When people think of a police state, they usually think of heavily armed, uniformed police kicking in doors and dragging out family members in the dark of the night. A police state doesn’t require police kicking down your door… at least not in the beginning, particularly when one is evolving from some other form of government, say for instance a constitutional republic. I’m not sure any police state ever came about as a result of some politician saying “When I get elected I’m going to use various elements of the government to take away your civil liberties, oppress my opponents and crush any opposition.” Typically dictators come to power promising to restore order amidst chaos or empowering the people against a tyrannical or corrupt regime. Putin was seen as bringing order to a crumbling Russia while Castro led a revolt against the corrupt Batista and Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew a hated monarch.
But this is the United States and by definition it could never become a police state.
But just for argument’s sake, let’s imagine someone had designs on becoming a dictator and wanted to turn the US into a police state, what kinds of things might be helpful? Obviously no dictator worth his salt wants to have opponents running around shining a light on his actions or stirring up the population against him or his policies. If only there was a way to keep opponents quiet. One way might be to choke off their funding by keeping them from raising much money and by intimidating their supporters. Check and check!
Of course, what good is being dictator if you can’t listen in to what subversive things people are saying about you… or anything else? Not much. As such it would be great to have a program where the government could listen in on every single phone conversation going on in the entire country… Not just when citizens are talking to known terrorists overseas, but simply when they are talking, period.. Check! But young people barely talk on the phone anymore… all they do is text, so you’d want to make sure you can see what’s going on there too. Check!
Unfortunately for you, every conversation in the country doesn’t occur on a phone as sometimes people still actually talk face to face. You might consider placing listening devices everywhere so you could listen in on those conversations too. Not likely however given the logistical nightmare it would be. If only there were a way to use their phones as listening devices, even when they’re turned off. Check! And maybe you could use the phone’s GPS data to track where everyone was at any point in time… and who they were with. Check!
As popular as talking on the phone is, people still spend a lot of time on computers at home. You’d probably want to have a program that allows you to monitor virtually everything anyone does online. Check!
Of course there is more to life than just what people say to one another.
It might also be helpful if you could make it so that a big portion of the population were dependent upon a check from the government (i.e. you), that way you could use that dependency as a tool with which to keep people in line and to whip up populist sentiment against anyone who was seeking to oppose your policies. Check!
As healthcare is pretty important to people, it might be very powerful tool to have if you could figure out a way to put the government in charge of everyone’s healthcare. Need that gall bladder operation or that cholesterol medicine? Let’s see what you’ve been up to first… Check.
Finally, as every good dictator knows, it’s important to disarm your enemies and potential enemies. Here you’d have to be very creative. A national background check before someone could buy a weapon would be a place to start. This would be particularly helpful if the agency operating such a system was allowed to define who it thought might be too dangerous to own a gun. A national registration where gun owner’s names and addresses were listed would be nice, and it would tell you exactly where to go to collect the guns whenever you’re ready. Not quite yet, but working on it.
But of course this is all hypothetical. As President Obama said: “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”
I think we have some problems here… Even if this unprecedented level of power were exercised by someone as honest and virtuous – not to be confused with perfect – as George Washington, a man who turned down absolute power twice in one lifetime, it would be a problem. Barack Obama is certainly no George Washington and in his hands all of this is a giant problem. This power in the hands as one as arrogant, perfidious and incompetent as Barack Obama is the equivalent of setting fire to the Constitution itself.
As a nation of laws and imperfect men operating in a world where millions of people seek new ways to harm us daily, there are certain things that government must do, many of which may seem unseemly in the light of day. Most Americans understand that. The America Barack Obama is creating is something all together different. If a government listens to conversations of its citizens in some limited, controlled circumstances, most Americans would accept that. If however that power is virtually unlimited, and more onerously, it is combined with a government that simultaneously seeks to control virtually every aspect of a citizen’s life, from what they can say and who they can support, to what healthcare they can get to their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to the economic opportunities available to them, then the Constitution becomes little more than a piece of framed artwork.
All that being said, we owe Barack Obama a great deal of gratitude for all of this. Before him Americans were seemingly happy to continue moving down the one way path of allowing government to take control of more and more of their lives as they deluded themselves into believing that only men of great character would control the levers of power. By demonstrating with crystal clarity exactly how fragile our liberty is in the wrong hands, perhaps Americans will come to, push back and begin reining government back into the box our Founding Fathers drew for it so that no one of any stripe can turn it into a police state. Barack Obama may well end up transforming America after all. Hopefully it won’t be in quite the way he intended.
See author page
@MataHarley:
I’m sorry Mata, but while that might be true for some items that contain metadata, it is not entirely correct, and whether metadata resides outside of the 4th Amendment is being reconsidered in the courts with the continual adaptation of what is embedded as metadata. Metadata can definately include personal information:
It may help the discussion if we all understand the question “what is Metadata?” There are various related definitions all recognizing that it is “data about data”. (Some of the below are compiled from a variety of sources and thus will not be blockquoted.
metadata: noun, “a library catalog is metadata because it describes publications”
(When HTML coding a webpage, a webmaster will often place a small number of specific keywords for search engines to hit on. He has to be careful in this because too many metatag words will trigger some search engines to ignore the page. in email messages, the Header information is metadata, which can be as simple as routing information which includes the routing IP addresses, but can also include references to all those persons the email was sent to and attached file information. It also should be noted that headers are often hacked to display erroneous information – Ditto)
Metadata record is a file of information, usually presented as an XML document, which captures the basic characteristics of a data or information resource. It represents the who, what, when, where, why and how of the resource. Metadata describes how and when and by whom a particular set of data was collected, and how the data is formatted. Metadata is essential for understanding information stored in data warehouses and has become increasingly important in XML-based Web applications.
Understanding Metadata
As technology changes, what may be included in metadata evolves and there can be differences even between the same types of programs that embed a file with metadata.
@MataHarley:
True, and an acorn isn’t an Oak Tree, but it can be.
Give me someone’s phone number, duration of calls, numbers called, and numbers received and I can’t paint you quite the picture. A $20 software program and do reverse number look-ups.
If you are a 2nd amendment activist, do you really want someone knowing you called a shrink 10 times in a month? The amount of information that can be gleaned from meta-data can be just as damaging as the actual conversation. In some cases, it can be more harmful because it might just be speculation.
That acorn can only become a tree if probable cause is submitted to the FISC, and they grant permission to let it grow. Just like any lead/speculation in an investigation, sufficient enough in PC to obtain a warrant, it will either turn out to be something… or not. But there’s no drilling down the data without FISC oversight.
No one denies that any such database has potential for abuse. But then there are laws against those abusers. Just as there are ways for genuine whistleblowers to bring that to the attention of Congress.
So if there is a potential for abuse by simply comparing metadata, all of which is legal, is the answer to not allow any inspection of metadata that may reveal communications between terrorists about impending attacks? If that’s the school of thought, then it’s very similar to the liberal gun control types who believe that guns can fall into the hands of criminals if they are manufactured or sold, so they shouldn’t be manufactured or sold at all.
What most don’t seem to grasp about Americans being caught up in the net of metadata is the complexity of the problem of filtering. When you’re looking for communications that originate in the heart of bad guy territory, most of that communication is running thru a cyber pipeline that bounces thru different parts of the globe… the largest and most common of connectors being in the US. It’s like wanting to track a letter from Afghanistan being mailed to Pakistan, but was routed thru a post office station in NYC where it gets mixed up with a ga’zillion other letters from Americans.
I’m quite sure that intel analysts would love to have an easy way to narrow it down to just the foreign correspondence, but unfortunately that’s not the way the cyber highway works. In theory from what the DNI has said, they can filter obvious American communications down to about 51%. But considering the volume that’s still exabytes of data. Able Danger, back in the late 90s, was 2.5 terabytes. The use and volume of the Internet has grown exponentially so that petabytes is the norm and rapidly moving to the exabytes.
As I said… it’s a thin line that needs to be walked…. assuming people want it walked at all. And unfortunately the waters to be waded are just getting deeper and deeper.
Aqua
I just love the line on calling the SHRINK 10 times a month,
can you see a bunch of liberal sending the SWAT TEAM to his house to remove his WEAPONS,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Aqua and you are honing in on the real problem.
But think bigger.
Why make a guy mad by taking his guns away?
You can sit on the shrink information until (and IF) he decides to run for office.
THEN you somehow make it public.
Like Harry Reid on the Senate floor claiming (falsely) that Romney paid NO taxes.
Like the TWO opponents of Obama’s whose SEALED divorce papers were somehow leaked right when it helped Obama the most.
Like that.
you know , THE NSA, it also can be use by the antigun organisation to remove the guns from citizens,
they would also decide on their own initiative to go after them and publicly viciously destroy their reputation.
hell they did it to MITT ROMNEY yes,
and damn well yes.
Nan G
how come you read my comment before I type it?
are you one of those NSA?
you have their principle targeted
bye
@Ditto, thank you for all the various source explanations. I am already familiar with what metadata is, what it isn’t, the EFF and potential changes as technology marches on. However maybe your cut/paste stuff might convince many that metadata is not the same as the content of your conversations or emails.
Just a couple of points your unlinked source raised as being a “grey” area, so to speak.
What was metadata in the eyes of FISC was cleared up in my comment #38, where I cut/pasted the FISC’s direct description of the metadata allowed to be requested from Verizon, and what was *not* to be allowed. Since you seem to have missed it, I will again paste it below. The link to that order is in my comment linked above if you want the rest of the content.
The FISC Justice Vinson, also of strike-down-Obamacare-fame, agrees with the EFF that the names, financials and addresses that are linked to the statistical identifying metadata are off limits as “metadata”.. in that particular request. However if there were stronger evidence for another case put forth, requesting more drilling down of the data *beyond* traditional metadata as defined, the court would weigh the evidence and probable cause prior to granting permission… much like a cyber search warrant.
So I fail to see the problem… the metadata is not personal, and never has been. When you get to identifying names, addresses, it is no longer just metadata but personal information that requires a court order. The court is quite clear on that.
As a matter of fact, I think many people miss the obvious… that just to get the metadata from Verizon, it required a FISC court order. Sorta throws out the idea that there is some sort of vacuum cleaner, already sucking this stuff up outside of the provider’s knowledge, eh? Why ask for the metadata when they supposedly already have it?
Altho, if most of you want to think about it, the private world of the Internet already links phone numbers to addresses and names with reverse searches. So if you’re trying to keep the cat in the bag, that feline left a long time ago.
@MataHarley:
I don’t have that problem. I understand data, meta-data, and networks very well.
Sure there are. Let me know when the abusers of those laws are punished. I have money that says not a single person goes to jail over the IRS abuses or the EPA abuses. And that is why this is a problem. No one is going to get punished if they decide to pull meta-data on a rival. Especially is the left does it. I hold no such notion that there are those on the right that would abuse data just as freely, only the notion that they will be prosecuted fully. No one on the left is going to jail over the IRS and EPA scandals. No one.
I didn’t suggest you did have a problem grasping the technical, Aqua. But by reading comments, there are those who don’t understand what metadata is, or how the cyber highway works. This wasn’t a personal observation of you.
INRE abusers, jail, etc. It becomes more complex when you start mixing up EPA, IRS, NSA etc. First of all, the IRS and EPA haven’t yet been played out, so you can’t comment on what happens. And right now there have just been Congressional hearings and lawsuits are just now beginning to be filed. So that story is in it’s first chapter.
On the other hand, the EFF has a history of prosecuting the NSA. Correction of abuse has taken many forms – from charges, dropped charges, sentencing and down right putting a halt to NSA prior programs. I’m not sure what type of punishment or rectification may appease you for any particular wrong – i.e. does someone have to be in jail or justice hasn’t been served? – but you might want to check the EFF’s past. Those are stories that have endings, unlike the IRS and EPA.
BTW, some cryptic disclosures, within confines of gag orders, from Google as to what PRISM is *not*.
Yes, less “secrecy” about what and how metadata is provided may help ease the minds of privacy advocates. On the other hand, it will also reveal the power and/or limitations of surveillance to the bad guys who will do all they can to skirt that cyber path for detection.
As to how PRISM is “marketed internally”, since the entire presentation has not been disclosed, the problem might be internal marketing. Then again, it may be Snowden’s and the media’s erroneous translation of what PRISM is, filling in the blanks in that void of complete information.
@MataHarley:
Apologies, I realize you’re addressing the whole forum. Sometimes I take post as if they are intended for my sole viewing.
We have reached a point in the IRS investigation where a special prosecutor should already be assigned. Not only has that not happened, I don’t foresee it happening. Without a special prosecutor, it’s left to the DOJ to prosecute. That seriously just makes me laugh. Congress has no powers to prosecute. If they did, Holder would be in jail for contempt. Instead, the DOJ just laughed at their contempt citation. Right now, the IRS is doing the same. And they will continue to laugh until a special prosecutor is brought in. I think the laughing will die down pretty quickly.
I hate bullies. Misuse of power should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. People that misuse their positions should lose everything, because that is what they intend for their victims.
My faith in the federal government right now is zero. I know people that work for the NSA. They’re good folks, but right now there is not a single three letter government acronym that I have any trust in whatsoever.
No problem, Aqua. I got the impression you thought I was only addressing you, and sorta bypassed that phrase, “what most don’t seem to grasp” more generic chit chat. But I will agree, you are special. :0) And you have volunteered some of your background in the past, so I know you are not without comprehension.
INRE the IRS and a special prosecutor. Well, you may still be premature on that. As USAToday reported just five days ago, the more high profile, news making parts of the hearings may have concluded, but not the Congressional investigation itself.
So again, we haven’t even reached the end of the first or second chapters (that’s assuming one might want to consider the IG report as Chapter One).
I’m not sure that Holder can ignore a widespread insistence by bi-partisan officials for a special prosecutor, once that moment actually arises. Then again, Holder did turn this over to the FBI, which may be more appropriate a party than the DOJ. But as I said, we’re just not that far into the book yet. There’s been at least one or two lawsuits filed, and those have to take time to wind thru the courts as well.
I understand your zero faith in the feds. I don’t have that problem since I never had faith in the feds. But I do have faith in the structure of our system, and that the majority of civil servants tend not to be corrupt. i.e. I think most of those in the NSA or CIA are genuinely focused on sifting out the bad guys in advance, and not consumed with finding out if some gun owner has visited a shrink. While the latter category does exist, I still believe that the former category is the overwhelming majority.
BTW… something for people to think about. Snowden could have taken a whistleblower path while working as a CIA net maintenance guy. He didn’t. Instead he rented a house three months before he started working at Booz Allen, stayed on the job with Booz Allen for only four weeks, before requesting his medical health leave, and took off for HK.
The reason this raises an eyebrow for me is because the protections for whistleblowers as a federal employee are stronger than for private contractors. So I’m beginning to think that Snowden did not have the access to the “proof” he wanted to steal while with the CIA, and took the private contractor job just to get data he wanted to peddle to the media… and possibly to China, Russia, etal. This would jive with the fact that sources insist his position did not allow him the access he publicly claimed while as a CIA “network cyber janitor”.
Aqua, just wanted to add to this INRE Issa’s IRS investigation. Bloomberg suggests that Issa’s investigation, designed mostly to connect the dots to Obama, may be falling apart based on his refusal to release full transcripts of those interviews being conducted behind closed doors.
@MataHarley:
This is from Ace, which he got from George Will. It’s a thing of beauty. Whole post is here:
http://www.ace.mu.nu/
(Lois Lerner: Problem)
~snip
@MataHarley:
It’s also been around a year since he turned over the intel leaks investigation to two “highly competent” federal prosecutors. We’ve heard nothing. I’m in the same boat as Aqua. Nothing is going to come of this.
@MataHarley:
Issa is an idiot. I know there are a lot of political junkies out there that would love to see this tied to Obama. It will never reach Obama; the man is many things, stupid isn’t one of them. Issa should have brought Lois Lerner back before his committee and forced her to testify. She gave up her 5th amendment rights. She should be held in contempt so Holder can say he won’t prosecute her.
@Aqua, thanks for the links to Ace’s latest. I always enjoy his stuff… hang, even if I somewhat disagree. But first, let me give a direct link to the Lois Lerner post, since it gets buried under more recent posts.
Is she the icon for federal civil servants we should distrust? Absolutely. And she’s not alone in that category in this administration. But then, she’s not alone in that category under prior administrations either. As I said, I’ve never trusted the feds, but I do trust our system’s structure. If I don’t, all is lost anyway, IMHO.
But while we’re on Ace and a thing of beauty, he’s 95-100% on the mark (IMHO) with his post yesterday about Snowden. He, like me, had eyebrows raised when we saw the brief job at the private contractor… and came away with the idea that the only reason he took that job was to abscond with what he couldn’t when working for the CIA.
I’ve just taken it one step further than Ace on that belief, because I believe he chose not to be a genuine whistleblower while protected as a federal employee because he didn’t have the access to what he *thinks* was going on, and his motives are not about patriotism but personal gain.
Ace has already figured out that PRISM isn’t likely the Hoover cyber vacuum as portrayed, as more information comes out. (from NSA, DNI and the individual service providers like Google above). Now if people can get to metadata vs personal information, and the fact that FISC has to be involved at so many stages, what we’ll end up is a lot of hoopla and hand wringing by conspiracists over nothing. Considering that it’s mostly conservatives, who were formerly strong on intel and defense, now reversing their position based on some criminal who fled to Chinese territory, Ace is correct that letting this blow up as a non scandal is just going to be a black mark on the conservative credibility in pursing other genuine scandals, like the IRS, Benghazi and F&F.
Last, I just want to ask this directly. I get the idea you are apprehensive for metadata gathering based on the bad apples that are likely present in every agency, department and branch of government. So what is your solution? Do you suggest that all int’l metadata gathering – and it has to be int’l because of the structure of the cyber highway pipeline of communications – be illegal?
@another vet and @Aqua – agree with both of you that Issa is an idiot, and that there will be no footprint that will tie this to Obama.
Not so sure I agree that nothing will come of the IRS. Unlike the push back from the Dem majority on F&F and Benghazi, the IRS enjoys bi-partisan disdain and abhorrence for this. They know that, if allowed to stand, the same can and will be used against them when the power seats are reversed.
So I think much depends upon what either the GOP or the Dems want to see as “punishment” for the IRS. Is making one list of questions and criteria for the right, and another for the left, a crime punishable by prison? Is it a civil or criminal matter?
I don’t think any of these questions can be answered until all the interviews and data have come out. Before a special prosecutor can prosecute, he has to have a named responsible party/parties and specific crime. So again, I think all is premature. Certainly some heads have rolled, which is somewhat of a joke since the heads were rolling out of town voluntarily anyway. Other heads have been promoted, which is the joke to be expected from this administration.
But this admin is a lame duck, and will not be around by Jan 2017. Additionally, these events are making it harder for him to accomplish any big leaps like Dodd-Frank and O’healthcare in the second term, as he’s even got a lot of his peers PO’ed. The larger question for us, mere commoners, to consider, is will the new regime be the same as the old regime? Unfortunately, there’s not much difference between the GOP and Dems these days. Sure makes one shake their head in disbelief.
@MataHarley:
My unlinked source was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities I though I’d linked it.
I did not miss it, and I fully understand that the metadata does not include the substantive content of the communication. But you seem to have missed an essential part of what you posted:
With Wireless Telephony communications, the metadata also includes GPS data on the physical location when the phone call was made.
From the same source I gave before:
Using only the metadata and simple detective work you can learn a great deal of personal information about the person. The GPS geotagging data allows you to track the person to where they are when they make a call and where they have been. This data can be easily correlated to the addresses involved, and you can use the coordinates to observe the location via live satellite imagery. The first thing you can easily deduce is whether each location is a home or business. Using reverse phone look-up services you may be able to obtain the name of the phone’s owner, and the name may also be verified by looking up the postal address of the GPS provided “home” location on various look-up services. Logic examination of the metadata correlating time and location over a period of time will allow you to set a behavioral schedule of their regular movement patterns, and eventually you will be able to create detailed lists of the following information:
Where they live, and when they are likely to be home.
Where they work, and when they are at work
Whom they visited and where these associates live.
Where they shop, which can also indicate what they buy.
All that personal data can be obtained from the meta data of one phone. Looking up the same information on the various numbers the original “suspect” called will give you a list of who they call most or rarely. Obtaining the metadata on these associates, can allow you to create a complete dossier. Using the internet you can input every name you gleaned and learn vast amounts of very personal information on all these people, who their friends and family are, including pictures and reading the open postings on their FaceBook pages. You can also look them up on Linkedin, Myspace, etc…
All of this can be learned from the innocuous seeming metadata of their phone accounts, gathered in a secretly approved dragnet, potentially acquiring (without probable cause,) vast amounts of personal information on innocent American citizens. Incidentally, you can do the same for elected officials, learning who, when and where of whom they met with, talked to, traveled with, etc…
And we haven’t even begun to discuss what the internet service providers openly share with the NSA.
I”m with Aqua, I no longer trust that this information will not be abused by faceless bureaucrats with a political agenda, whom would likely never be prosecuted against IF they are caught. Obama’s ultra successful datamining operations during the last election are legend. Just think of what a tech savvy political machine could do if they have insiders willing to do the machines bidding.
Ditto, I don’t understand what you are arguing. Metadata is not “personal information” because it doesn’t include names, addresses etc. It only includes trunk lines, numbers, durations, etc. Ergo, it’s not “personal”.
Can you use metadata to find someone out? Yes.. you can, even using open source Internet resources. i.e. the example I gave of a reverse phone number above, and you coming back in and repeating that example. Clue… if it’s an open source, it’s not private and protected by 4th Amendment. There is very little privacy in this New Info Age.
However drilling down that particular metadata to put on a personal face takes time and resources, and also takes it out of the metadata definition. Some investigation can be done using open sources – i.e. Able Danger. The government also has available databases at their fingertips since they have individual information for SS benefits/IRS/Medicare/Medicaid etal. Others must tap into resources that are unavailable as public and government existing resources, and then requires a court order. But until you start drilling down, the metatdata is not “personal”.
Now comes the interesting part…. in this age of distrust (which I guess is new to some of you?), you’re assuming that the NSA, FBI or CIA has the personnel and resources to drill down random numbers for curiosity and/or personal vendetta. Considering the volume of a metadata file? Absurd. Why would any particular numbers in metadata attract their attention *unless* they are looking for patterns that are linked to suspected or known bad guys (or those that are targets for personal vendettas). Only when they see such a pattern would they waste time drilling deeper.
In other words, your personal “Ditto” metadata gets lost in an ocean of numbers unless it shows up with a pattern of causal relationship to other numbers they have been keeping an eye on. Otherwise, they don’t know that number is you, and don’t care unless you are consorting with company you shouldn’t be keeping – shown by consistent and repetitive links to other metadata known to be questionable in intent.
If a service provider is openly sharing metadata with the NSA, then it is a government agreement and is not a violation. And as I pointed out, even the FISC order for Verizon was a request for metadata that required a court order, and has to be renewed every 90 days.
Let me try to state this again, unequivocally, so that all understand. I know as well as anyone else that such a data base is subject to abuse. However I don’t believe the majority of those employed for national security are out there, sifting thru metadata, looking for American citizens of a political bent that doesn’t agree with their own. And if they did, they are subject to our laws for stepping outside of the boundaries.
So I guess the same question needs to be put to you as I did to Aqua. Because you feel there is potential for abuse on collecting non personal metadata, do you believe that should be illegal for the risk? In which case, how does that differ from a liberal who says that there is a risk that guns can fall into the hands of a criminal, so they shouldn’t be sold to the citizenry? The similarity is that, because there is a risk for use other than original and legal intent, it should be avoided at all costs.
Now, if you want to change the discussion to whether searching for patterns actually worked, there’s a couple of schools of thought on that. In one way, I think the expense of it… not to mention all this bruhaha… probably isn’t cost effective for the results. Then there’s the wider net of innocents caught because of false positives. But it’s still smaller than the original pile.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore the entire cyber world communications, the major way of planning and communiques between terror cells, and not try to establish locating a bad guy before he inflicts harm. So I can honestly say, I’m not sure either way. If it stopped one Sept 11th event from happening, the money would be well spent. But it’s hard to say what the success ratio actually is.
@MataHarley:
I’m not apprehensive about the gathering of meta-data. I’ve known something like this has been going on for at least a year. There was a big write up in some of the telecom rags about the amount of storage data needed to comply with some new regulations. Not much else was said, so most of us knew it was for an alphabet department.
What I am a little peeved about is how everyone is out there saying how benign the information is. It isn’t. And it all comes back to the scandals for me. If there are people in federal agencies willing to break the law to impose their political will, what is going to stop someone from using this information?
By the way, the FBI director was in front of the oversight committee that is investigating the IRS scandal. He couldn’t even name the lead investigator.
Confidence restored…../sarc
My solution?? I want to hear what is going to happen to the person that decides to use this information to impose their will….should such a thing happen. Restore my faith, tell me how an iron clad law can be written that will transcend politics to punish an offender. I’m not talking about 10 years at Club Fed, I’m talking 20 years at hard labor at Leavenworth. That’s what I want to hear. I don’t want to hear that there will be two years of congressional investigations before the FBI can even name a lead investigator.
@MataHarley:
Mata, that’s exactly the point I was trying to get at when I said an Obama-type could sit on the metadata until or unless you did something to peeve him …. like running against one of his allies.
THEN he mines your meta data.
You call X-rated phone businesses?
You only have same-sex email contacts?
You do your image searches with the modesty filter off?
You post on anti-abortion sites?
Don’t forget; even before meta data access, Obama managed to use ”leaks” of sealed divorce papers to win elections!
Think what he and his can do with a compliant employee cadre working in the data centers if he (Obama) demonizes some men or group like the Koch brothers or Romney.
Nan G, it appears I have to again repeat myself. Aqua has answered my question in his response above. But I’ll repeat it for you, as well as Ditto.
Aqua has clarified that he isn’t concerned about the metadata… tho I might disagree in some part because such has been done far longer than a year. My other partial disagreement is his idea that metadata isn’t benign in itself. I would just counter that metadata… as metadata… is benign and ceases to be either metatdata or benign when further drilling down is done for personal information attached.
But I do agree that the best thing Congress could do to regain trust in feds (even tho not mine… LOL) is to pass legislation that imposes specific and harsh penalties on those that misuse data outside of FISC oversight, and for purposes other than intelligence/surveillance/national security intent.
@Aqua:
Before It’s News has the transcript:
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.
“That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”
Aqua, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. If you think that the possibility for abuse is not tremendous, think about a police investigation where the crime is worked backwards. If you think that data will not be shared to harass those who might want to become politically active when the next election cycle comes, and Obama is controlling what information is shared with the Democrat candidate, I suggest you read the story of Catherine Engelbrecht, chairwoman of True The Vote. A simple application to the IRS for a 501(c)4 tax exemption for a legitimate organization lead to her, her husband, and their business being investigated by not only the IRS, but the FBI, the ATF and the EPA. Now, some may want to suggest that the investigations she and her husband went through were simple coincidences, but it seems odd that they had been in business for 20 years and had never once been investigated by any of those agencies until, as chairwoman, she applied for TTV’s 501(c)4 status.
Ask anyone who has ever had their Social Security number stolen by an illegal and they will tell you that the IRS will claim that they can’t share information with the SSA or vise versa. Yet, in Catherine’s case, that seems to be exactly what happened. i.e. let’s say you live in a state that has a “use” tax law. If you make a purchase from an out of state vendor (i.e. Amazon) you are required to send the tax into your states’ tax collection agency. Now think about that. We already know that our credit card purchases are being mined. Is it out of the realm of believability that someone who donates to the next Republican POTUS candidate just might find themselves being notified by their state that they owe not only the tax on internet credit card purchases from Amazon, but late fees and fines, as well? And we already know that certain Romney donors had their income tax return information leaked to the lap-dog press.
This administration has adopted a bunker mentality where no one knows anything? Benghazi? Never heard of it, or at least not until I saw it in the newspaper. U.S. Ambassadors ditching their security detail and propositioning underage hookers? Again, everyone in this administration seems to be Sgt. Schultz. Lead investigator on the IRS scandal? Well, Mueller will have to get back to us on that because frankly, he just isn’t that well informed about his own agency.
And you think that since you are not using your phone, or cell phone, to make any calls that would warrant suspicion, I suggest you do a little research in to phone number “spoofing.”
Wow… for some that have such “high” standards for source websites, seeing BeforeItsNews popping up is somewhat laughable. I wonder if that was before, or after, Gateway Pundit listened in to the latest Alex Jones podcast hosted there.
Even American Thinker, which can sometimes head off into conspiracy LaLa land theories unknown, knows that one of three most notable progressive kooks the Dems must put up with – Maxine Waters – was referring to the Organizing for America/Organizing for Action database of O’supporters during the February interview. Perhaps it wasn’t newsworthy then because it couldn’t be parsed and disclosed today as not-quite-but-maybe-related, hoping to cash in on the less-than-we-thought informed Snowden’s planned scandal about the NSA? Tis a pity because actually the more legit type NSA scandal/lawsuit (Jewel) didn’t enjoy this much creative hyperbole over the years.
Oddly enough, after Maxine’s February babble in the interview, bragging about how much info the Obama organizers kept on their devotees, even many of them were creep’ed out that the grassroots groundswell wasn’t going to be folded back into the jurisdiction of the DNC, but retained by their own hero and chums, Obama, Axelgrease etal.
It was unfortunate for the devotee grassroots types to learn, the hard way, that the very successful grassroots database is not going to be passed on to party heir apparents. But hey… they volunteered the info, so welcome to the Info Age and the consent to give up your privacy while following a political figure.
Of course, none of the OFA has to do with the NSA and FISA. But let’s not let a good talking point get in the way of facts.
retire05
very interesting info
thank you.
I believe that someone will breach the system some more,
and our info will end up in FOREIGN LAND who hate AMERICA,
they can take our name and identity and come in AMERICA to do terrorist attacks under the name
of an AMERICAN, which will be taken prisoner and like GEORGE ZIMMERMAN wait year and months
to have their COURT appearance at a price to ruin all their valuables, for trying to prove they are not the terrorist,
edit: where are the ILLEGALS with a CRIME BACKGROUND
turn loose by order from OBAMA thousands of them and I also heard some had been given new identity,
this happen this year, where are they all,
where they given houses to live in and jobs in government,
someone had given us a list of multiple crime background in
THE GOVERNMENT, that’s who in charge of the honest citizens who are looking for a job.
don’t they should have a priority,
I’m happy that the felons who have paid their times could get in the job market with the other citizens,
the problem is the GOVERNMENT JOBS should be screen
to have a blank page on past crimes, why?
because it’s the PEOPLE who pay their earning not the GOVERNMENT,
and don’t anyone forget it
@MataHarley:
What you seem to be purposely ignoring Mata, is:
(1) The NSA didn’t just get FISC court warrants to search for metadata on “suspects” based on probable cause. They instead have the FISC court rubber-stamping blanket acquisition of all the metadata records of every one of these business’s customers. The writer of the Patriot Act is infuriated because the act was never intended to allow such wide reaching data “fishing expeditions.”
(2) As Aqua and I have been trying to get across to you, the metadata gathered is not wholly benign. The records include every phone number called and in emails, every email involved in a email message. Included in each and every cell phone call metadata is the geographical location of the phone. That allows you to track their movements. The courts are finally realizing that there are portions of the metadata that are private information that should be protected.
(3) These vast quantities of metadata contains valuable information that is very easy to search for exactly what the searcher wants to. You don’t have to strain your eyes looking over billions of individual files individually, you just set your search terms and let the database search engine do that work for you.
Lets say you want to find out everyone that Sarah Palin has talked to on her cell phone in the last six months. If you have her cell phone number you just search the main database for her phone number and “BINGO!” you have the record of all incoming and outgoing calls. You can then do an automated reverse look-up search of those numbers to find out who those phones belong to. (Incidentally, the databases of the service providers can provide you the name and address information as well if you have people on the inside willing to tell you. “Hello, this is agent Mata with the National Security Agency, badge number 12458. Can you provide me with the subscriber information for this number? It’s official business.”)
Want to know where Rush Limbaugh is? all you need is his cell phone number and you can track his every move. “Hey, look he’s home! Here are the coordinates. Gee, all we need is a Drone and we could take him out. ”
(4) But, they don’t just have phone and email records, they also have the internet metadata records of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft (Bing), FaceBook etc.
“So, let’s find out who’s been “Like”ing Flopping Aces. ”
“Who did a search for the Obama birth certificates.”
“Hey look, this email address traces back to Richard Wheeler. Let’s look at the websites that he visited on February 7th, 2013. According to this email address his IP address at that time of day was (123.0.1.987) Oh, Richard, you naughty boy!”
(Just kidding Wheeler)
We can no longer assume that the ABC agencies or Justice Departtment will only use these tools for official business.
@MataHarley:
As usual, FA’s resident bitch attacks the messenger.
Watch it for yourself, Mata.
.
Odd, that YouTube doesn’t seem to show Waters talking about OFA. But we can always rely on the person who thinks she has the most brilliant mind in the universe to set us straight.
I also don’t think that the Romney supporters who had their personal income tax return information “leaked” agreed to that. But hey, maybe Mata thinks they did.
@<a href="http://floppingaces.net/201, #82:
No she doesn’t. Maxine Waters was talking about Organizing for America, which Roland Martin makes perfectly clear—even in this out of context, deliberately misrepresented YouTube video clip—at the 0:37 mark. The huge database she’s referring to is of campaign contributors and supporters.
The organization advocates a progressive social agenda. Water’s is pointing out that if the next Democratic presidential candidate wishes to draw on the support and resources of the organization, he or she will have to be mindful of that agenda.
@Ditto: Ditto Ask me if I’m concerned.
Greg Once again Reto5 hyperbole smacked down.
Bees Hopeless–Try actually reading and UNDERSTANDIG Mata’s comments. You seem totally oblivious–why?? You seem able to grasp Reto5.
@Richard Wheeler:
@Greg:
Remember, one of these days there will be a Republican holding office in the White House. Will you be just as unconcerned when you learn that he is allowing the violation of your Fourth Amendment rights by the NSA by doing exactly what the NSA is doing under Obanma?
I don’t “purposely ignore” jack shit, Ditto. What I do ignore is your redefinition of metadata to personal data for your own political purposes.
I’m concerned with national security, and when metadata crosses over via our law. That is, apparently, the *only* possible concern we share. After that, you simply go off into the land of conjecture and imagination based on partisan agenda and parallel universes of future events.
And BTW, I’m quite content to listen to Aqua’s own comments about his opinion. So I do not need you to be his spokesman and interpreter. Please do not insult him as to suggest you have any capabilities of rephrasing his own comments. He’s more than capable of doing that without your aid.
You do nothing but perpetuate the hypothetical morphing from metadata to personal data, sans any actual event to substantiate. So spare me you trying to “get” anything “across” to me about future events that haven’t happened. I assure you, you’re still behind the technological and legal eight ball here. Instead, you are functioning on emotions sans facts. ala “but wait! it’s ‘harmless, but only if they don’t look closer! And they *will*.”
Are your emotional fears “possible”? Of course. But they are not legal and can be prosecuted for the over reach. Here’s my problem, Ditto. I don’t look at law with emotions.. i.e. what is possible in the risk. That is a liberal trait I do not share. Stop asking me to share it as some sort of faux conservative trait.
@retire05.. launching into the predictable “I-don’t-associate-with-Alex-Jones-sidle-but”, moment. LOL
Were there but a cogent thought you present worthy of addressing. uh… nope. Oh wow… what a surprise
@retire05: As long as people like you hold sway in The Grand Old Party I see little chance of a resurgence.
@MataHarley:
Oddly enough, you seem to know more about Alex Jones than I do. Why is that, Mata? Are you a secret fan of his?
@Richard Wheeler:
Not true. The truth of the matter is that until the GOP leadership decides to grow a set of balls and not be lead around by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, caving to every demand made by the statists, Americans will always vote for the Democrat, not the Democrat Lite.
We’ve come a long way in just a little over 200 years, baby; from a God fearing warrior who defended individual freedom in George Washington to a metrosexual community organizer in Mom jeans in Obama. You progressives should be so proud. Maybe you’ll wake up when you realize what my Cuban friends know, that socialist utopia is only a pipe dream.
All very well and good….sounding.
Except for that federal employee union thing-y.
Notice the gov’t cannot even fire an IRS supervisor.
She is on leave (although still able to use her work computer) with pay.
And, if, as has been the case consistently, Obama’s dog whistler responders keep their collective mouths’ shut, it falls to congress to figure out which keyboard operator did what (and at whose request).
Congress has been awful in this whole affair.
If anything happens to Issa (no saint, himself) Obama gets a ticket to ride.
I mean, you don’t expect the DOJ to go after their own idol, do you?
Nan G. I was agreeing with Aqua on theoretical solutions. I doubt that either of us expects it to happen. You might want to address your observation to those that actually think the GOP differs from the Dems. I’m not one of them.
Trying to evoke an emotional response with snide comments does not help your case Mata. Granted, you, Aqua and now Richard, are not concerned about the gathering of metadata. Many others however, including experts in both computer technology and Constitutional law are deeply concerned. Aqua in his post wrote quite clearly:
Aqua is fully capable of correcting me if he feels I misrepresented him regarding the fact that what is collected in metadata is not completely benign, and that metadata information could be abused. What data is included in Metadata has changed somewhat with technology, and the impact of these changes on our Forth Amendment rights need be re-examined.
You have ignored that metadata is no longer only being collected on specific named subjects after a judge is given sufficient “proper cause” to warrant metadata collection, but that now, under the Obama administration, the FISC courts are granting incredibly expansive warrants to search the metadata records of the entire customer base of service providers, without any “probable cause” to support a possible judicial consideration that all these people are suspects. The vague claim that it is to “combat terrorism” is not sufficient to justify an assumption that all Americans are possibly suspect to having been in contact with terrorist elements. When I last checked, this was still a nation where you are not presumed guilty. You also have not addressed the fact that smart-phone metadata includes GIS coordinates. So I put forth the following expert opinions for your consideration:
What’s the Matter with Metadata?
Mata, I expect that you are still not to be swayed by the the words of a Sun Microsystems engineer. Perhaps you might consider the research of MIT?
Why Your Metadata Is Your Every Move
Here are the results of this research by MIT
Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility
What has not kept up with the technology is the justice system’s understanding of the changes in metadata and what information is collected and included in metadata reports in the 12 years since the Patriot Act was first proposed.
Technology 2001: Windows XP was first released, cellphones were what we today call “dumb-phones”, Satellite radio was launched. The favorite reference by internet trolls everywhere Wikipedia is launched, Apple unveils the iPod, C# programming language released, Wifi is discovered by consumers and spreads like wildfire, Computer benchmarks: Athlon 4 and PIII-M with A pre-production Dell Inspiron 8100 running Windows 2000 and carrying a 1.13-GHz PIII-M and 256MB of SDRAM ran up the highest PC WorldBench 2000 score ever for a notebook processors.
12 years makes for huge differences in the advancement of technology and metadata collection has changed accordingly. You might want to try to catch-up with these changes before telling us all we’re wrong.
Nan G
yes the UNION, are the NSA EMPLOYEES UNIONIZE?
IF SO, they are not completly secure from breach,
they are not independant, no
they pay their dues not to the people who pay their earnings,
so in other words they can have breach of security, they don’t have no bond with the PEOPLE
and they are on the same level as the IRS,
mean ARROGANT and sold to the UNIONS who put them there
with a mix of AMERICA HATERS IN THERE COMING FROM ABROAD
owning just the NAME of AMERICA,
you got a recipe for what many people say but stop there,
if they would expand they would say: we are under A COUP FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PAIR WITH THE MUSLIMS HERE AND ABROAD,
how come they are spare from inquisite law officers?
they are now completely untouch by the NSA,
could it tell us they are the NSA,
we no more can identify the MUSLIM BY THEIR NAME
because so many AMERICANS have sold their soul to them.
same as THE IRS with their questions on RELIGION
to the CONSERVATIVES AND TEA PARTY,
who are the last trust worthy AMERICANS we can trust to never become TRAITOR.to their belove AMERICA,
is that the last secret they fear the renegate whistle blower
will reveal?
IT’s better if the SYRIA REBELS decide to SURRENDER TO ASSAD,
THEY WILL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TO SURVIVal, coming back to THE ASSAD GOVERNMENT,
than TAKING OUT ASSAD OF OFFICE, because there will be killing of the LOYALS CITIZENS BY THE REBELS,
they count too in the balance of power,
SO KILLING PEOPLE IS ALSO THE REBELS ACTIONS they are less to be trusted than ASSAD with their mix elements of dangerous criminal terrorists,
ASSAD is trying to keep his GOVERNMENT WORKING and protect his CITIZENS who stand by him,
if you choose the REBELS you are empowering the REBELS and ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE OF
CONQUERING THE WORLD
SEE TURKEY new REVOLUTION,
ASSAD has never attack other COUNTRIES, unless attack ,
he defend his COUNTRY,
if he kill so many as said, HOW COME THERE IS AS MANY FIGHTING, and more of?
it would be easy to drop it and live his life without the TROUBLE AND LEAVE HIS LOYALS CITIZENS TO BE SLAUGHTERS BY THE ALQAEDA AND REBELS,
but he stayed on to fight as a leader should
he had to kill his enemies, MULTI THOUSANDS IS NOTHING
COMPARE TO MULTI TRILLIONS OF THEM IN THOSE COUNTRIES
AIMING AT CONQUERING OUR WORLD, and step by step.
they said once ,
they have time
@Ditto:
Meta-data is not benign. It should be, but it isn’t. I understand what Mata is saying, that it is benign until it is abused and in that instance it no longer is considered meta-data.
The phone company and wireless carriers have been storing phone records for years as normal business practice. I have no idea how long they were storing them; one year, three years, five years…….no idea. I do know around a year ago or so they started talking about massive storage requirements to comply with new federal regulations. Most regulations relate to IT security, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the new Dodd-Frank. Storage can really only mean one thing and that is records.
I have no problem with the storing of meta-data. What I have a problem with is the current atmosphere of abuse of all data. And something needs to be done about that.
Exactly, Aqua. I agree 100% with all of the above, as well as desiring defined penalties for that abuse. But I’m not holding my breath with either political party in doing so. It has been demonstrated thru multiple administrations for decades that abuse happens under all.
@Ditto, it becomes extremely frustrating when you attempt to tell me, repeatedly, what metadata is and then misrepresent your own cut/paste examples. I know what metadata is, and what it isn’t. More importantly, the “metadata” we are speaking of is exactly that which Judge Vinson addresses in his FISC court order description… which plainly states what metadata is *not* in their legal view.
You need to reread your own excerpts and then remove what you think you know. i.e. from Sun
This should be obvious already to any computer user when, after visiting sites, the spam hits your inbox. Do they know your name? Nope… just that you have an identifying ISP and a particular field of interest. Advertising is one of the largest users of metadata data mining.
So the correct reading of the Sun Microsystems excerpt is that an analyst, looking at non personal metadata… i.e. a number… will see a pattern of behavior and associations with other metadata identifiers associated with that particular number. They do not know the individual is you, Ditto. They will not know until they utilize some resource to associate that number with you, personally.
At that time, it is no longer metadata, but personal information, and a court order is required.
Searching for specific patterns of behavior is exactly what the NSA, CIA want when searching for terror cells. When they see a suspicious pattern associated with a number in the metadata, the proper procedure is to get a FISC order to further identify who that number is… i.e, the personal information.
If you couldn’t see patterns in metadata, they wouldn’t want it as it would be useless for their purposes. The algorithms have been improving over the years, but it still has major flaws in that the associations are too broad, so it creates a lot of false positives. This can include people that navigate to sites like Inspire to read for themselves… which doesn’t make you a terrorist, but will certainly capture the attention of analysts. So they look for further, deeper and repeating patterns to try to weed out the casually curious from the likely involved.
But do not confuse the ability to see a pattern for an identifying metadata factor/number with a specifically named individual. All they know is that pattern and profile is *someone*.
This is why I say that metadata, as long as it remains non personal metadata, is benign. It ceases to be metadata, or benign, when they associate that number or factor with a specifically named individual. And that’s where the FISC fits in.
MIT? Again, they describe *patterns” that are detectable and can be drilled down to an individual’s footprint. All they know is that some individual fits that footprint. But they don’t know he calls himself “Ditto” from that data. That takes associating that specific metadata and footprint to cell customers. Again, that leaves the definition of metadata, and becomes soliciting personal information, requiring a court order.
I agree with Aqua that I have no problem with the storage of metadata. It would be foolhardy for our intel agencies to be prohibited from sifting thru the vast electronic communications of this age, simply because you, Ditto, are in a panic that someone may find out you haunt FA and conservative sites. If some bad apple decides to pick thru the data for a purpose other than national security, and get your personal information outside of the FISC’s authority, there are laws in place for recourse. What is not solidly in place, as Aqua notes, is the punishment. That should be corrected.
Many complain this is an invasion of your privacy. Technically that’s not true as long as you remain a “number” and not a name. But by all the rhetoric here, can I assume that you (generic and universal “you”) believe the NSA should not be able to use the same type of data that private advertising companies use, just to ease your personal paranoia? And have you thought about how that would hamstring intel gathering?
I’m seeing a lot of complaining here, but I’m not seeing any solutions… other than Aqua’s suggestion of stricter enforcement and penalties for abuse.
MATA
A solution would be to restrict the data ON AMERICANS borned with solid roots on the grownd,
and stick to ILLEGAL , and new IMMIGRANTs AND THOSE with a HISTORY of TRAVELING ABROAD,
even more to those TRAVELING IN FORBIDEN COUNTRIES like OBAMA did himself in his trip to PAKISTAN,
was he QUESTION for that? WHY NOT this is a deliberate dismissal of the AMERICANS RULES,
and AN ARROGANCE to be noted on his profile because it is part of his decisions now
which is trouble for the citizens not allied with his agenda,
they gave a pass to MOSQUE why ,that’s where the terrorists go kneel to the IMAN
and listen to his AGENDA also,
the new AMERICANS with religious strange to AMERICA FOUNDATION are to be monitor, because they already contest the AMERICAN WAY,
but they should not snoop in the whole CITIZENRY settle here and proved their allegeance to AMERICA,
HELL I HEARD THEY MONITOR THE MILITARY AT WAR, it was said that OBAMA KNOW OF THEM AND WHO THEY ARE LOYAL TO POLITICALY,
he did not find good info, because he has them harass for their CHRISTIANITY, AND CUT THE FEED AND MEDICAL RESOURCES TO PRATICLY NO MORE,
and the cost of that magnitude of employees and tecnology component is on the dole of THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE LEFT NUDE DEPRAVE OF THEIR PRIVACY plus are paying the humongous BILL.
so those OBAMA can have his revenge of punishing the good PEOPLE who cannot stand to his agenda
I’m afraid you’ll have to tell me how you know this. First of all, that is *not* what was granted via Judge Vinson in the Verizon order. The probable cause was not available in that order. Nor should any probable cause be available to the public since it will alert the bad guys.
What the ugly fact is that the Bush admin got a lot of NSA types in an uproar over transcribing all satellite phone conversations emanating from the Middle East… whether they were the enemies or soldiers calling home. According to the whistleblowers (Adrienne and Faulk, who were translators and not the analysts), they believed that even if there was a FISC order to do so, that harmless American conversations were to be deleted from the database – and that they weren’t.
I don’t know that I disagree with the monitoring of all satellite phones from that region in that era. But what I can say is that was far more personally intrusive than the Verizon order granting the collection of telephony metadata that specifically said NO personal information was to be collected.
So I guess the question is, just what are you speaking of when you say they are collecting more than metadata when the Verizon order states differently? And how do you know there was no probable cause when FISC does not publish the NSA’s request and evidence, as that’s classified information? (actually, as I noted above, Verizon has an agreement with the government as a result of their partial sale of Verizon Wireless to the British firm. It’s reviewed every 90 days)
I also find it ironic that when the Able Danger project made the news, the conservative world did not find that data mining, which did get into personal information and naming names, objectionable. Could this have anything to do with the party affiliation of the Oval Office occupant?
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted June 12-13, 2013
By Rasmussen Reports
Question #5:
How likely is it that the surveillance data collected in this program will be used by other government agencies to harass political opponents?
57% of voters nationwide believe it is likely the NSA data will be used by other government agencies to harass political opponents
30% consider it unlikely
14% are not sure
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/57_fear_government_will_use_nsa_data_to_harass_political_opponents
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/june_2013/questions_surveillance_june_12_13_2013
MataHarley
the solution is that they would leave the born AMERICANS with deep roots in the ground,
out of that race for terrorists and stick to the no 1 profile name and religion foreign
to the AMERICA, which is
founded by the FRAMERS by GOD AND HIS COMMANDS,
OBAMA has remove the MOSQUE from being CHECKED, while we know the TERRORIST go to kneel on the MOSQUE to follow their religion, why would he do that?
where they could be prevented from their agenda to destroy and kill the good AMERICANS.
and stick to target the travelers from their COUNTRIES hating AMERICANS, and stick to target the illegals and new AMERICANS or waiting to be,
but leave the GOOD CITIZENS out of that search,
you will save on time and cost which must be over the roof and AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD either,
I repeated this comment ,because I was CAPCHA with the other one for a word not accepted,
but to my surprise I just notice it is there when I thought not.
I find it interesting that someone would try to hang a program, that began and for all intent and purposes, ended during the Clinton administration, around the neck of another POTUS ( Could this have anything to do with the party affiliation of the Oval Office occupant?) . i.e. Able Danger. Or implicate that the data mined by Able Danger was a generalized program that was gathering information on ALL Americans instead of the basis of the actual program which was tying links to the Blind Sheikh.
If anyone wants any information about Able Danger, feel free to do your research here, including a linked timeline:
http://www.abledangerblog.com
Able Danger was a victim of the Gorelick wall.
Being as I was a supporter of Able Danger, as were most conservatives, I find it interesting that someone would suggest that I was “hanging” a program around the neck of anyone. What it does point out is that the “I was for data mining before I was against it” attitude is alive and well with conservatives, as well as liberals. I am, at least, consistent…. despite the political party of the CiC.
It was not as well known as the current NSA scandal. For one thing, the 9-11 Ommission Commission was going on when Able Danger was being talked about.
So what you are saying is that conservatives supported a program that was started by a Democrat administration but not now?
Inferring that the Able Danger project is like the current NSA scandal is like saying that fried pork chops and fried chicken are the same because they are both meat.
I THINK the CHEMICAL where put by the ALQAEDA, they sure have a source to get it.
I don’t believe ASSAD would use it,
it mean that it fell in the hands of the rebel and ALQAEDA
to sway the public attention. in their favor,
don’t forget ASSAD is in power not the rebels,
Yes, the bad joke is that Able Danger’s data mining, which included going thru 10,000 English language websites and news organizations daily, collecting names (not metadata) and trying to connect the dots, had a vast database on US citizens (called US persons in the IG report). In contrast, the current NSA program is collecting non personal metadata by court order. Little needs to be “inferred” since anyone with a curious bone in their body can read the unredacted IG report, available right there on the Able Danger website you, yourself, linked.
In that IG report, it states in several places that it… like it’s predecessor, JCAG… was shut down because DOD lawyers were concerned about the collection, and retention, of personal data on US citizens. Even from open sources, you can’t retain the personal data more than 90 days unless there is clear indication of potential criminal intent or linkage.
As far as it being subject to running into Jamie Gorelick’s wall… Schaefer says DOD prevented them from sharing the info with the FBI, but his statements were contradicted by others also involved. In the end, the IG report says there was insufficient evidence to back up Schaefer’s claims, but that the charts they had really contained the same players as what the FBI already had, and the Able Danger data was unlikely to add anything new. All this is quite clearly laid out in the report.
All that aside, Able Danger was next in line of the projects, attempting to develop analytic tools and algorithms for use in data mining electronic surveillance for the GWOT. Col. Robert Worthington, the Able Danger director from June 2000 to Jan 2001, said that the project was 100% successful in “a proof of concept for data mining and its capability to support operational planning.” He also said it was only 30% successful in ID’ing AQ and analyzing their capabilities. The analytical tools today are superior to what Able Danger’s analytical tools were then. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of cyber traffic has also increased exponentially, making the size and interoperability of the data set more complex since that time as well. However even today, “able danger” type data mining projects are in existence, operating under a different name.
I believe that data mining is a vital tool for national intelligence. I also believe that it must be utilized within the framework of oversight when personal data – as opposed to metadata – is being collected. And there should be a strict and defined punishment for any abuse of those tools outside of national intelligence. In this, I remain consistent.
But it’s just a hoot to watch everyone get in an uproar about the metadata today, yet the conservative world supported Able Danger’s quest when they thought it ID’d Atta in advance of 9/11. Nor was much criticism being done by the conservatives when Bush’s warrantless wiretapping was the issue. It seems that opinions change with seats of power… and not only by the Dems.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Do you realize Assad’s main support comes from IRAN. The same Iran that wants to destroy Israel.
Assad is a butcher, as was Gaddaffi. He’s employing poisonous nerve gas He has to go. That said, ANY U.S. support to rebels should be closely monitored and limited to weapons.
Richard Wheeler
I’m not trying to protect ASSAD,
I am trying to see and define the worse of them, and I’m sure it’s ALQAEDA
which are in charge of the rebels, I’m thinking of a WAR on the GLOBAL SCALE
pointing at the arizen for us, and that’s what they are after and SYRIA is the point of
where it can begin,I’m thinking of our MILITARY need to replenish their energy
they are not like the LITTLE LEAD SOLDIERS YOU PLAY WAR WITH,
and I don’t trust the leader to know enough strategy of war,
they will feed on him but many of our’s will die,
is in it enough deaths and mutilations ALREADY?
do you want to enter the gates of HELL and a ww111 on the global scale,
no one trust OBAMA in AMERICA, because he lean on MUSLIMS and will follow the UN
instead of the AMERICAN GENERALS,
I see darkness for years,
@MataHarley:
Thanks for telling me what I already knew about Able Danger.
You do love to bloviate. At least you should never be lonely. You always have the sound of your own voice to keep you company.
@Richard Wheeler:
So which one of these lovely groups would YOU supply weapons to?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-12?fsrc=rss
@retire05: Bottom line Assad’s gotta go unless you wanna proclaim your “devil you know” philosophy—Didn’t buy genocide in Libya and don’t buy it in Syria..
btw To date BHO has resisted strong Dem/Repub. calls for support to the rebels. Seems you’ve been in agreement with him.
Richard Wheeler
in retire 05 link,
I counted 9 diferents REBELS groups fighting,
that is not the civilians OBAMA WANT TO HELP,
they are a bunch of terrorists you would not want to talk to
who ever said that ASSAD kill his own PEOPLE,
they are more numerous than at the beginning
they say things that are not true so to get ASSAD demoted,
because they want to advance the cause of MUSLIM POWER.
and the rebels want also to destroy ISRAEL
??? Recap….
Point one: Neither the current NSA metadata data mining, nor Able Danger includes (or included) “ALL” Americans. Hyperbole and exceptional embellishment for shock factor.
Point two: The “basis of the actual program” was *not* tying links to the Blind Sheik.
It was “…to gather information on international terrorists from Government data bases and open sources (to include the World Wide Web) with the initial focus on al Qaeda.” Verbatim from the IG report on pg 8.
On pg 12, “USSOCOM’s initial goal was to identify al Qaeda’s worldwide operations”. … snip… The Able Danger team focused on “identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities associated with al Qaeda’s command and control infrastructure, its leadership and supporting organizations.”
This might have been obvious since the infamous fuzzy “chart”, pictured on pg 14 of the IG report, has bin Laden as it’s central picture with the branching showing the typical operational cells associated with him. If you can’t identify UBL via the picture, then the chart’s title – The Al-Qaeda Network: Snapshots of Typical Operational Cells Associated with UBL – should be the larger clue to Able Danger’s primary mission.
The Blink Sheik had been arrested and in prison for 5-6 years when Able Danger was launched… 20 months after the issuance of the 1998 World Islamic Front Statement.
However, as is the nature of any data mining, US citizens get pulled into the database net… and did with both.
Unsubstantiated as true, and in fact strongly challenged as false by other witnesses to the same. Hence the IG report leaves that issue as likely not true, but incidental. Too bad… love Tony Shaffer and thought he got a bad rap. But in the end, unimportant to Able Danger’s demonstration of the concept of data mining for intel, and potential.
Instead of falling to Gorelick’s wall, Able Danger was a “victim” of exactly what I said above – DOD lawyers, concerned about the collecting and retention of personal data – not metadata – on US persons. Being as even FA has archives about Able Danger, Curt also wrote of the DOD lawyers, “hobbling” Able Danger’s staff with their personal info on US citizens concerns, in Feb 2006.
You’re welcome for correcting you on what you thought you knew about Able Danger.