Sydney Williams:
The title is borrowed from Edwin Fadiman’s 1970 book. But the concern it expresses goes back almost two thousand years to the Roman poet, Juvenal. He became known as the first to use the term, Quis custodiet ipros custodes?, which literally translated means who will watch the watchmen? But the meaning is the same. In a democracy, the watchers are supposed to be the people, aided by a press not beholden to any political party.
We live in an age of ubiquitous personal data, easily available and mined by government and business. We love the connectivity technology affords, but we are torn between a desire for privacy and a need to be protected. Edward Snowden claims that the pendulum had swung too far toward violations of privacy, so he broke the secrecy rules, ran off to Hong Kong and exposed the NSA’s Prism program on which he had been working while employed by Booz Allen in Hawaii. Civil disobedience has a long history in the United States, from the Bostonians who threw British tea into Boston Harbor, to Henry David Thoreau, to Martin Luther King. Thoreau once said: “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”
But then there are those who claim civil disobedience, but in fact are motivated by hubris or politics, men like Daniel Ellsberg who published the “Pentagon Papers” in 1971 and ABC’s Sam Donaldson who in 2006 declared it a “sacred duty” to expose secret CIA prisons. Both men probably thought of themselves as modern-day Thoreaus. But, in my opinion, their motivations had baser elements. Mr. Ellsberg disagreed with the Vietnam War, while Mr. Donaldson simply did not like George Bush. Not everyone who disobeys our laws is a hero, no matter their claim. In which camp does Mr. Snowden fall? It is too early to tell, but I suspect he falls into the latter.
We live in an information age. Ninety-nine plus percent of Americans love their smart phones. Wikipedia estimates that there are 327 million cell phones in the U.S. and over six billion in the world. Estimates are that on average six calls are made per day and three to four times as many text messages. It is estimated that about 150 billion e-mails are sent each day. Instant messaging and twittering provide more fodder. Every YouTube video ever made resides somewhere in the blogosphere, as does every photo sent over the internet. Smart phones are used to call, text, locate the nearest Starbucks or determine the weather. Messages and calls travel wirelessly using some form of spectrum or broadband that some carrier has purchased from the government. We purchase goods and make payments this way. Two years ago, PEW Research estimated that the average young person received or sent 87.7 messages every day. Even those over the age of 65 were sending more than five messages a day. The numbers must be far higher today.
Consequently, our movements, calls and messages can be tracked, listened to and read. That knowledge is instinctive to anyone with a smart phone. “You have zero privacy. Get over it,” said Scott McNealy fourteen years ago. Despite the popularity of Lee Child’s hero, there are very few Jack Reacher’s out there.
The point being, because of technology and the human need to stay in touch, we live in a world that is far easier to monitor than ever before. Yet millions of Americans seemed oblivious to the traceability of their movements, calls, videos and messages. The disclosure by Edward Snowden about the workings of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) Prism Program sent sales of George Orwell’s 1984 soaring – up 5000% one day earlier this week. Millions of people, having forgotten or ignored Mr. McNealy’s admonition, are unreservedly sending text messages, photos and e-mails, data that would embarrass them in more sober moments. To them, Mr. Snowden’s divulgence served as a wake-up call; so, for many in the aftermath, the Fourth Amendment trumped safety.
The solution may be to utilize the same protocols that companies use regarding child pornography. Count on the providers to pre-screen the metadata/data to separate out records containing data that matches up with unique information specific to terrorism. These individual’s records can then be examined to determine if there is or a appears to be a pattern of data that might identify the individual as meeting terrorist profile flags, or if it appears accidental/coincidental. As is done with child pornography, if there appears to be a very possible terrorist connection, (overseas calls to known terrorist numbers, email messages with email or IP addresses identified with terrorist groups, a pattern of visiting terrorist websites, etc.) at that point the authorities are contacted. They then screen the metadata records to determine if there is probable cause to place the individual on a watch list or, to for them to immediately go to a federal court to obtain a search warrant.
This should satisfy civil libertarian Forth Amendment concerns, and insure that only possible suspect activity meets the thresholds for higher level investigation.
Ditto
I read that they have KEY WORDS to determine a possible person of interest,
so surely they expanded on those WORDS key,
and make a long line of how many they need, no restrictions,
and hunt for it, and bingo, instead of dwelling into the privacy of the citizens who don’t have a name which is part of the KEY WORD first of all and if so, digg there for more, exchanges between two person of interest
meaning they incorporate those words in their conversation, even adding signs in their list is a good thing to watch,
because terrorist will use also or only sign to express a coup or a bomb or a fertilizer or a remote or a chimical or a sarin or an explosif, and also they could talk and take only one half of a word to mean a weapon or a meeting or a city ecetera, that would make more sense than tracking all the PEOPLE,
there is enough in what I suggest to multiply and fill their time and searchs
but to do it to all citizens is yes outrageous and not AMERICAN where FREEDOM IS THE ALTITUDE
of living, of creating of procreating of healing ecetera.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
“Keywords” for these purposes are specific sets of numbers, letters, character symbols, or combinations of them. For example:
(1) Telephone numbers are to be considered a “word.” (2) On a small home network 192.168.0.1 = your local network router/default gateway, 255.255.255.0 = local network subnet mask, and each computer on that local network will have it’s own assigned static IP address, typically starting at 192.168.0.2 and so on. Your internet service provider will usually use your cable/DSL modem’s manufacturer designated octet MAC address as a unique identifier to authorize access to their network. When you go onto the internet they will assign a Dynamic IP address for the session, and this IP address is logged on their server and identified with your computer. These assigned addresses are all considered “words” for our purposes. (3) Email addresses are also “words”. (4) Of course other alpha-numeric words may be used for our data management purposes. (5) Wildcards can also be used (most commonly the * asterik symbol).
“Keywords” are somewhat unique words, that might be compiled in lists, for specific handling. Ways to use “keywords” include using them as flags for conditional subroutines. filtering, or for searching of a database. When a particular “keyword” is detected within the data, it may be set automatically by the processing software for special handling. On detection of a keyword within the metadata, it is possible to have it additionally routed to a specific location, such as a folder for further evaluation or to be forwarded to authorities.
You can use a wildcard with keyword processing as well. For example:
If you are a cellphone service provider and you are tasked with bringing up the metadata records for a customer whom you have a partial number for, but you don’t know the last one, you would put an asterisk on the end: 123-456-789*
On an internet provider’s servers, if you want to perform a metadata database search for every email message having to do with deskjockey. com that starts with the letters “ba”, your search keyword would be “ba*@deskjockey.com”.
Providers are also able to “Blacklist” certain IP addresses and domains that are known to be nefarious spammers or particularly dangerous. This is similar to what “net-nanny” programs do when installed on a family computer, although they can be programmed to redirect to a default website. It is not uncommon for a computer owner/administrator to utilize a “HOSTS” file, which basically informs your browser that the URL is located on this “local” machine, not the web. It wont find it of course, but the purpose is to keep it from trying to connect to that website.
Of course there’s a lot more to it than this, but I think this covers the basics.
Ditto
thank you for the info,
ONE thought just pop in,
how about they would also have a sound coming on person of interest,
and every time they hit on a message with a KEY WORD,
a sound would be heard,
because they have so much , and it was confirm by the answer of MR CLAPPER who said
unless un-intentionelly regarding opening a message which touch the citizens privacy,
they sometimes for sure get absent minded and that is the part we don’t want to happen,
the sound would swich their daze right there, and instead of making an error of reading an AMERICAN LAW ABIDING CITIZEN private mail UN-INTENCIONALY ,that sound would be an alert button
to bring their focus back from the daze effect , which is not to be discard as just a second of numbness but a second of possible uge error,
and in that computer age , we know the TIME is accelerated and name by dividing the time
in nano diminutive, where a nano is just enough to comit a gigantic error,
again a sound would prevent one to sleep on that nano time and would wake him up.
all this, because we have to adhere with the highest precision on that research,
and in the same time consider the outside lives pattern of all those thousands of employees,
which not like ROBOTS live outside the compound and submit to all the good and bad happening in their private lives, that which serve as a distraction at work,
by the way, are they search also? by the NSA
@ilovebeeswarzone:
An audible, visual or both could be used to notify an IT technician of a record that needs to be examined. I would doubt that there would be vast numbers of records that would be tagged by the automated system for further examination, but that is dependent on the keywords used and how commonly used they are. Remember that at this point we are at the metadata stage, not the actual content.
With telephone records, (including text messages,) there would only likely be a trigger if at least one of the numbers involved is one on the watch list. If both numbers are on the watch list, a higher priority alert could be triggered.
With email and web activity, the keywords would typically be IP addresses, domain names, URLs and “cookies” that could serve as triggers. I would expect a higher number of possible hits with these records as well as more false positives. There would still be an extreme minority of normal web traffic that would likely set off a trigger.
Pre-screening methods can be easily accomplished as a normal process of communications handling with nearly imperceptible delay, given the speed and processing abilities of today’s server technology. With a regulatory requirement that the service providers retain these records longer, their databases can be reexamined when new keywords are received. It would also insure that most of our communications are kept away from the growing prying eyes and possible abuses of government agents.
Ditto
can you believe, SOME MILITARY where just KILLED by the TALIBAN
and OBAMA will start the talk with them these days coming,
to come back and give his rules to them and conditions.
they just have their hands full of the blood of AMERICANS today and this week.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Absolutely I can believe it. It’s all in continuation of his weak-kneed, American apologist, “can’t we all get along?” “hope and change” policy towards peace with radical Islam.