NSA Chose Invasive Phone Analysis Option 307
Encrypted Anonymous Coward writes "The Baltimore Sun reveals the existence of an interesting experimental NSA program codenamed ThinThread from the late 90`s. The program involved link analysis of traffic data, with a twist; The phone numbers from the U.S. would only be analyzed in an encrypted form. This way the analysis would potentially be possible under existing privacy laws, according to the people behind the program. The NSA could gather further unencrypted details if there was evidence of a threat. Political infighting seems to have dropped an interesting and respectful program from the books."
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:5, Interesting)
See, technically the only thing that stops the police from tapping every phone (other than respect for the community) is that it's illegal to do so and any evidence gathered is wholly worthless.
Re:thats OK then, AKA respectful my ass! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're crapping on an effective means of controlling who gets access to data because there's a possibility it might not be used properly in some instances. If it's not used properly, then we have the situation we already are in. At the very least, we can file this under "better and under no circumstances worse."
Whether or not we can label it "good" is beyond the scope of me.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
So September 11th.. (Score:2, Interesting)
We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't stand on a soapbox here and force my opinion on others but I think it is time for a very serious debate over what is acceptable to give up in the name of security, what secrets we will let our government keep from us and what checks and balances need to be in place.
I think we are in trouble of letting "terrorism" be the ultimate excuse for any unpopular move by the government and it sadens me to see that the events of 2001 have changed us so much.
P.S.
The latest Justifications I have heard for the NSA wire taping are indicative of the problem... saying "we havent had a terrorist atack because of this program" is like saying "the wolly mammoth repelant is working" unless you can show proof that attacks have been thwarted .
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Number To Call For Questions: +1, Seditious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NSA track record (Score:4, Interesting)
Depending on the circumstances, how do you make the distinction between the NSA and the "wrong hands"? =)
But seriously, ThinThread as originally constituted contains the mechanism necessary for oversight. It's amazing that they dispensed with that part of the program, especially now in hindsight when the Administration is embroiled in a scandal. What were they thinking? Are they that arrogant? That stupid?
Absence of evidence is evidence. So they say. (Score:4, Interesting)
In this person's world, by definition, the public should never be able to point to an intelligence accomplishment. Our best response to the existence of stuff like these NSA capers is to keep our heads down. So said my brother-in-law, who had previously explained to me his rationale by which Nixon was the best President we've ever had.
One can see the obvious stepping off point to "the real traitors are the ones who *reveal* our secret, extra-constitutional prison system."
Confronted with evidence of past incompetence on the part of the CIA -- I mentioned the massive expense of the Glomar Explorer misadventure [the-kgb.com], which got us basically nothing new (old details about an aging vintage Soviet sub) for the staggering money involved -- John simply suggested that there must've been a lot more to the story, and that it obviously succeeded because we didn't know about the successful parts. (Whereupon he spun straw into gold and disappeared like Colonel Flag on M*A*S*H -- "like the wind" -- from our family. I believe he's living as an expat in China now.)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that the point? Known nutjob Abdullah Jihadi calls the following people A, B
Suspected nutjob Faruk Ibn Dijjaj calls B, E, C, G,
Known nutjob Muhamad Abu Majnun calls B, H, I, J
So if I was analyzing this data, I want to know who "B" is, as well as anyone else who talks to B. I'd also be interested in C, although from this trivial example, he looks less interesting. This is, of course, a massive oversimplification. Who knows if network analysis would actually work?
Obviously there are both legal and practical reasons why these agencies aren't looking at the content of communications. (Who has the resources for that?) Isn't this just the electronic equivelant of writing down license plates outside the Badda Bing?
Re:We as Americans need to ask hard questions. (Score:3, Interesting)
We had that debate - it was held in secret and American citizens lost. It would be nice to think that electing a different party to control the government would settle the issue, or turn the clock back, or
This administration has mauled constitutional interpretation like a Dutch macacque and the next one only has to be a hair bit more ethical to look like a breath of fresh air. You know, 749 re-interpretations of signed law instead of 750
After the next election, we'll talk about "healing" and "moving on", instead of starting impeachment proceedings and war tribunals to judge our own people. Instead of proving that the term "The Rule of Law" has meaning, even to us, we'll just toss the phrase around blithely and move on with our cozy little lives
Constitution, who needs it ! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Member -- (Date of Admission)
United States of America -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
That is pretty much my point. If you didn't know anything about the numbers in the first place, you wouldn't have a starting point to branch out from. You also have to consider that terrorist organizations probably aren't planning things in a short time frame so seeing a bunch of calls to/from a suspicious number may occur over months/years. I'd also guess that the "bad guys" are probably going to use disposable cell phones or pay phones (although these are becoming a bit rare nowadays) so discovering "connections" would be difficult. Just looking at phone_to_phone call logs probably isn't very useful without additional information.
anonomous strip search (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been in the Shack at Yakima (Score:2, Interesting)
if it bounced off a satellite or went thru a transoceanic cable (hi, Hawaii!), we intercepted it.
I'm just saying that invasive phone searches, legal or otherwise, were happening back in the 80s.
That said, my gut feel, based on when I had clearance (note I don't give specifics), is that the rabbit hole goes way deeper since the current Admin came into power.
Dig deeper my friend - you took the blue pill and the red pill is the right one.
Re:Constitution, who needs it ! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with your general sentiment of individuals being held responsible for their actions, but I think the speech/action divide is a little more gray than you say. For instance, what if I say "I will pay anyone $1 million to kill iminplaya", someone kills you, and I refuse to pay. I have done nothing but speak (I never paid), so by your definition, I have done nothing but exercise my rights to free speech. I think we need to have some limits on speech, it is just a question of where to draw the limits in order to maximize total freedoms.
Re:Privacy Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
No. This is decidedly false considering anything you do/say in public can be used against you without a warrant. The air inside your house is contained within your house, which you own. If you're so freaking loud that someone could hear you across the street, that could be used against you as well.
--trb