4 ms·

Thank you for the specific references. I can understand the argument of specifically bulk SIGINT collection being problematic. > I'm not saying that wiretappin

Thank you for the specific references. I can understand the argument of specifically bulk SIGINT collection being problematic. > I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks. It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?

k-mcgrady 10y ago
My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights. My point on warrants wasn't well thought out. You make some good points there. As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others. It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. If we were able to say 'x' lives have been saved because of it I might more readily be willing to cede some privacy. I think that number would have to be quite high though as I believe privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and should be treated more seriously than it generally is.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  > My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights. Well this is close to what is happening. As I understand it, to indefinitely store data the system would need to be tasked to track certain targets of interest. That said, I would be curious to see the success stories for data derived from specific targeting versus those which required past data that was only available due to the "rolling buffer" of data/metadata (I am assuming that this is what you're referring to when you say "indiscriminately"). The "rolling buffer" setup could not have been very easy to create versus the "retain data only for certain targets and drop other data" methodology, so there must have been some intelligence need for it at some point, but with the prevalence of HTTPS I'm not so sure it'd be useful. Could be wrong though, surely at least an interesting way this could be reconciled. > As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that nearly all other countries are not performing similar forms of SIGINT collection in the same way we are. I believe that it is just USA and the UK who are in the spotlight for this due to the leaks in 2013. That said, I absolutely admit that I don't have much to stand on without the ability to point to public evidence of this. > It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. You are absolutely correct here, the current "trust us" reasoning is unhelpful. Solid statements such as "By performing bulk monitoring of internet traffic flows, we were able to task the system to capture all traffic from selectors (phone number, e-mail, IP, etc) associated with BadGuy X1 X2 and X3, who were planning Y attack on Z and we were able to have AlliedMilitary thwart it" would be a far more productive way to have a clear discussion on the topic at hand. The IC has an aversion to publicizing information regarding this sort of thing presumably due to fear that enemies would figure out how they got the required intelligence and then change their tradecraft accordingly. I think that concern is a valid one as well, and I truly hope that we can figure out a decent way to reconcile it so there can be a middle ground. Perhaps it could even be helpful to provide aggregate information at an unclassified level and have cleared representatives publicly confirm the accuracy by reviewing the case by case (specific) classified details.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights. My point on warrants wasn't well thought out. You make some good points there. As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others. It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. If we were able to say 'x' lives have been saved because of it I might more readily be willing to cede some privacy. I think that number would have to be quite high though as I believe privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and should be treated more seriously than it generally is.

willstrafach 10y ago
> My argument would be that they need to find a way to access info on specific individuals as opposed to grabbing data indiscriminately from the pipes. I don't know if this is possible but it's the job of the IC to come up with a solution compatible with the law and human rights. Well this is close to what is happening. As I understand it, to indefinitely store data the system would need to be tasked to track certain targets of interest. That said, I would be curious to see the success stories for data derived from specific targeting versus those which required past data that was only available due to the "rolling buffer" of data/metadata (I am assuming that this is what you're referring to when you say "indiscriminately"). The "rolling buffer" setup could not have been very easy to create versus the "retain data only for certain targets and drop other data" methodology, so there must have been some intelligence need for it at some point, but with the prevalence of HTTPS I'm not so sure it'd be useful. Could be wrong though, surely at least an interesting way this could be reconciled. > As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that nearly all other countries are not performing similar forms of SIGINT collection in the same way we are. I believe that it is just USA and the UK who are in the spotlight for this due to the leaks in 2013. That said, I absolutely admit that I don't have much to stand on without the ability to point to public evidence of this. > It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. You are absolutely correct here, the current "trust us" reasoning is unhelpful. Solid statements such as "By performing bulk monitoring of internet traffic flows, we were able to task the system to capture all traffic from selectors (phone number, e-mail, IP, etc) associated with BadGuy X1 X2 and X3, who were planning Y attack on Z and we were able to have AlliedMilitary thwart it" would be a far more productive way to have a clear discussion on the topic at hand. The IC has an aversion to publicizing information regarding this sort of thing presumably due to fear that enemies would figure out how they got the required intelligence and then change their tradecraft accordingly. I think that concern is a valid one as well, and I truly hope that we can figure out a decent way to reconcile it so there can be a middle ground. Perhaps it could even be helpful to provide aggregate information at an unclassified level and have cleared representatives publicly confirm the accuracy by reviewing the case by case (specific) classified details.