, but it's also worth noting that this conversation is occurring within the context of the NSA spying issue, which was what i was talking about. My mistake for being sloppy I suppose, which is no doubt a reaction to the frequency of arguments to the effect that the NSA in the States is "only spying on terrorists".

[Liam]

I have to ask: if the people being spied on are "known terrorists", why is the government not arresting and prosecuting these people? the NSA program is supposed to have tapped into the communications of thousands of people: you're telling me with absolute certainty that all these people are either "known terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers? I think one need only look at the case of Maher Arar and others just like it to know that the government doesn't always get it right (indeed, they seem to miss more than they score).

Actually, the question should be, "if these people are known terrorists, why can't the Bush administration avail themselves of the right under FISA to issue a pre-warrant tap and then seek a warrant on that tap within the following 72 hours?" Seems like a slam dunk that they would get the warrant. And there is nothing about the warrant process which alerts the parties to the fact that a communication has been monitored.

[GostHacked]

BHS - The spy program in Canada is not as bad as the USs, there seem to be some checks and balances in place and general regard for the privacy of the citizens. However it won't take much and won't take long to slide down to the USs level in terms of the NSA Wiretapping.

And with Hayden now comming into the scene as CIAs top man, he is looking at relaxing things even MORE and making it easier.

WASHINGTON -- CIA director-nominee Michael Hayden has told at least one Democratic senator that he may be open to changing the law that governs eavesdropping on U.S. soil to allow the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance.

Barriers will be eroded away untill surveilance on every person in the US is legal regardless of the context. Who better is qualified for this job than Hayden? Being the former NSA head.

[BHS]

BHS - The spy program in Canada is not as bad as the USs, there seem to be some checks and balances in place and general regard for the privacy of the citizens. However it won't take much and won't take long to slide down to the USs level in terms of the NSA Wiretapping.

And with Hayden now comming into the scene as CIAs top man, he is looking at relaxing things even MORE and making it easier.

WASHINGTON -- CIA director-nominee Michael Hayden has told at least one Democratic senator that he may be open to changing the law that governs eavesdropping on U.S. soil to allow the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance.

Barriers will be eroded away untill surveilance on every person in the US is legal regardless of the context. Who better is qualified for this job than Hayden? Being the former NSA head.

What aspect of the NSA wiretapping program places it lower in terms of morality (or whatever it is you mean by "down") than what CSIS does? Don't bother answering that, because you can't possibly know the details of what the NSA is doing, because it's still a covert operation and everything that is being said about it is still speculative. Just as CSIS's program is covert. Comparing two covert operations with unknown operational parameters is pointless, unless you're trying to make political hay for the opponents of the Bush administration. And such a concern not entirely the same as protecting the putative privacy of average citizens, is it?.

Also, Hayden hasn't got the ability to change laws, so whether he's open to the idea of changing them or not isn't really of any concern. I'm sure there are cops out there who'd like jail time for speeders, but they can't change the law either.

The technology required to keep a surveillance tab on every citizen in America is beyond what is presently available. When, in some future era, the technological capability to maintain such a surveillance program is available to the governments of the world, America will be the last country to adopt such a program. If you believe otherwise you have no idea how America works.

The whole kerfuffle about the NSA wiretapping scandal is mildly ridiculous. What it boils down to is "Bush could have gotten warrants and everything would have been above board, but he didn't so BUSH IS A CRIMINAL WHO INTENDS TO USE THE VAST POWERS OF THE STATE TO TOTALLY CONTROL ALL ASPECTS OF AMERICAN LIFE." Getting worked up about Bush breaking the law in a way that amounts to not more than a foregoing of procedural niceties is like getting worked up about the Presidential motorcade speeding through red lights in downtown Washington. Because he does that too, on occasion, and it's also illegal. And it's also true that he could obey the law and get where he's going just the same. Actually, that's a pretty good analogy.

Last year, when torture was the topic with all of the pundits, it was pointed out that should the McCain definition of torture become law, it would still be within the President's power to authorize the use of information extraction techniques that were definitively forms of torture under extreme circumstances. It would be up to history and the American people to decide if he had made the right call in breaking the law. The NSA wiretapping scandal is essentially the same. The people who have the ability to call Bush to account for the program are the Democrats, especially if they regain part or total control of Congress in November. But I seriously doubt they'll try. They're only riding the story as a method of bringing Bush's approval rating down. They have no intention of making a legal case out of this and binding the President's hands.

[BHS]

This article by Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times is more or less definitive for the arguments in favour of the NSA wiretapping program.

[GostHacked]

This article by Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times is more or less definitive for the arguments in favour of the NSA wiretapping program.

I don't se anything that supports the NSA program in there at all. Nothing definitve at least. And from the last paragraph, it seems to show incompitence in the US government.

yield to no one in my antipathy to government, but not everyone who's on the federal payroll is a boob, a time-server, a politically motivated malcontent or principal leak supplier to the New York Times. Suppose you're a savvy mid-level guy in Washington, you've just noticed a pattern, you think there might be something in it. But it requires enormous will to talk your bosses into agreeing to investigate further, and everyone up the chain is thinking, gee, if this gets out, will Pat Leahy haul me before the Senate and kill my promotion prospects? There was a lot of that before 9/11, and thousands died.

I can interperet this as there being incompitence in the higher ups. A lower guy thinks he sees the patterns , wants higher ups to approve of it. But he is afraid of getting run out of the Senate. Al;so if the guy had suspicions of a pattern, then it should be NO PROBLEM to get a warrent for the wiretapping.

I would like more openess with goernment, not more secrecy.

[Black Dog]

This article by Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times is more or less definitive for the arguments in favour of the NSA wiretapping program.

Steyn's argument basically hinges on the following:

How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we're up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who'd arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That's three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not "primitives". They're part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people -- and kill them. They're as globalized as McDonald's -- but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They're very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don't leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting.

But the London bombers, the Madrid bombers and even the Bali bombers had little or no contact with any "network."

What's more, as far as connecting the dots goes, one only need to look at an administration's high level of antipathy towards dissent to realize that the likleyhood of any such tool, no matter how well-intentioned, to be misused is also high.

[BHS]

But the London bombers, the Madrid bombers and even the Bali bombers had little or no contact with any "network."

Um, where do you get your information from? Were you in on the plotting?

What's more, as far as connecting the dots goes, one only need to look at an administration's high level of antipathy towards dissent to realize that the likleyhood of any such tool, no matter how well-intentioned, to be misused is also high.

Since when is using a phone an act of dissent? Also, please illustrate how examining a normal person's calling patterns might be used for nefarious purposes other than marketing.

[Liam]

What's more, as far as connecting the dots goes, one only need to look at an administration's high level of antipathy towards dissent to realize that the likleyhood of any such tool, no matter how well-intentioned, to be misused is also high.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...al_source_.html

Evidently, a reporter at ABC News was told that the feds are data mining his phone number...

This administration has proven time and again that its M.O. is to lie and that it is completely untrustworthy. Personally, I'd rather have a president whose biggest lie was about staining a blue dress.

[Black Dog]

Um, where do you get your information from? Were you in on the plotting?

The same report Steyn (selectively) quotes from says that the London bombers were "inspired by" Al Qaeda, but acted alone. The probe into the Madrid bombings came to a similar conclusion: homegrown radicals acting on their own with no material support from foreign elements.

...there is no solid evidence to suggest that Al-Qaida directly planned or directed the London attacks, in which 52 commuters were killed on three subway trains and a bus.

The bombers, all young British Muslims who mixed chemicals for their crude bombs in a bathtub, were probably inspired by Al-Qaida but acted on their own, motivated by ``fierce antagonism to perceived injustices by the West against Muslims,'' the Home Office report stated.

two-year probe into the Madrid train bombings concludes the Islamic terrorists who carried out the blasts were homegrown radicals acting on their own rather than at the behest of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, two senior intelligence officials said.

The intelligence chief said there were no phone calls between the Madrid bombers and al-Qaeda and no money transfers. The Western official said the plotters had links to other Islamic radicals in Western Europe, but the plan was hatched and organized in Spain. "This was not an al-Qaeda operation," he said. "It was homegrown."

Since when is using a phone an act of dissent? Also, please illustrate how examining a normal person's calling patterns might be used for nefarious purposes other than marketing.

How they use the information isn't necessarily relevant. How they get the information is. If I spy on your wife in the shower, does the fact that I don't take pictures and put them on the internet make it less of an invasion of privacy?

[BHS]

How they use the information isn't necessarily relevant. How they get the information is. If I spy on your wife in the shower, does the fact that I don't take pictures and put them on the internet make it less of an invasion of privacy?

Not your best analogy. Is the city water department giving you access to my bathroom? The phone companies have already created the databases in question for their own purposes (which no one seems to be bothered by). Unlike peeping, there's nothing illegal at all about handing these records over to the government.

So, because none of the bombers had "I'm with Al Qaeda" tattooed on his forehead for a post hoc committee to ponder there's no connection? The point of Steyn's article is that there may be a buried link (through degrees of seperation) between these bombings and and a greater Al Qaeda conspiracy, but since the requisite data mining hasn't or can't be performed there is no way of knowing. Perhaps it frightens you that there are people in places of authority and responsibility who aren't willing to gloss over the preliminary findings and leave it at that. His description of the two memes - blaming the government for not preventing a terrorist attack, and accusing the government of nefarious motives when take the most basic steps towards achieving said prevention, is exactly what I'm seeing with this.

A funny thing - The New York times, one of the papers that was shocked, SHOCKED, when this story broke late last week, actually wrote about this story last December. I remember it well. It's pretty pathetic when the biggest daily in the US is feigning surprise about a story that it itself broke months ago in order to capitalize on anti-Bush hysteria.

[Black Dog]

Not your best analogy. Is the city water department giving you access to my bathroom? The phone companies have already created the databases in question for their own purposes (which no one seems to be bothered by). Unlike peeping, there's nothing illegal at all about handing these records over to the government.

Those records are collected as part of the normal course of a phone companies operations. So I don't have much a problem with that. But to hand those records over without the customer's consent or without satisfying any of the other legislative provisions set down in the Stored Communications Act is a whole different ball game. Going back to my analogy, it would be as if your landlord (who has the authority to enter the premises undercertain conditions) let me in to peep.

So, because none of the bombers had "I'm with Al Qaeda" tattooed on his forehead for a post hoc committee to ponder there's no connection?

I'm pretty sur ehey didn't pull those conclusions out of thin air. In fact, using Occam's Razor, the bombers having no connection to Al Qaeda is the most likely one.

The point of Steyn's article is that there may be a buried link (through degrees of seperation) between these bombings and and a greater Al Qaeda conspiracy, but since the requisite data mining hasn't or can't be performed there is no way of knowing.

What it boils down to for me is this: which is more probable, the government using such powers only to ferret out terrorist plots or the government abusing those powers? When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Perhaps it frightens you that there are people in places of authority and responsibility who aren't willing to gloss over the preliminary findings and leave it at that.

Um...how is mining the data of several million citizens going to prove anything after the fact? If they want to find evidence of a conspiracy, they can look into the dead bomber's records. If they want to prevent other attacks, there are ways they can do so that don't require violating legislation that was put in place to protect citizen's privacy. The notion that extraordinary steps, including breaking the law, is the only way to prevent terrorist attacks is a false dilemna.

His description of the two memes - blaming the government for not preventing a terrorist attack, and accusing the government of nefarious motives when take the most basic steps towards achieving said prevention, is exactly what I'm seeing with this.

Again, are these steps "basic" or extraoridinary? Certainly, there are procedures in place that would render the initial NSA program and this latest data mining operation legal yet it appears that those procedures were not followed. For example, Qwest, one of the few telecoms who declined to give up the information, asked the NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court, which the agency reportedly refused to do on the grounds that the court would turn down their request.

So when you take the secrecy, the doubletalk, the denials and the apparent disregard for standing legal procedures, the picture that emerges is one of a government aggressively seeking to expand its powers under the guise of protecting its people. The fact that people who claim such antipathy towards government can be lulled into a state of total credulity by the weakest of defences from said government says everything about how the threat of terrorism has turned people like Steyn (for all his bluster) into bed-wetting pussycats.

A funny thing - The New York times, one of the papers that was shocked, SHOCKED, when this story broke late last week, actually wrote about this story last December. I remember it well. It's pretty pathetic when the biggest daily in the US is feigning surprise about a story that it itself broke months ago in order to capitalize on anti-Bush hysteria.

It was the L.A. Times that mentioned the phone records story, but the scope was not clear at the time (the Times story dealt with AT&T specifically).

[BHS]

Good points all BD.

It was the L.A. Times that mentioned the phone records story, but the scope was not clear at the time (the Times story dealt with AT&T specifically).

New York Times, December 23, 2005

According to this article the practice dates to before Sept. 11 2001.

[GostHacked]

WOOO!! More news!

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,709...wn_technology_1

As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.

I am glad this is gaining steam. Unfortunately the MSM is not picking up on it much. This is more new information than what was released before. Not only did Mike Kline (former AT&T employee) tell us of secret back rooms built in different cities but he is actually telling us the street address of the one he knows of for sure. This should wake you up people. If you understant internet and network technology at all this should be really eye opening.

[Machinations]

Since when is using a phone an act of dissent? Also, please illustrate how examining a normal person's calling patterns might be used for nefarious purposes other than marketing.

I can't believe you would ask such an insipid obvious question.

As the most obvious example, I keep track of groups of connected individuals, social cliques, if you will. Who calls who, when and such. You can visually map such data to get an idea of who is talking, directly, with whom. Computers keep this database dynamic and always up-to-date...you can see when relationships ended, began, etc. This can be tracked, forever, since the data is always updated.

Now imagine this in the hands of a government which is not run by carebears - for instance, Hitler's Germany, or modern China. Then, if you catch a 'dissident' or 'deviant' you can check your base, and see who they called when, they pull them in for...'questioning.'

Now please tell me how keeping a dynamic database of all Americans' (and of course, by proxy, some foreigners) called numbers, length of calls and call patterns keeps us safe, again?

[BHS]

I can't believe you would ask such an insipid obvious question.

As the most obvious example, I keep track of groups of connected individuals, social cliques, if you will. Who calls who, when and such. You can visually map such data to get an idea of who is talking, directly, with whom. Computers keep this database dynamic and always up-to-date...you can see when relationships ended, began, etc. This can be tracked, forever, since the data is always updated.

Now imagine this in the hands of a government which is not run by carebears - for instance, Hitler's Germany, or modern China. Then, if you catch a 'dissident' or 'deviant' you can check your base, and see who they called when, they pull them in for...'questioning.'

Now please tell me how keeping a dynamic database of all Americans' (and of course, by proxy, some foreigners) called numbers, length of calls and call patterns keeps us safe, again?

My apologies for not specifying that the governments using said tracking technology be non-totalitarian for the purposes of the question I've posed.

Assuming that we keep the discussion confined to non-totalitarian Western governments, and assuming that those governments do not degenerate into totalitarianism, I believe the onus is still on you to show, as per my earlier question, why such a database would be harmful.

To humour you, though, I'll re-iterate that the most obvious use of multi-level data mining techniques on phone records is to flush out terrorist networks. If a government agency targets an individual for investigation it would be helpful to know that from a data mining of his phone records there appears to be a larger network of co-conspirators that might also be worthy of investigation. If a terrorist cell slips through the cracks and perpetrates an act of terrorism, it would be helpful to be able to quickly root out whatever support networks they had in order to prevent potential connected cells from activating. If data mining techniques used in this way are successful, how can you question whether or not they've kept people safe?

There is of course the question of whether the government agencies given these tools will use them for purposes other than the investigation of terrorism. They almost certainly will. The potential for such abuse is enormous. The DEA for instance would have a lot of use for such a tool when tracking drug gangs.

So my next question is, which is worse: allowing the government to use such tools in the hope that they will be effective in preventing terrorism (despite the potential for misuse or the targeting of innocent friends and aquaintences of targeted individuals), or preventing the government from using such tools in order to placate the privacy concerns of people who will never be targeted (despite the possibility that data mining will in fact be an effective tool for terrorism prevention)? (For you fans of logical fallacy: please note that this is not a false dichotomy. This is not an either / or scenario, merely a comparison of potentially negative consequences.)

I'm sorry that the whole situation has an Orwellian ring to it. We live in a world where technology has enabled invisible government forces to quickly look into many previously private aspects of our lives. This is an unfortunate side effect of modern convenience, the same convenience that allows terrorists to quickly organise themselves and pass information over great distances in real time. The two conditions are made mutually inclusive by the techonolgy involved. Telling the government to piss up a rope and expecting the terrorists will do the same is nothing short of sticking your head in the sand hoping it all just goes away. It won't.

[Machinations]

I can't believe you would ask such an insipid obvious question.

As the most obvious example, I keep track of groups of connected individuals, social cliques, if you will. Who calls who, when and such. You can visually map such data to get an idea of who is talking, directly, with whom. Computers keep this database dynamic and always up-to-date...you can see when relationships ended, began, etc. This can be tracked, forever, since the data is always updated.

Now imagine this in the hands of a government which is not run by carebears - for instance, Hitler's Germany, or modern China. Then, if you catch a 'dissident' or 'deviant' you can check your base, and see who they called when, they pull them in for...'questioning.'

Now please tell me how keeping a dynamic database of all Americans' (and of course, by proxy, some foreigners) called numbers, length of calls and call patterns keeps us safe, again?

My apologies for not specifying that the governments using said tracking technology be non-totalitarian for the purposes of the question I've posed.

Assuming that we keep the discussion confined to non-totalitarian Western governments, and assuming that those governments do not degenerate into totalitarianism, I believe the onus is still on you to show, as per my earlier question, why such a database would be harmful.

To humour you, though, I'll re-iterate that the most obvious use of multi-level data mining techniques on phone records is to flush out terrorist networks. If a government agency targets an individual for investigation it would be helpful to know that from a data mining of his phone records there appears to be a larger network of co-conspirators that might also be worthy of investigation. If a terrorist cell slips through the cracks and perpetrates an act of terrorism, it would be helpful to be able to quickly root out whatever support networks they had in order to prevent potential connected cells from activating. If data mining techniques used in this way are successful, how can you question whether or not they've kept people safe?

There is of course the question of whether the government agencies given these tools will use them for purposes other than the investigation of terrorism. They almost certainly will. The potential for such abuse is enormous. The DEA for instance would have a lot of use for such a tool when tracking drug gangs.

So my next question is, which is worse: allowing the government to use such tools in the hope that they will be effective in preventing terrorism (despite the potential for misuse or the targeting of innocent friends and aquaintences of targeted individuals), or preventing the government from using such tools in order to placate the privacy concerns of people who will never be targeted (despite the possibility that data mining will in fact be an effective tool for terrorism prevention)? (For you fans of logical fallacy: please note that this is not a false dichotomy. This is not an either / or scenario, merely a comparison of potentially negative consequences.)

I'm sorry that the whole situation has an Orwellian ring to it. We live in a world where technology has enabled invisible government forces to quickly look into many previously private aspects of our lives. This is an unfortunate side effect of modern convenience, the same convenience that allows terrorists to quickly organise themselves and pass information over great distances in real time. The two conditions are made mutually inclusive by the techonolgy involved. Telling the government to piss up a rope and expecting the terrorists will do the same is nothing short of sticking your head in the sand hoping it all just goes away. It won't.

When we are willing to exchange liberty for security, we are no longer deserving of either.

Specifically, we have enormous surveillance capacity.

This is really a repackaged version of Total Information Awareness.

The capacity of this data to help track down terrorists is dubious, at best - while the applications for the same system in a totalitarian system are everywhere. I do not understand the compelling need for such a system, nor why it should circumvent the law. As you yourself recognize, the technology is unproven - HOW then should we accept it, in this clearly unconstitutional and illegal state? For that matter, why?

The terrorists do not have the capacity to map out the calling patterns of the entire United States in perpetuity. Do you realize the technical hurdles required? Yes, the advantages that asymmetrical opponents enjoy currently are not easily countered. That being said, little advantage seems to be gained from this course of action.

Why, for example, are we not developing spread-spectrum frequency jammers with some kind of cell phone spam to detect/detonate IED's near roadsides - this seems a more practical application of technology, and one that is feasible, with little to no potential for misuse. There are devices such as this, but none in use currently (at least, officially).

It is clear to me the potential for misuse of the system greatly outweighs any possible advantage.

[BHS]

Machinations:

I'm not even sure that we're on the same topic anymore. I'm going to try to reply to your post point by point.

When we are willing to exchange liberty for security, we are no longer deserving of either.

That's a lovely platitude, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Gun laws limit liberty in favour of increased security. Are you saying you're in favour of abolishing gun laws? (You could call this a red herring on my part, but you seem to have based your entire argument on this statement and I think it deserves an appropriately severe rebuttal. And you did open the door to external arguments by using such a blanket generalization.)

Specifically, we have enormous surveillance capacity.

This is really a repackaged version of Total Information Awareness.

Here you've established that the government has been using technology to monitor communications since before 9/11.

The capacity of this data to help track down terrorists is dubious, at best - while the applications for the same system in a totalitarian system are everywhere.

This is confusing. These systems don't work, unless you're trying to establish a totalitarian government? And then they work?

I do not understand the compelling need for such a system, nor why it should circumvent the law. As you yourself recognize, the technology is unproven - HOW then should we accept it, in this clearly unconstitutional and illegal state? For that matter, why?

According to the wiki article you linked to, Russ Feingold introduced legislation to shut down the IAO. Why did he do that? If the IAO's work is unconstitutional and illegal, why not bring suit to have it quashed and set a precedent? The Democrats are happy to accuse the Administration of illegal and unconstitutional activities for the sake of getting on the news, but for some reason they lack the will to follow through and make a court case out of their accusations. My conjecture is twofold: they don't believe they'll win (ie. they don't really believe that the laws that the President is supposedly breaking are themselves Constitutionally valid in the face of the Presidential powers they aim to supercede), and they don't want to permanently eliminate courses of action that a Democratic president may some day wish to persue.

As to the technology being unproven: are you concerned that it won't work at all, or that it will backfire and only catch innocent civilians?

The terrorists do not have the capacity to map out the calling patterns of the entire United States in perpetuity. Do you realize the technical hurdles required?

You've totally lost me with these two sentences. In what way should I be concerned about the terrorists using this technology?

Yes, the advantages that asymmetrical opponents enjoy currently are not easily countered. That being said, little advantage seems to be gained from this course of action.

I've already answered this point.

Why, for example, are we not developing spread-spectrum frequency jammers with some kind of cell phone spam to detect/detonate IED's near roadsides - this seems a more practical application of technology, and one that is feasible, with little to no potential for misuse. There are devices such as this, but none in use currently (at least, officially).

There's a lot wrong here. First of all, this is a complete red herring. Secondly, signal blocking technology has enormous potential for misuse and chaos creation. Thirdly, your last sentence fragment in paragraphs answers your own question - how do you know what technology the government is employing?

It is clear to me the potential for misuse of the system greatly outweighs any possible advantage.

You haven't convinced me yet. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

[GostHacked]

Here is the abuse that Machinations is talking about.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...gn_id=rss_daily

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

If you are in bed with the government/military and shady shit happens in the background (knowingly or not) you are safe from any prosecution on the notion that National Security can be declared. How did companies get so powerful for this to even be considered?

[Machinations]

Machinations:

I'm not even sure that we're on the same topic anymore. I'm going to try to reply to your post point by point.

When we are willing to exchange liberty for security, we are no longer deserving of either.

That's a lovely platitude, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Gun laws limit liberty in favour of increased security. Are you saying you're in favour of abolishing gun laws? (You could call this a red herring on my part, but you seem to have based your entire argument on this statement and I think it deserves an appropriately severe rebuttal. And you did open the door to external arguments by using such a blanket generalization.)

1. Actually, I am quoting Benjamin Franklin. I by no means base my argument on this - which is that this program is contrary to the Contitution and specific laws of the United States governing wiretapping.

Specifically, we have enormous surveillance capacity.

This is really a repackaged version of Total Information Awareness.

Here you've established that the government has been using technology to monitor communications since before 9/11.

2. Yes, which is important to establish. The idea that somehow because we havent been attacked in 5 years that these programs are successful is foolhardy. Obviously, we had robust capability before and the attacks still slipped through. I would like to see some evidence this can help before we rest out laurels in an unproven system.

The capacity of this data to help track down terrorists is dubious, at best - while the applications for the same system in a totalitarian system are everywhere.

This is confusing. These systems don't work, unless you're trying to establish a totalitarian government? And then they work?

3. Specifically, they have far more utility to a totalitarian government than to one with benign intentions. Again, how does keeping these call logs help protect us, again?

I do not understand the compelling need for such a system, nor why it should circumvent the law. As you yourself recognize, the technology is unproven - HOW then should we accept it, in this clearly unconstitutional and illegal state? For that matter, why?

According to the wiki article you linked to, Russ Feingold introduced legislation to shut down the IAO. Why did he do that? If the IAO's work is unconstitutional and illegal, why not bring suit to have it quashed and set a precedent? The Democrats are happy to accuse the Administration of illegal and unconstitutional activities for the sake of getting on the news, but for some reason they lack the will to follow through and make a court case out of their accusations. My conjecture is twofold: they don't believe they'll win (ie. they don't really believe that the laws that the President is supposedly breaking are themselves Constitutionally valid in the face of the Presidential powers they aim to supercede), and they don't want to permanently eliminate courses of action that a Democratic president may some day wish to persue.

As to the technology being unproven: are you concerned that it won't work at all, or that it will backfire and only catch innocent civilians?

4. I'm concerned that it will not work for it's 'declared' purpose, but will instead remain and continue accumulating data until sometime in the future when a political leader perhaps uses it for personal gain. You know, checking on the opponent's phone calls - just this once, honest!

The Democrats lack the numbers to force the issue. How are they going to impeach when they cant get enough votes for a special prosecutor? Besides, they are spineless.

The terrorists do not have the capacity to map out the calling patterns of the entire United States in perpetuity. Do you realize the technical hurdles required?

You've totally lost me with these two sentences. In what way should I be concerned about the terrorists using this technology?

5. In no way at all, because the terrorists could not, and do not, have similar capability in their arsenal.

Yes, the advantages that asymmetrical opponents enjoy currently are not easily countered. That being said, little advantage seems to be gained from this course of action.

I've already answered this point.

6. I guess, but like the NSA and Bush, I have yet to hear from you a clear argument why the calling records of every American is required for our safety. A coherent one, mind you.

Why, for example, are we not developing spread-spectrum frequency jammers with some kind of cell phone spam to detect/detonate IED's near roadsides - this seems a more practical application of technology, and one that is feasible, with little to no potential for misuse. There are devices such as this, but none in use currently (at least, officially).

There's a lot wrong here. First of all, this is a complete red herring. Secondly, signal blocking technology has enormous potential for misuse and chaos creation. Thirdly, your last sentence fragment in paragraphs answers your own question - how do you know what technology the government is employing?

7. Yes, of course it does have potential for misuse, but not in a way that will destory the fabric of society. If you search, you will find numerous vendors selling just such items, and news articles announcing various governments deploying them. Personally, I dont care if someone james my cell phone but I do care if they have my phone records. Especially since the jammer could be proven to save lives. You can hardly say the same about the Call Registry.

It is clear to me the potential for misuse of the system greatly outweighs any possible advantage.

You haven't convinced me yet. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

8. Fair enough. If someone could advance a reason why we need the program, perhaps I could consider it. As of now, I see no evidence this does anything to help anyone stay safe.