The Question the NSA is Not Answering
The NSA is claiming that the data that they grabbed in essentially warrant-less Hoovering up of telephone and Internet metadata has helped in certain investigations.
I have no doubt that is probably true.
But that is not the right way to frame the problem. The real issue is: Did being able to data mine metadata for all Americans help solve the case better and faster than had they been required to seek specific probable cause warrants for data from specific people?
To make clear the distinction, let's suppose I were trying to justify stealing a copy of every book in Barnes & Noble. I might be able to accurately say that those books helped me writing a good Napoleon paper for school. But could I have achieved the same goal - writing a paper on Napoleon - by purchasing individual books as needed via legal shopping processes? The answer is probably "yes." Having all the books pre-stolen only contributed in that it saved me the hassle of going down to the store and finding a specific book I needed.
In the same way, I suspect that having this data base merely saved FBI and others the hassle of filling out some paperwork in each case. I am not sure incremental success rates in a few cases is enough justification to rip up the Constitution, but I am sure that laziness is not.
Just found out this morning that in San Diego, all police cars are videoing all the time. Any car that has driven by a police car in San Diego county had the license photographed, and GPS location noted. This info is kept forever. They also set up the system at fairs and events to photograph all licenses. The information is kept by SANDAG - a regional association of cities in the county - FOREVER.
It is getting pretty creepy out there.
LOLLLLLL. OMG, are you intentionally trying to be funny!!!!!! Again, most of what you write only reveals your ignorance. In your case, you should look to the adage that "it is better to remain a silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
That was an informative post you just made. Totally debunked his argument, huh. Yep just calling people names is the way to go when your own argument is weak.
Really, you should be pointing out the actual holes in the argument instead of just calling names.
MORE OF THE SAME!!!! FUNNY.
Here is the clue. KNowing a phone number is associated with a tea party group because you forced the tea party group to reveal that association is much different than taking millions of phone numbers, billions of phone calls, AND THEN statistically trying to determine such associations.
I already have. He does not have the mental ability to understand the holes in his argument, so he continues to make the same. My expertise in this area is 1,000,000 times more than either of yours.
Has it ever occurred to you that the collection of all the information is not intended simply for statistical use? No. Clearly not. That would be far too obvious for someone of your esteemed intellect.
Again, you and your buddy are just revealing your ignorance as to what the NSA phone data is and how it can be used. The IRS intimidation, the spying and tapping of reporters just demonstrates that if you want to intimidate ahd harass, there are a lot easier, more direct, more accuate, and more effective ways of doing so than to gather terrabytes of data on phone call records, particularly if you do not care much about the law.
Lets hear your credentials then, if you are working on an appeal to expertise, which itself can be a logical flaw.
LOL.....you are being ridiculous. Why else would they want it except for statistical use? If the government wanted phone records because they had other compelling interests, they can much more readily and much more cheaply and much more accurately just get a warrant and obtain those specific phone records. In other words, if you are a suspect in a crime and the government has evidence against you, they can easily obtain a warrant and get your phone records. They would not want such a database for those purposes.
Lets start with that. What do you believe the NSA is actually collecting?
It is not far fetched to believe that the meta data can be used for doing things other than discovering how terrorists communicate.
I already have indicated it. I have a PhD in economics and long experience working with large databases and predictive modeling.
mlhouse - please refute this article and/or its application to this discussion:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/de-anonymize-cellphone-data-0327.html
THANKS!
However, if they do not have evidence of a crime and cannot get a warrant for my phone records, this allows them to access the data illegally regardless. Or, irregardless, if you prefer. So if I'm simply a member of a tea party group and they want to know whom I regularly call, now they can. Or maybe they'll simply classify me as a terrorist since I support the tea party and according to DHS, that's the same thing. Oh. Or they'll classify me as a co-conspirator in espionage.... because I'm a reporter.
Yes, it is far fetched. I have indicated to you specifically why. Certainly, if the NSA WANTED to do a similar analysis against Tea Party people they certainly could. The problem is that the data would not give enough actionable information to do anything. The results would be uncertain and the groupings large. You could not audit them all. You could not investigate them all. The cost would simply be counterproductive. As I have said over and over again, there are a lot better ways of doing that then gathering billions and billions of phone records.
On the other hand, if you are lookign for patterns in a terroristic or criminal group and you do not have many alternatives (they tend to keep their associations much more private!!!!) then using such data could potentially narrow a certain population down to a level that other analytical/statistical/investigative methods might be able to be used. For example, lets say we take the hundreds of million of phone users and do an pattern analysis of their phone usage that identifies a "risk" group of 1 million. Then other data could be acquired, lets say immigration records and that is overlayed with this group (this step might be cost prohibitive to the entire sample). That might narrow this group down to an even smaller, more predictive group that even more analysis can be done.
WHy would they want to know whom you regularly call?
Getting warrants and judge shopping (three, just to get the phone records for Rosen... and his parents....) is time consuming and inefficient use of resources; especially when you already have the data. Better to just call it up on my nifty NSA secured terminal, routinely staffed by a Chicago political hack, and determine who gets their garbage collected today.... or not. NO POTHOLE FILLING FOR YOU!
I see
Why would they want to know what books I read? The contents of my prayers? To whom I am related? Whom I know that may or may not consider political office now or in the future? All of this under threat of perjury? For which I can be prosecuted?
Indeed. Why would they want to know. And yet they collect my information. Interesting.
Already answered. That was pure political harrasment.
Are you one of the people who participated in these acts? Just asking since you seem to know their explicit and implicit motivations and intent.
No. I work in private industry. I am a fiscal conservative, card carrying, country club Republican. I just am not a conspiracy nut like you.
And.... there is no reason to assume that the database has no utility beyond predictive uses - which is what you assume. It certainly was not used predictively to prevent the recent terror attack in Boston. If the database is not being used predictively to prevent terror attacks, what is its use? It suggests that there is no legitimate use (this is your own formulation) for the collection and storage of this data by the government.
Wow. A PhD in economics allows you to, even relatively, quantify your expertise in relation to others. This kind of appeal to authority is giggle inducing.
So a Phd in economics makes you all knowledgeable about how the government spies on us?
I could tell you I have a Masters in Computer Science, and a BS in Business, so I could tell you a few things about large aggregates of data as well.
You know predictive mining is what they may be claiming, but with the database holding actual phone numbers it is too easy to do other things. Because it is really easy to attach a phone number to a person. Say Karl Rove's number is used, and folks who call Karl Rove are monitored anonymously, and it is discovered they are all calling one particular set of numbers. Look those up and find out info on your political opposition - it isn't that hard to fathom, and the aggregate data of phone numbers and phone links alone - which we know is in the database is enough to accomplish that - just as easily as it is to pick out Anwar al-Awlaki's phone number and look to see who is calling him.
You know this meta data is in a database and databases can easily be searched with simple SQL queries no?
This isn't far fetched stuff that I am suggesting, especially when we have folks in government who think it is their duty to support the president, in the IRS, EPS, Justice Department - and even in state agencies - Remember Joe the Plumber having private state records released about him? What if the just took his phone number (easy to find) at NSA and started looking at the numbers he is calling - and most of those numbers can be easily google searched to find out who they are.
Why do you have such blind faith that the government won;t abuse the power. If they can find calling patterns for terrorist, they can also find calling patterns for T-Party members, opposition party members, economists with Phd's whatever, cuz the metadata is all there.
I personally believe that the usage of such data is very, very, very limited overall. I have indicated to you what I believe to be the primary purpose. I will repeat it. I know Osama Bin Laden's telephone number. I look at the phone numbers that called that number. I then look at the other numbers that were called and that specific pattern. Maybe I get some actionable intelligence, maybe I don't. I think it is overkill, but they want the complete collection of numbers to fill out the patterns.
So, if you did not call Osama Bid Laden's or some other targeted telephone number you are pretty safe.
Anything can be abused. A person at Verizon could have abused the data. The problem is that if you want to abuse Karl Rove's telpehone number there are a lot easier ways of doing it than this.
SNORE....I have direct experience in developing models. You don't have any clue. So, nice try.
Of course not. The phone numbers are in there, It is a Simple SQL query to find it. So you find out someone's phone number, and do the SQL querry and you can find out all the numbers of folks that person called. Those numbers are pretty easy to identify in most cases - out of public phone books, google, resumes on dice (if they are unlisted numbers) and then even start spying on those people. Of course the NSA has more sophisticated means of finding the association of phone number and entity.
The SQL query is easy enough to write (though I would have to be in the NSA to know the exact table names)
I am sure they are doing Meta data research on terrorist patterns, but it is so easy to use the data for other things, even if it is just phone numbers and the links to other phone numbers that one number has called. I have no idea why our Economist thinks it can not be used illicitly for other pattern finding purposes.
Anything can be abused. Should we stop having active patrolling by police on the beat or in squad cars because they could abuse their power (a whacko libertarian like you might think so, but the vast majority of people would not agree)? SHould we create incredible amounts of chaos in industry by prohibiting the phone companies from maintaining this data in the first place (that is sort of a twist in your no government type of philosophy)?
Or should we recognize the normal activities of what is permissable and deal with any abuses accordingly? That is my position.
That is a bizarre response. I guess you have to be a conspiracy nut to simply recognize that multiple agencies have already targeted political "enemies", and that it may occur in other departments such as the NSA, or a political appointee that has access to the database. Somehow, this one database is immune from misuse.
Another thought just occurred to me. I think you're covered now and you can probably end the argument. You've demonstrated your bona fides (education, "Republican", "economist", you are opposed to "nuts"). Once this conversation gets swept you'll get cleared for your guest spot on MSNBC. Congrats, and I hope you do well there! :)
I actually do have direct experience in developing models. Engineering models. I'm getting some modest amusement out of the conversation. Sorry you're bored.
I don't think so - that there are easier ways. I can to an SQL query and find out all the outgoing calls he made in a matter of seconds. Finding out who belongs to those numbers is also very easy. Just look it up in the phone book, monster, dice, etc. Fact is I could write a bot script that would look online in several sources and get all the phone info for me in a matter of minutes. Not that I would have to - NSA has already compiled this.
I actually don't see an easier way to find out who someone has been calling. I think with a handful of Queries, I could figure out all organizations Rove is involved, and his friends within a day.
Could you please describe an easier way to find out all of Karl Rove's friends associations? I don't really think you can.
It is the potential for abuse that is the real issue. And we know that several Federal agencies, and state agencies have abused systems on the Democrats behalf now. Would you like it if the GOP were in charge and was using agencies to badger leftist groups? Would you be saying this data is hard to work with (even when it is not) if say Boehner were president?
SCOTUS has nothing to do with this.
These warrants are all handled by a single court (FISC) which operates in secret, so there is virtually no chance of any appeal of any warrant it issues.
Now you are getting down to your real beliefs. Not that the data hard to use and access, or that there are easier ways, or that we are idiots. Not that the data can not be easily abused. You really believe a virtuous government - at least when the Democrats are in charge.
Sure I will be safe from being called a terrorist, but from the other semi-authorized searches I might end up being considered a T-Party member, and get and IRS audit because of it.
"in each case I evaluate them on their merits: are they effective, are they appropriate, does the cost/benefit of the regulation make sense, is it a legitimate function of government, is it the proper level of government."
beat patrols are effective. they are appropriate. cost/benefit makes sense. A very legitimate exercise of local gov't authority.
the maintenance of this database has proven to be ineffective. It has not provided the security it promises. It is arguably inappropriate based on 4th amendment protections of our God-given liberty. The cost is massive (although perhaps only marginally increased over the foreign com tracking/recording). The benefit is evidently non-existent. It is arguably illegitimate. IMO it is not the proper level of government.
Please make the counter-argument. Based on your own merits.
And it seems like FISC has not seen a warrant request they don't like!
This appears to be true, even general warrants that the Constitution explicitly forbids. Who cares what the Constitution says when both the very existence of the warrant and any information needed to determine who would have standing to object in court are both classified information so no one can appeal.
Mechanic's liens are irrelevant to the discussion.
1. They can only be created if you have refused to pay for the mechanic's services.
2. Location is not relevant to a mechanic's lien. Such a lien can be obtained even without physical possession of the item on which the lien is being placed by the mechanic obtaining the lien.
Exactly. Security is obviously a legitimate exercise of the national government and was one of the main reasons why such a government was formed. The Founders wanted MORE centralized national government, not less.
In time, my belief is that this database will prove to be ineffective as a predictive tool for precisely the reasons why I stated. The data is not good enough to make any actionable predictions.
To quote you. There are easier ways to prevent terrorism than using this database. Therefore we should probably not have it so folks can't be tempted to misuse the data.
As for police, yes there are issues with them, but at the moment I can not think of a better way to handle random street violence than with a competent police force, therefore the police should not be disbanded.
Thank you for your time.
Of course the answer is yes. If they implant a gps chip in every individual on earth at birth many crimes of all types could be solved much more quickly.
The problem is where do you stop. Joe McCarthy would not have even have had to ask who was at those commie meetings. He could have simply pulled up the recorded data. How hard could it be to get into this database, when McCarthy even got a whole congress to investigate. Would have made the 1950s so much easier. And don't forget we could have weeded out all of those anti-war protesters in the 1960's too. Not to mention its always good to know who has talked to the press, as we just saw with our current AG somehow getting all of the phone records of one media outlet. But of course this couldn't happen. These are fine upstanding politicians.
Keep in mind, he's a "Republican" (CARD CARRYING!). I think I know the golf club he belongs to. "Fiscal conservative", mind. Not a "nutter". Would never associate with such. Did he mention his Diplom? Marvelous campus . Summers on the Vineyard, Nantucket. The occassional jaunt to Newport.
LOL. Think you need to re-read the Federalist Papers. Or weren't those required in your undergrad?
So you agree then, they should not maintain this database? Good grief.
Clearly, if all they wanted to do was run a query on numbers that is easy to do. But, that is hardly actionable. And, then you have his wife and children and friends who want to shoot the shit with him. They need more predictive data than that. IF you want to attack Rove, there are simpler ways to do it, much of it public information (i.e. financial contributors, business partners). Most of Rove's connections are well known to his political enemies. These facts are very obvious.
I am a Republican. I hate Obama. The IRS abuse is a very important issue. The abuse of privacy of news reporters is a very imporant issue. The NSA issue, not so much. I supported Bush and I support Obama for doing this. However, I just don't think it will be very effective because the data is too weak to create actionable predictions.
I highly doubt that you have read the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton were nationalist that wanted to increase the powers of the national government over what existed with the Articles of Confederation. They saw the weak national government as something that endangered the security of the United States.
AS far as maintaining the database, in the long run no. But, over the short run they should try to see if they can develop something. I doubt they can. I applaud the effort.
I believe in the long run this database will prove ineffective. However, they should still continue to investigate. There may be certain ways they can use this information and other data to find patterns. But, I doubt it.
The Federalist Papers were arguing for a *stronger* federal gov't than what existed in the Confederacy, but that is weak sauce to compare that argument to the existing behemoth of alphabet soup agencies, departments, etc. The Federalist Papers argue both a) that a stronger government than the Confederacy is required to have effective national policy, and b) these are the methods/procedures in which the powers of said government, will be limited, constrained, and in conflict with itself to prevent abuse of power and overreach of authority. Sadly, many in gov't don't respect 'old' documents like the constitution, and much of what was argued at the time and effected through ratification has been rendered moot, for instance, the delegation of legislative authority to the executive.
Dude I am beginning to doubt you credentials. Just from the one class on natural language processing I had in school in 1998 I know easy it is mine data and throw out spurious findings with a high degree of certainty. And I wouldn't have to bother if I had his personal cell or work phone. That one outgoing call a month from his mistress is not going to fowl the data much - and once the initial list of maybe 300 calls in the month is filtered against a phone book database it would be easy to reject the kids school and whatnot. We did projects like this as homework due in a week. And now you are telling me it is all to difficult to do?Maybe you are too much of a big picture high level thinker to realize how simple it is to mine a database or two and get the relevant data automatically
Snore.......you have no idea what you are talking about. The classification error in itself creates huge error. Any Verizon worker can do what you are saying, and a political operative could get that info much easier from that direction than going to the trouble of acquiring their entire database.
Further, if you want to attack Karl Rove, there are easier ways of doing it if you are not worried about doing something illegal. Clearly, the Obama administration has demonstrated their willingness to do this and that is abuse of power. But, they are not doing that from teh NSA database. That is overkill. Why not just audit/harass Rove directly? That is not outside their playbook either as Obama has demonstrated time and time again invading his political opponents private records. Finding willing judges to unseal private divorce and custody documents is his team's specialty and the reason he has advanced in politics.
The absolute protection from "abuse" is not an available option. And, while I think this line of "protection" is rather limited, it is a valid course of investigation. WIth other data sources this could be a good first step in identification of real patterns involving national security, but I have my doubts.
And if this surveillance is so effective, how come the Boston bombers weren't detected?
Sorry to jump in this late, but mlhouse is typical man of system - there's no convincing him of the inexpertise of well-intentioned experts, nor is there any way to have him acknowledge that there is no guarantee government will not abuse this information in future.
That is the intent of the 4th Amendment, to protect citizens from ANY form of unreasonable state search & seizure. It applies 100% here.
mlhouse and his ilk don't care, because they are constitutionally ignorant.