Jay at Stop The ACLU has done some digging and lo and behold, the same institution who slammed the admin for the latest NSA ’scandal’ - regarding datamining of ‘millions of phone calls’ - has (or at one point had) a data collection of its own. From the SF Chronicle, Dec. 2004:
The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.
Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.
The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members.
“It is part of the ACLU’s mandate, part of its mission, to protect consumer privacy,” said Wendy Kaminer, an ACLU board member. “It goes against ACLU values to engage in data-mining on people without informing them. It’s not illegal, but it is a violation of our values. It is hypocrisy.”
The organization has been shaken by infighting since May, when the board learned that Anthony Romero, its executive director, had registered the ACLU for a federal charity drive that required it to certify that it would not knowingly employ people whose names appeared on government terrorism watch lists.
A day after the New York Times disclosed its participation in late July, the organization withdrew from the charity drive and has since filed a lawsuit with other charities to contest the watch list requirement.
The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.
He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”
LOL. I tell ya, you just can’t make this stuff up.
On a not so funny note, Big Lizards went back and looked at the original NYT reporting on the beginning of the initial NSA ’scandal’ (regarding warrantless wiretaps of suspected AQ calls made to or from the US) and has found within the article that the news about the datamining is in that article. In other words, this isn’t a new story. From the December 24, 2005 article:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
[…]
Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.’s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.
What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.
(Hat tip for the Big Lizards link: ST reader Severian)
So what we have here essentially is a recycling of old news. Why? I’ll venture a guess or two and say that it has everything to do with 1) hurting Bush and via extension the Republicans in an election year and 2) targeting Gen. Hayden, who was at one time the head of the NSA - specifically at the time the datamining was stepped up (post 9-11).
In predictable knee-jerk fashion, Congress is demanding answers. One Congressman has created a new name for the NSA:
Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s telecommunications and internet panel, had a different view: “The NSA stands for Now Spying on Americans.”
Cute. I’d vote for describing Congressman Malarky Markey (and others who hold that same view) as Not So Astute - but that’s just me.
Score one for the bad guys.
More: CNN’s Jack Cafferty exclaims:
We better all hope nothing happens to Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee because he might be all standing between us and a full blown dictatorship in this country.
See the video at Expose The Left.
Update: Remember Qwest, the one telecommunications company who wouldn’t give permission to the NSA to monitor its customer’s phone calls because of privacy concerns? Well, check out Qwest’s privacy policy (emphasis added):
Disclosure of Information Outside Qwest
As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate. For example, we may hire outside companies as contractors or agents; or we might be engaged in a joint venture or partnership with a company. Upon occasion, Qwest may decide to stop providing a service or may decide to sell or transfer parts of our business to unaffiliated companies. When this happens, we may provide confidential customer information to these companies so that they can offer you the same or similar services. In all of these situations, we provide information to these other companies only as needed to accomplish our business objectives and the companies are bound by requirements to keep Qwest customers’ information confidential.
There are exceptions to the general rule. For example, we might provide information to regulatory or administrative agencies so that they can accomplish their regulatory tasks (for example, responding to a customer complaint) or to maximize the efficiencies of our own processes (such as getting mailing addresses correct, for example). Other disclosures will be driven by legal requirements imposed on Qwest. Qwest complies with “legal process,” such as a subpoena or court order or other similar demand, associated with either criminal or civil proceedings.
So they’ll make exceptions to their privacy rules when it suits them (read: to make more money), but not to help the NSA track unusual phone call patterns that could lead to catching terrorists. Unreal! (Hat tip: Powerline reader John Farmer)
Friday AM Update: The NYT, true to form, writes an editorial slamming the admin on this story, while failing to acknowledge that they are a little late to the ball game since they had already written about it back in December. Surprise surprise. This is carrying the liberal mantra about recyling (in this case - recyling old news) to new heights (or lows).
Also blogging about the latest NSA ’scandal’: Allahpundit - who has a link to video of the President speaking about the NSA and datamining, Brent Baker at Newsbusters (more here from Rich Noyes), Captain Ed, Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy, Jeff Goldstein, Media Research, Decision ‘08, Gary Gross at California Conservative
Related Toldjah So posts:
- The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA
- FDR and domestic surveillance
- Sen. Russ Feingold demagogues NSA surveillance ’scandal’
- It doesn’t get any better than Jeff Goldstein (re: Feingold’s stunt)
- Senator Russ Feingold calls for censure of Bush
- House approves Patriot Act, Senate panel rejects broad NSA inquiry
- NSA Surveillance Program ’scandal’ - update
- Congressional probe of NSA surveillance may not happen afterall
- Admin briefs Congress on NSA surveillance
- Thomas Sowell on the NSA ’scandal’ controversy
- NSA ’scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out
- Intelligence officials: NSA leak has undermined ability to fight terrorism
- On politicizing the Patriot Act and the NSA ’scandal’
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
| Email This Post | Print This |
- Answer to ReidBlog: Well, ask yourself if you feel lucky. Well do you sparky? Then ask yourself how much you’d endure to live to a ripe old age. Now picturw youeself on your hands and knees being given a choice of Sharia’ or beheading. That should give you some idea of your order of priorities I would imagine.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/11/2006 - 11:09 pm
Check the records. During times of war, civil liberties have always been tightened, then loosened and restored when the danger has passed. If schools did a decent job of teaching history, leftists would know that. (Yes, I know they would still not admit it.) Credit Reporting Agencies have infinitely more data on me than the NSA will ever have.
Comment by Bachbone @ 5/11/2006 - 11:26 pm
“So they’ll make exceptions to their privacy rules when it suits them (read: to make more money), but not to help the NSA track unusual phone call patterns that could lead to catching terrorists.”
QWest might be obligated by law to keep this data private until mandated by another law to give it up.
Comment by andrew @ 5/12/2006 - 12:53 am
Bachbone,
Help this “leftist” out, please. I was looking back through history, trying to find a relevant example of the last time we declared war on a tactic (i.e. terrorism). I only ask because aren’t we in a situation where victory can never be achieved, the “danger” will never pass, and therefore potentially there will never be restoration of the civil liberties we’re rescinding every day?
Comment by jeff @ 5/12/2006 - 2:08 am
Bachbone, you are sure right about schools teaching history or should I say the lack of. I’ll bet the Castro regime has never eavesdropped or read the mail coming into Cuba or going out and don’t some lefties think Castro is great. There aren’t enough people at the NSA to listen to every phone call or read every email they are looking for buzz words. So don’t use words like “bomb” or “hijack” and your phone call or email won’t even be noticed. The ACLU has become a joke and nothing more.
Comment by Jim M @ 5/12/2006 - 6:33 am
Jeff,
Which of your civil liberties, exactly, have been rescinded?
Comment by NC Cop @ 5/12/2006 - 9:21 am
jeff, I don’t know if War was declared on the Barbary Pirates, but we went after them. Piracy is not the same as terrorism, but the effects are the same. Frightened people, dead people, enslaved people.
As for Civil Liberties, they were restored after the Civil War, after the Great War, after the Second World War, and so on. Everyone - not just Leftists - need to learn actual History, not just the good or bad that are pushed by the partisans. If you slam Jefferson for being not only a visionary, but for being also a man of his times and of his place, and as flawed as any man is, then you are being dishonest, as well as foolish. Learn every side of the story, then make a judgement.
Worry about the data mining if you wish. That’s prudent. But remember that it’s not anything new, or unique, and it isn’t only the politicos you loathe that do it. Roosevelt & Kennedy taped private conversations in the White House. Not just Nixon.
Learn all of it. Or you are an empty megaphone, blatting nonsense.
Comment by benning @ 5/12/2006 - 10:21 am
When MSM say they aren’t biased, I am curious, woudl this same type of coverage, this same type of “gotcha” reporting, be happening if a Democrat was President?
Somehow I think the economy would be played up significantly, the media would be out with pom-poms for the war, jobs creations would be lauded, stock market at record highs would be heaped praise on the Democrats by the media….
But that is only if it was a Democrat as President…..
Comment by sanity @ 5/12/2006 - 11:14 am
- Hmmmm…. ACLU data mining…. ITS THE DATA MNING HIPOCRACY!
- OTH seeing the ACLU having to apply for federal support is like watching Humas expect the US to buy thier insurgents bomb belts. The need for fund-raising might be a good sign that their influence is finally waning.
- I’ve watched the ACLU, working in concert with aggressive Atheists, sue to remove a simple cross from the grave matker on Mt.Soledad war memorial, claiming its “offensive” to non-Christians. The fight has been going on for 17 years, with the ACLU utilizing some State laws concerning religious symbols on public land that were never intended for the purpose they’re being put to by the Secularists.
- The most recent ruling by a 9th circuit Liberal judge is to order the city to remove the cross withing 90 days, or pay a daily fine of $5,000. But the fight is far from over. Local politicians, such as San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, and California Representative Duncun Hunter, have set out plans to ask President Bush to declare the Property condemned under Federal rules, and name it as a Mational park. Hunter is on his way to Washington to meet with the Pres. on several issues, and says this is of the highest priority. Sanders has written letters to Bush, asking that he intervien directly.
- James McElroy, the ACLU lawyer for Atheist Philip Paulsen, the individual that initiated the original suit, said the idea of moving it from the State courts into the federal juridiction is “[the] silliest thing I’ve ever heard”, but none the less the SCOTUS originally refused to hear this case, saying it was a State issue, which would change dramatically if defenders get the Federal actions they are hoping for. In response, McElroy said he would seek to ask the judge to raise the daily penalty to $10,000 or $15,000. Nice.
- Personally I consider this entire mess to be a use of the courts to defame people that have given their lives so these Athist bigots can have free speech, and in that way a religious hate crime. At some point this idea of minority rule the activist courts have envagled by mis-application of poorly written laws, needs to end. You do not have a right to be “not offended”. Offensiveness is in the eye and mind of the beholder in this case.
- I’m offended that they hate religion so much, as is the vast majority of local citizens. Wheres our rights being upheld?
- this is not about a single cross on Mt. Soledad. Its about an incidious campaign of the secular left to iradicate all evidence of religious respect this country was founded on, and impose the will of a tiny minority on the Majority of Americans. Bigotry by activist judicial writ.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/12/2006 - 11:23 am
- One correction. the recent ruling was by a state circuit court, not the 9th Federal District. Its pretty mucha sure thing if the President moves on this it will go directly to the SCOTUS, which is probably why the ACLU lawyer has his shorts in a bunch. Incidently locally city council members on the Conservative side all universally support fighting to keep the cross, while Liberals like failed Mayor electee Donna Frye dodge the issue simply stating “too much money has been spent already”. Riiiiight. You can always count on the lying left to evade.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/12/2006 - 11:33 am
Been debating this cross issue on another blog. Can’t seem to get an answer to the question of how this cross constitutes an establishment of religion. I don’t see how it’s placement results in any mandate to believe a given religion, or that it suggests the town has adopted Christianity as it’s official religion. Of course it doesn’t do any of these things, it is as Bang said, a tiny minority imposing it’s will on the majority.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 5/13/2006 - 12:35 am