U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases 537
The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.
Not used to track individuals (Score:3, Informative)
What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's. What we essentially had on file was the holdings for almost all our clients and the clearance data for these transactions dating back for years. We had to keep all this on file to satisfy all the governmental regulations on taxations, etc.
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org] http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/15/15
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:5, Informative)
After identifying a suspect, Levey said, "you can do a search, and you can determine whom he sent money to, and who sent money to him."
"The way the SWIFT data works, you would have all kinds of concrete information -- addresses, phone numbers, real names, account numbers, a lot of stuff we can really work with, the kind of actionable information that government officials can really follow up on," Levey said.
Doesn't sound like purely institution-related data. And this from the "undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence," whatever the hell that is.
Two things (Score:1, Informative)
More importantly, the SWIFT system is used to support massive international wire transfers, usually from one bank to another. We're not talking about Western Union transfers and we're not talking about your ATM records.
The really amazing thing is that if you read the entire article you'll see that the Administration has been going to great lengths to protect privacy with additional audits and the requirement of preparing internal subpoenas (yes, they're not vetted by a court) before making any request for data. To date the program has already been responsible for some major terrorist captures and was apparently quite successful.
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:5, Informative)
Re:quick success (Score:3, Informative)
I can assure you that that will not happen. I work for an Aussie bank and SWIFT is very tightly integrated into all our systems and the systems of our clients. Even if we wanted to leave we couldn't. I'm not even sure if there is a decent, viable alternative.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Cheney's response (Score:5, Informative)
IRS? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:4, Informative)
WAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's hysterical. Absolutely hysterical It's amazing just how far some people can warp their perception of reality when they so desperately need to perceive reality as supporting some political position.
In related news, the also recently exposed federal phone wiretapping program is never used for individuals. Those wiretaps are used for the recording of audio communications between phone companies, and logging the associated source and destination phone numbers records on each voice communication.
If someone argues that the current federal program is legal and that it is a a good and acceptable activitity in trying to persue terrorists... well that is a perfectly rational arguement with which one can argue the factual truth or falsity of the claim that it is a legal, and with which one can reasonably agree or dissagree with the oppinion of it being good and acceptable.
However when someone tries to argue that this new program is only about companies and banks, and tries to suggest that it has no impact or relevance on individuals... well that is just plain DELUSIONAL reasoning.
-
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:seriously (Score:4, Informative)
The advantage the US has is it's constitution, which is something I admire a lot. I think it is interesting that your administration is trying to change it (gay marriage). Is this because they want to get people into the 'habit' of changing it in response to perceived 'threats to the American Way(tm)'; so that it can then be changed for 'the war on terror' (think more spooks with more powers, and probably stuff to buy off corporations).
The beauty of your constitution (apart from being drafted on hemp paper
Re: Wow (Score:3, Informative)
One of the sad ironies in all this is that they probably would have seen 911 coming if they didn't have to filter out so many details as the reports of the field officers work their way up the organizational tree.
Re:Two things (Score:3, Informative)
Re:quick success (Score:5, Informative)
Um, don't you mean the pre-Gulf War shells that were found in 2003, reported on in 2004, and waved around last week in a poor attempt to justify the war in an election year? Just sayin'...
Re:quick success (Score:5, Informative)
Just a wild suggestion... Maybe he actually destroyed them?
He didn't want a war because he knew he'd end up dead.. as will hopefully soon happen. Actually destroying these weapons, which he had no realistic prospect of using without instant obliteration now he was no longer a US ally against Iran, would certainly have been in his best interests.
But I do not dispute his desire and willingness to make and use them.. nor his future intention to do so either! Just his practical ability.
PS: The '500' mustard and sarin shells (disclosed in 1999 [un.org], only wight ring prats call it recent, although the real figure is more like 650+) should be set against 50,000+ which the UN accepts were destroyed..
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Informative)
Show me the article that verifies this claim. The interview I heard yesterday with Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levy mentioned nothing of the sort. This program, like a startling number of Bush's post 9/11 "anti terrorist" intelligence initiatives, has NO court oversight. Levy described a situation in which SWIFT agents and "an outside auditing firm" could monitor database searches in real time and could halt the search if they felt it was suspect or needed further justification from the government. That's it. If your name is on a list of suspected terrorist / collaborators, correctly or incorrectly, the the White House has given itself the privledge of sifting through your financial data. And your phone calls. And god knows what else we don't know about. And it all happens without the courts being aware.
Who puts a stop to programs like this if it's being abused? The "gang of 8" senators that had been informed about the domestic wiretapping program have admitted that the reports they get about that program don't go into any great detail. Are we just supposed to trust the Bush White House to say, "Gee, we've sepped over the line here, please shut us down?" These are the same people that selectively chose intellegence reports that supported their desire to invade Iraq. Once they got their, they retroactively changes their justifications for being there and then capped it all by saying "Well, is it a bad thing that Sahdam is gone? Would you prefer he be in power?"
This is a democracy with explicit checks and ballances between the three branches of government setup to prevent precisely what is occuring. Why should we trust him to be the final arbitar of what programs are legal and which would be overstepping his bounds within the law when he and his team have shown such a knack for the creative justification of every questionable looking program they've enacted that has come to light?
Re:Two things (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense. As a Norwegian, all my non-VISA transactions to and from foreign countries have explicitly involved SWIFT. Payment for magazine articles, for example. Yes, down to 40 USD transactions for rare used books or ebay auctions.
It's the only practical alternative when Visa payment isn't an option, since paypal is
I'm not at all happy about the US having access to, say, Norway-to-France transactions via Swift. And I would expect this to hurt Swift quite a bit.
NPR Interview (Score:5, Informative)
When asked what layers of security were in place to prevent misuse, the reply was that in order to perform a search, the analyst had to show that the individual or group being queried had been identified as having a potential terrorism link. That request had to be vetted by a supervisor, then by a representative from SWIFT. Then, when the query is performed, if no evidence is found, then the information is discarded at the analyst's level. A government auditing team reviews the information that is gleaned and a third party auditing team (from Booz Allen) audits the government.
The undersecretary said that they did remove an analyst earlier this year for abusing the system. The auditing system caught him.
The undersecretary also said that about 10% of the searches performed provided evidence of links to terrorist organizations. That, he said, was a very high rate compared to other intelligence methods.
For me, personally, if that's the way that the government is using the SWIFT database, I don't have a problem with it. If the queries are targeted, as opposed to a broad sweep, it strikes me as a legitimate use of an intelligence asset.
Interestingly enough, the general attitude of the security and privacy experts that ATC interviewed was fairly positive about the program.
-h-
Re: Wow (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.
If you actually look at the 9/11 attacks as well as to other similar situations, you'll find that the only terrorists you are going to catch at the border are those trying to flee the country afterward, and even that is extremely unlikely. You'd also see that those who planned and executed the attacks were not illegal foreigners. Hence, similar to the situation you pointed out yourself, such actions would have virtually zero effect on terrorism.
All the screaming and arguing about illegal immigrants is really yet another way to divert attention away from what is really happening.
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:3, Informative)
About half these resources were devoted to political and diplomatic intelligence, with the remainder equally divided between military and economic intelligence.
Re:seriously (Score:2, Informative)
And I don't see why people who know next to nothing about history, are so very vocal about their ignorant views of it.
Besides the extensive ammount of ground American troops captured, there's the industrial angle. Supplies for Britan and Russia were largely comming from the US. That's primarily why Japan and Germany conspired to attack the US. The US immediately became a manufacturing giant that no other country could ever hope to match.
Britan, despite years of war, didn't have a single victory to speak of until the US joined, and started fighting along with them. Russia was being absolutely slaughtered. How could anyone believe this would just have magically turned around, if the US had not gotten involved?
And it definately wasn't anywhere near the "last year" of the war. Though, I suppose it could have been (with the opposite outcome), if not for the US.
Re:quick success (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't take us into this war with "Saddam might still have a scattering of chemical shells from the 1980's that probably don't even work anymore", they took us in with "Saddam has an active chemical, biological, and nuclear program right NOW (that is actively seeking to buy uranium from Niger, has mobile chemical weapons factories, and is buying tubing for uranium processing facilities), a program that threatens us with a Mushroom cloud wake-up call, etc."
-Eric
Re:quick success (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a quote from David Kay on the topic: "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."
In other words, these finds do not vindicate the president---which is probably why he didn't make a big deal about them.
Now, I agree with you the CNN should have covered it. The Los Angeles Times also appears not to have covered it. But your criticism of the entire "liberal media" is not realistic: NPR, CBS, MSNBC, and the New York Times all covered it. I could look for more, but what's the point?
I'm Calling Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:2, Informative)
He doesn't use a cane because his movements are orchestrated so that he always has someone nearby to hang onto, usually an aide.
There's a pic in his wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] showing him hanging onto Cheney & Bush Sr in 2005.
Heads of state don't want to appear weak. It's not a big deal.