5 ms·

The use of 9/11 to further surveillance policies is really unfortunate because the existing intelligence agencies mostly got it right before hand. The administr

The use of 9/11 to further surveillance policies is really unfortunate because the existing intelligence agencies mostly got it right before hand. The administration was briefed that a threat was imminent. I am curious if anyone could build a legitimate argument that internet surveillance would have made the intelligence accurate enough to stop the attack.

redis_mlc 6y ago
I know a moderate amount about the history of US surveillance, the two WTC events, and the activity just before the last event. The FISA court existed since 1978, so was available before the events. ATT's Room 641A since 2003. Total digital surveillance around then. (There's a documentary that discusses the transition from targeted to total dragnet under the DNI's direction basically overnight) and the building of several new data centers to store it. Verizon domestic phone metadata collection started in 2013 also. FYI: any historical legal limits on govt. surveillance that you thought you knew, are exactly that, historical. There is no limit on what can be collected or how at this time, whether domestic or international. Also, FISA was used in the Mueller investigation long after it was learned the warrant information was fabricated. Yahoo allowed the govt. to do email keyword scanning on its servers via a govt-supplied kernel module since around 2015. So that's the rough timeline for total digital surveillance, and mostly started after 2001. You're correct that the govt. had enough info from many sources (Saudi embassies in US and Canada, pre-event operatives in US and Canada, foreign governments) so didn't need Internet sources at the time. (Canada was used as a base since Egyptian jihadis could avoid US airport immigration.) Would Internet scanning have helped in 2001? Well, maybe, but 2001 was very early in the development of the Internet. Also, integrating that info at the time with other info would have been sporadic. Today the problem is the volume of Internet traffic related to similar events, and staying ahead of it (collection, translation, scoring, etc.) But some of the most effective and well-known types of attacks can be done spontaneously by a single person with no warning. Fusion reports sent to local LEO are usually ignored because of the volume and vagueness. What can be detected an hour or so before an attack is mass cell phone traffic from one building as participants say farewell to their families. Ultimately to understand this event's issue, just read the Koran. It's an ideology problem, not a digital surveillance problem. There's no secret what the motivations and goals are. Is there a better or different way? I don't know. After the incompetence of the last event, it's hard to argue for less surveillance. The US is not good at policies in general. The Chinese government is going with surveillance down to monitoring individuals using facial recognition and QR codes.
acct776 6y ago
Why was redis_mlc's comment killed? Any explanation appreciated.
- RickS 6y ago
  The weaponization of detail. Beyond a certain breadth, an overload of specificity becomes too vague to engage with. Claims that cover such wide ground are impossible to refute or dissect. The people who do it think they're well-informed and providing a service, but it's poor form. It forces readers into a poison choice: abandon nuance to pile on in blanket agreement, or bash their heads against each other bickering in 50 threads about 50 tiny points for eternity. No good comes from that.
  - acct776 6y ago
    When I was beginning my journey and came across a wall of text like this, I didn't engage it with comments...that'd be absurd. I'd review its bullets, deeply, because a comment of that depth, in forums such as these, is usually either misdirection because of a personal or paid agenda, or it was somebody that was passionate about knowledge, & had decided this was the best way to spread less than obvious conclusions they'd spent time compiling, in hopes to spur someone else into learning more. Skipping those, even if in bad form, because of the former, was a disservice to myself and my goals. So I learned to discern.

redis_mlc 6y ago

I know a moderate amount about the history of US surveillance, the two WTC events, and the activity just before the last event. The FISA court existed since 1978, so was available before the events. ATT's Room 641A since 2003. Total digital surveillance around then. (There's a documentary that discusses the transition from targeted to total dragnet under the DNI's direction basically overnight) and the building of several new data centers to store it. Verizon domestic phone metadata collection started in 2013 also. FYI: any historical legal limits on govt. surveillance that you thought you knew, are exactly that, historical. There is no limit on what can be collected or how at this time, whether domestic or international. Also, FISA was used in the Mueller investigation long after it was learned the warrant information was fabricated. Yahoo allowed the govt. to do email keyword scanning on its servers via a govt-supplied kernel module since around 2015. So that's the rough timeline for total digital surveillance, and mostly started after 2001. You're correct that the govt. had enough info from many sources (Saudi embassies in US and Canada, pre-event operatives in US and Canada, foreign governments) so didn't need Internet sources at the time. (Canada was used as a base since Egyptian jihadis could avoid US airport immigration.) Would Internet scanning have helped in 2001? Well, maybe, but 2001 was very early in the development of the Internet. Also, integrating that info at the time with other info would have been sporadic. Today the problem is the volume of Internet traffic related to similar events, and staying ahead of it (collection, translation, scoring, etc.) But some of the most effective and well-known types of attacks can be done spontaneously by a single person with no warning. Fusion reports sent to local LEO are usually ignored because of the volume and vagueness. What can be detected an hour or so before an attack is mass cell phone traffic from one building as participants say farewell to their families. Ultimately to understand this event's issue, just read the Koran. It's an ideology problem, not a digital surveillance problem. There's no secret what the motivations and goals are. Is there a better or different way? I don't know. After the incompetence of the last event, it's hard to argue for less surveillance. The US is not good at policies in general. The Chinese government is going with surveillance down to monitoring individuals using facial recognition and QR codes.

acct776 6y ago

Why was redis_mlc's comment killed? Any explanation appreciated.

RickS 6y ago
The weaponization of detail. Beyond a certain breadth, an overload of specificity becomes too vague to engage with. Claims that cover such wide ground are impossible to refute or dissect. The people who do it think they're well-informed and providing a service, but it's poor form. It forces readers into a poison choice: abandon nuance to pile on in blanket agreement, or bash their heads against each other bickering in 50 threads about 50 tiny points for eternity. No good comes from that.
- acct776 6y ago
  When I was beginning my journey and came across a wall of text like this, I didn't engage it with comments...that'd be absurd. I'd review its bullets, deeply, because a comment of that depth, in forums such as these, is usually either misdirection because of a personal or paid agenda, or it was somebody that was passionate about knowledge, & had decided this was the best way to spread less than obvious conclusions they'd spent time compiling, in hopes to spur someone else into learning more. Skipping those, even if in bad form, because of the former, was a disservice to myself and my goals. So I learned to discern.