10 ms·
US senators say there’s “no evidence” bulk metadata surveillance is useful
- thenerdfiles 13y agoI don't feel like explaining this shit to non-technical people anymore. But I'm supposed to be grateful that I have a job.
- thenerdfiles 13y agoHow many of you are actually engaging non-technical people on this topic? How do they receive (a) the problem itself and (b) you in describing the problem (given that it goes without saying that you so too have the tools/know-how to undetake your own packet sniffing party)? Seriously? How does this become a larger political issue unless and until we start talking to people who severely are undereducated on the topic?
- XorNot 13y agoBecause most of the time the problem is just people knowing. It's like what happens if you ask your neighbors in advance about specific features on your new house - suddenly everybody has an opinion about why you shouldn't do it. Whereas if you just presented the plans, chances are they wouldn't comment at all.
- ghubbard 13y agoNote that this is "three United States senators who have been at the forefront of surveillance policy reform" who have filed an amicus brief. Rather than a majority of US senators.
- anonyHN 13y agoThe title describes both possibilities. They could have added 'some' or 'three' to clarify. But then again FWIW they did not write 'all'.
- manuelflara 13y agoThen why do they store/track it?
- skrebbel 13y agoClearly because "they" are a single-purpose evil hive mastermind that also happens to be hypocritical.
- csandreasen 13y agoSpeed is the most likely reason. Think about it from the flip side of the argument. Their argument rests on the assumption that if a known terrorist is in contact with a US person and there is reason to believe that US person is in the US for nefarious purposes, then they may already be moving to attack somewhere and the NSA needs his call records ahead of time. They want to know what other foreigners is he in contact with, are they known terrorists, are the people in the US that he's talking to also talking with each other (which could indicate a terrorist cell), etc. Answer these questions, package up the information and shoot it over to the FBI for follow-up investigation. If they didn't have the records ahead of time, the NSA or the FBI would have to get a warrant, submit the warrant to all N of the major phone providers, wait for however long it takes them to process it, get responses from N-1 providers that the phone number doesn't belong to them. They then have to analyze the data, then repeat the process for the second layer, etc. What would be done in a few minutes if they already had the data now might take a few weeks. If you believe that an attack is likely, you may not have a week to identify the initial contact, two weeks to identify the cell he's working in, etc. All of this rests on the assumption that analyzing phone metadata is good way to get leads for an investigation on international terrorism. Are there better ways to get leads? Can the information still be useful if gathered through a traditional warrant process? If not, is it worth the privacy tradeoff to foil X number of cases over the course of a decade, and are there good ways to handle the information in order to mitigate privacy concerns?
- itsameta4 13y agoThere are emergency/after-the-fact warrants for just those occasions.
- faster 13y agoHere's a(nother) case where the actual title of the article doesn't reflect what the article itself says. In the article, it says the senators say they "have seen no evidence", not that no evidence exists. Obviously hyperbolic titles get more clicks.
- tomelders 13y agoJust like weapons inspectors saw no evidence of WMD's in Iraq. That obviously doesn't mean there are no WMD's in Iraq. Or just like cosmologists have seen no evidence of God, that doesn't mean god doesn't exist. Engage brain before opening mouth.
- DanBC 13y agoThe three examples are different. God may exist, we cannot say. Cosmologists are not looking for God, and so the fact they have not discovered God means little. WMD don't exist in Iraq because it was a lie ginned up to allow us to go to war. It doesn't matter what weapons inspectors find - the point wasn't WMD but the reaction to the inspections programme. A secret collection of mass meta-data collection being examined by people without security clearance is unlikely to find any benefit because no-one is going to tell them what happens with the data. "We see no evidence of benefit" could mean "there is no benefit, and thus we haven't seen any evidence" or it could mean "there is plenty of benefit, but that's all secret, and no-one will tell us about it, and thus we've seen no evidence of benefit". > Engage brain before opening mouth. That makes you sound like a bit of a dick. Just saying.
- Taranli_Maren 13y ago> A secret collection of mass meta-data collection being examined by people without security clearance is unlikely to find any benefit because no-one is going to tell them what happens with the data. "We see no evidence of benefit" could mean "there is no benefit, and thus we haven't seen any evidence" or it could mean "there is plenty of benefit, but that's all secret, and no-one will tell us about it, and thus we've seen no evidence of benefit". I'm sure you are aware but Sen. Wyden is on the Select Committee on Intelligence. He is hardly a random guy with no security clearance. If he hasn't seen any evidence that the bulk surveillance has any benefit, then the NSA is withholding critical information from the people that are supposed to be performing oversight over them.
- belorn 13y agoTo be clear, they say that there is no evidence that bulk meta data surveillance is useful in catching terrorists. Bulk metadata surveillance is however extremely useful in doing espionage against diplomats, which gives the US favorable hand in negotiations. It also extremely useful in doing industry espionage, gifting US companies with stolen information (in return for favors? We don't know what Boeing gave NSA in return). Its somewhat useful to hammer down on local political activists. Who dare to start a occupy movement, or a website dedicated to whistleblowers with NSA sipping through every email, every phone call, and perfect information about who meets with who? Its possible useful in hammering down on political embarrassing entities like megaupload, giving the US foreign office and advantage when interfering in other countries justice systems. People in the police and IRS is always thankful when they can do parallel construction, which in turn gives NSA support to continue. I have a vague memory that out of 40 cases, only one is about terrorism. That might be wrong (or maybe it was about FRA), but if that is true, it would explain why NSA is doing bulk meta data surveillance in the face of the contradicted claims about its effectiveness in anti-terroism.
- DanBC 13y agoHow is bulk metadata useful against diplomats or for industrial espionage? For those you prefer content and don't care so much about the metadata. The UK has recently had debates about the collection of bulk metadata. Imagine our surprise when GCHQ was slurping it all along. They say that they're a secret organisation and that their collections can't be used for domestic law enforcement, and that this debate was actually about allowing law enforcement to collect metadata. I would prefer GCHQ to not be slurping this data, but I don't see it as being particularly harmful to me. But extending that out to the general law enforcement agencies, or wider to local government officials etc, is terrifying. GCHQ employees are reasonably well trained in secrecy and privacy and the risk of information being misused is low[1], but we've seen plenty of abuses of personal data by police forces (selling information to news papers, and so on) and local councils (spying on people applying for parking permits or for entry to certain schools) and so it's a bit scary letting them get hold of any more data than they strictly need, especially if there's no judge involved.
- 13y ago
- yaeger 13y agoWell, if they haven't seen evidence that metadata surveillance is useful, they clearly haven't searched for it. Cause if you don't search for it, you won't find it and therefore you can say with confidence "We haven't seen any evidence..." For anyone wanting to see such evidence can go here: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention This is a 6 month representation of cell phone metadata overlayed with this politicians public information like tweets or other stuff freely available on the internet.
- anonyHN 13y agoExactly how is your example useful or pertinent to fighting terrorism/terrorist acts? The politician in your example is a public figure. Unless you considered Osama Bin Laden (and other terrorists) public figures and have access to their " Twitter feeds, blog entries and websites, all of which is all freely available on the internet. " Your comment doesn't make much sense... Or maybe I'm missing the point (which is likely/possible).
- yaeger 13y agoYou are missing the point. The twitter overlay was just an added point to illustrate that the politician was really at these places. Otherwise one could start with "yeah, well the meta data could come from anybody. Who's to say that all this data really belonged to him?" I hope I don't have to point out how the metadata alone is useful in tracking suspected terrorists. You have GPS, SMS, timestaped phonecalls etc. Anybody who gets to request this metadata from a cell phone provider for Person X can track that person across the country. You might as well wear a Lo-Jack that is directly connected to the authorities. Same result, it would just be a little easier for them to access that information. Now, they still have to request and actually receive the meta data from a customer of the cell service. Unless of course NSA and company already have complete system access and the request to receive the meta data is just a formality.
- Taranli_Maren 13y agoI don't think they are arguing that the government should not be able to collect metadata for suspected terrorists or criminals. This sort of collection could go through the normal channels. My understanding of the argument is that the mass collection of metadata, from every phone number in America, has not provided any security benefit. For those who feel that sacrificing liberty for security is acceptable, sacrificing liberty to gain no security is probably not.
- mtgx 13y agoWhy are we arguing about the "usefulness" when it should be a crime against the human right to privacy, and possibly many national laws and constitutions through out the world? At the very least, even without abuses (which is ridiculous to even contemplate that there weren't/aren't any) mass surveillance can create chilling effects on free speech, journalism, and creativity and innovation in general, as well as to progress in a society. How do you admit you are gay or try to convince others that being gay is okay, in a society where the vast majority are against it, and the government has zero tolerance for it, for example? In a society that monitors everything, it would be very hard to turn being gay from "illegal" to "legal. And that's just one example: women using birth control, doing abortions, being of different faith, smoking pot, copying an image "illegitimately" from the web and so on, can all be "illegal" at some point, in any society.
- DanBC 13y ago> Why are we arguing about the "usefulness" when it should be a crime against the human right to privacy, and possibly many national laws and constitutions through out the world? It's a pragmatic approach to preventing this stuff from happening. The "privacy is a right!" stuff just doesn't work for some people. So, for those people, it's handy to have other arguments. "It's expensive and doesn't work! Let's spend that money on cops and gang-reconciliations instead!" may be more effective.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoThis 'pragmatic approach' unfortunately changes the subject from the important one to something refutable. As such, it could be a political ploy to create support for illegal/unconstitutional wiretapping etc.
- DanBC 13y ago> unfortunately changes the subject Supplements the discussion. There are plenty of people, with real power, who don't care about what's legal (and perhaps what's constitutional) because terrorists. (See also because pedophiles). For those people you need to let them know that their over-reaching privacy invasions aren't just a matter of constitutional niceties (their terms, not ours) but actually ineffective.
- bayesianhorse 13y agoEvidence in politics? Good one.
- fetbaffe 13y agoThe only effective way to capture terrorists is to do profiling, however thats is considered to be politically incorrect, therefore we have this nonsense instead.
- Amadou 13y agoThe only effective way to capture terrorists is to do profiling, however thats is considered to be politically incorrect, Whenever someone complains about profiling being politically incorrect, that's a euphemism for racial profiling. To which I say: Jihad Jane: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/01/pennsylvania.terror.case/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/01/pennsylvania.terror.case... Daniel Patrick Boyd: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913602,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913602,0... The White Widow: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pictures-white-widow-samantha-lewthwaites-2477940 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pictures-white-widow... And that's just crazies who call themselves 'muslims.' In the US white nationalists typically murder a couple of people each year, and don't forget Anders Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
- fetbaffe 13y agoNo. You are jumping to conclusions on what I said because you have prejudices on what profiling is and those prejudices have made it politically incorrect. http://youtu.be/j80trPqKTLA http://youtu.be/j80trPqKTLA And of course there are other terrorist than dark skinned Muslims. And I know from experience living in Norway when Breivik struck, so please take your prejudices else where.
- Amadou 13y agoThere are two views of israeli profiling. One, that its the greatest thing in the world because it is so comprehensive and egalitarian. Then, there is the opinion of most arabs who have had to suffer through it. They tend to think it is just as crappy as any other racial profiling. http://972mag.com/another-response-to-jeffrey-goldbergs-praise-of-israels-airport-security/38642/ http://972mag.com/another-response-to-jeffrey-goldbergs-prai... Even if you buy the egalitarian story about israeli profiling, it is ridiculous to think that (a) their state of constant war is anything like that in the west and (b) that what they do at airports should be applied to the entire population of the USA.
- monkeydink 13y agoMy understanding is that the NSA captures "data" (i.e., content) (e.g., voice conversations, fax contents, messages, e-mail content, etc.) and not simply metadata. I doubt the "data" is very useful in catching terrorists either. But it's political/social/economic value is inestimable.
- glitchdout 13y agoIndeed, you are right. NSA is currently tapping Skype, both chat and video. [1] There's also some evidence that the NSA is collecting every domestic communication, word for word. [2] (Full transcript [3]) [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/nsa-taps-skype-chats-newly-published-snowden-leaks-confirm/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/nsa-taps-skype-ch... [2]: http://youtu.be/az-YWMNWQuU?t=2m6s http://youtu.be/az-YWMNWQuU?t=2m6s [3]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/whistleblowers_08-01.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec1...
- kghose 13y agoDon't forget, these are the same jokers who are cutting funding for science trying to say it's not useful. Just FYI.
- rst 13y agoWhen have Udall, Wyden, or Heinrich said anything like that? Those are the Senators who filed the brief. They're all Democrats; every anti-science proclamation from the Senate I've seen (and I have seen quite a few) has come from a Republican.
- ajays 13y agoFinally, some Democrats with balls. For all the "tea party" rhetoric that comes from Republicans, I've yet to see 1 Republican step up and put his reputation on the line. Where are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz? How do they reconcile the NSA's actions with their so-called beliefs?
- IvyMike 13y agoI really dislike this framing, because it's shifted the debate into an irrelevant tangent. It doesn't really matter if it's useful or not; it's still illegal. Even if 1984 works that doesn't mean it's a society we want to live in.