| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA
Yet one more in a long line of hyped stories about the NSA and datamining. The USA Today breathlessly reports, starting off with an eye-catching headline:
NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime.
Gasp! Shocking, right? Wrong. Read on (emphasis added):
This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
What’s involved in datamining?:
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn’t necessary for government data-mining operations. “FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining,” said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that “personal identifiers” — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can’t be included as part of the search. “That requires an additional level of probable cause,” he said.
The telecommunication companies involved:
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
Good on them, but bad on Qwest, who pushed back and refused to take part in the program:
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as “product” in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest’s lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest’s participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest’s patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest’s foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest’s financial health. But Qwest’s legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio’s successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
So let’s see. Thanks to this whistleblown leaked story, if you’re a terrorist and you don’t want to worry about your call being datamined, what telecommunications company are you going to turn to? Hmmmm … I wonder.
Look for Qwest to be given hero status by the hate-Bush wing of the Democratic party (Rick Moran confirms this with a sampling of outraged reactions from the usual suspects), and for Bush’s pick for CIA director Gen. Hayden to take major heat for this because:
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency’s domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
Others blogging about this: Stephen Spruiell at NRO’s Media Blog, Allahpundit, Michelle Malkin, AJ Strata, Stop The ACLU, Confederate Yankee, James Joyner, Joe Gandelman, RightWinged.com, Blog For All, Tom Maguire
PM Update: Yep, they’re coming completely unglued. Examples here (keep some No-Doze handy for that one) and here (I’m a “totalitarian toady” now. Awww!).
PM Update II: The President defends the NSA datamining program.
PM Update III: Very fitting.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- 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’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
86 Responses to “The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
andrew: I don’t even want to know what you are doing! LOL
I was watching a “breathless” report on this last night with a former Bellsouth employee. Their immediate reaction was, “So what, that data has been going to the FCC for years, decades.”
They further intimated that the FCC in turn hands that data over to the DEA so they can analyze it for traffic patterns that collide with known drug rings.
The nations telecom lines are within the public right of way, the government has the authority to monitor traffic and use of the public right of way.
Someone with the resources should find out if Qwest has stopped giving the data to the FCC and if so, I’ll be among the first to stand up in support of pulling their liscense for abuse of the public right of way.
–Jason
- The public airwaves and all forms of public transmission is exactly that. Public domain. when you go forth, your contacts and movements are no longer private. The contents of your conversations are, unless you are involved in espionage or unlawful activities. The SCOTUS has ruled on this many times over the years, and always supported “tracking” as Constitutional. So when Andrew and the rest of the Left whine, its just their partisan reaction to something thats absolutely legal.
- But say it fast enough, and often enough, and surround it with a pile of misinformation, and you can turn a legal, long standing law enforcement process, into something “sinister” against BushCo. See how it works kiddies….
- Personally I think that some of this yammering is coming from people that have more than a passing interest in maintaining the flow of drug traffic….
- Bang
I followed a link from the NYTimes website to this website and I feel like I’ve left Kansas. All this talk about the harmless nature of collecting and finding patterns leaves me cold. If data mining is such a non-issue why not allow data collection of gun ownership? I believe the former AG (I can’t remember his name) said no such database would ever be created. Why not? Guns are a whole lot more dangerous than phone calls aren’t they? In any case, honest American citizens should have nothing to worry about.
The legality of the NSA collecting data is rather murky to me. What is emerging as I write this message is that the NSA may not have violated any laws by accepting the data provided by the telecoms, but the telecoms may have violated the law by providing the data. If this bears out, that terrible telecom Qwest may have been following the law while those other wonderful telecoms actually broke the law. Is it appropriate for the government to ask others to violate laws for them?
Baklava, I think you do a terrible disservice to conversation with your attempt to tear down CB Howell’s post, particularly since so much of your post was simply non-responsive. CBH’s heavy use of quotations is a bit off-putting but he does ask a good question – Is party loyalty all we care about in this and future debates? I add to this, a question of my own, should legality be the only measure by which we judge this and all future policy?
” The contents of your conversations are”
Why are the content’s private? they go out on public airwaves too.
“I add to this, a question of my own, should legality be the only measure by which we judge this and all future policy?”
- And then the Left wonders why they’re seen as soft on terrorists, and the entire WOT in general.
- If one of the terrorists cells gets through, particularly because we were timid about hurting the “sensibilities” of the Liberals, doing everything possible to pursue the enemy, and as a result one of our cities go up in nuclear dust, I have a feeling phone lists will look like a Sunday picnic compared to what will come after.
- Bang
Bang, is that really your answer? More pontificating? More overwrought statements as to what liberals will or won’t do? I don’t know you, you don’t know me. That was my first post on this board, not even willing to give me a chance?
I posed 3 issues. This wasn’t an adequete response to any of them. Is it is an axiom of the conservitive creed that whatever is legal is correct? I wasn’t aware.
- Atually at this point, you’d probably be hard put to convince anyone with a working brain cell that the Left even believes there is a war, much less takes it seriously. If that label gets your shorts in a bunch Sparky, blame it on the pinheads in your own party that continue to look like traitors to America, with each and every feckless comment in front of the microphones.
- Todays gem performance had Schumer on one camera, waving his hands and proclaiming the usual “sky is falling” screeds, pushing Pelosi away from the microphones, because you know the Dems just have to take care of the “Nancy” problem, while in a nother area of the Capital Reid was loudly proclaiming his support for Hayden and enumerating his many accomplishments in the field of security.
- But hey. Not to worry. I’m sure they’ll get it all together by hearings time.
- pontificating? overwrought? ….I’m sure those evasions will warm you in looking back, if we have another 9/11 or worse Sport.
- Bang
Come on, sparky? sport? evasions? really don’t want to give me a chance do you?
I am writing from NYC. Until recently, I worked in downtown Manhattan. I was covered in the dust from the fall of the towers. I breathed some of that dust in, some got into my eyes and mouth. I say dust, but we all know it could easily be ground up people that was getting into me.
When the towers fell, the sky went dark for a couple of minutes although it felt much longer. It was like being in a dense fog. Although I knew the area intimately, I became disoriented because I couldn’t see more than a few feet in front of me. I wanted to make a filter out of my shirt so I could breath but I couldn’t because the dust got into everything and my tie wouldn’t slip off. I began to choke and I thought I might die. I really believe I only made it because some brave guy stood in the middle of the street urging everyone to get inside a nearby restaurant where I washed the dust off and had something to drink. Weeks after 9/11 the smell of burnt metal hung in the air. Have I established my bona fides? I think I know something about 9/11 that you don’t, Chief. Where were you that day, in your survivalist bunker clutching your AR-15?
Are you angry because I said you were pontificating and that your statements were overwrought? Fine, I’ll apologize if you tell me how your post was in anyway responsive to my post. Tell me that it you support the creation of a database on gun owners, you support the government to asking companies to break laws on its behalf (Qwest isn’t a subversive or a heroic company, they just wanted a letter absolving them of possible future legal action), that party loyalty is the most important act one can perform and that the legality of an action always signals correct behavior (and that this is a core element in the conservative creed). Agree to all this and I can see how my post was worthless. If you disagree then please do so in a way that does not suggest I risk Armageddon with a subversive post that so far has reached only two people, namely, you and me.
jaxschin asked, “Is party loyalty all we care about in this and future debates?”
No. There’s your answer.
jax wrote, “The legality of the NSA collecting data is rather murky to me.”
That’s a good honest message. I respect that. I’d say the same thing. I just want to point out MANY people on the left are acting like experts and saying this is undoubtably illegal.
CB wrote, “I suppose that you too refuse to believe that the globe is getting warmer,”
Leaving aside the other condescencion about living in a hole in that paragraph, I’d like to point out that the globe has not gotten warmer over the last 8 years. Before that 8 years there was a 23 or 27 year (can’t remember) warming of 1 degree but prior to that there was a LONGER period which included much of the industrial period and period of carbereuters and no concern almost where the globe got cooler. Just wanted to set the record straight for you.
CB asked, “This is an honest question and I would appreciate sincere responses. Perhaps I might not have such a problem with it if there were a logical explanation constrained by the terms suggested in previous threads.”
I look at it the other way around. Why not do it and #2) Why not have history at hand when a suspect is determined to be part of Al Qaida. You’d already have the information at your disposal and for speed’s sake you might be able to thwart a plot by having the data on hand. If someone is determined to be AQ and you see there are 10 people he/she called in life essentially you could obtain warrants and tap those calls. I’m not in favor of putting up barriers (or expanding them) like Jamie Gorelick did and got away with.
BTW Jax, your second paragraph of your last post was irrelevant. There are the Kristens and the Debras of 9/11. Both sides of the political spectrum are represented by 9/11 survivors and 9/11 widows and broken families.
Jax asked, “Have I established my bona fides? ”
Not really. Again. You could be wrong and right on the issues no matter where you were that day. Do you recognize that?
Jax lamented the condescension (didn’t like sparky) but provided some of his own by saying, “I think I know something about 9/11 that you don’t, Chief. Where were you that day, in your survivalist bunker clutching your AR-15?”
Jax asked a question that MAY have a false premise, “you support the government to asking companies to break laws on its behalf ”
Why would others have to respond to a question that may have an incorrect premise?
It does add to the debate to say it may be illegal. But then that would be it. It’s more information to chew on and research. As far as I can tell the 1994 act passed by a Democrat Congress and Bill Clinton sets up the fact that telecom companies are supposed to cooperate by giving information asked for.
But I could be wrong too.
Notice that the same people who are whining “it may be legal but is it ethical” are the same people who were staunch supporters of the “it depends on what the meaning of is is” and “a blow job is not really intercourse” crowd.
- Actually its a little simpler than all that. there is a pile of posts on this dead old horse, if the people that jump on here and start expecting responses that have been gone over ad nausea, were not to lazy to click on and read. What point is there in rewriting the same things that have already been gone over and over, since you just know immediatly from the paranoid “Oh dear our government is out to get us” tone of the questions what the real reason for them is in the first place.
- Its not about intelligent debate, its about demonizing BushCo at every opportunity. Now we get to listen to a bunch of bitter losers yammering about anti-espionage and law enforcement techniques that have been around in one form or another since before WWII.
- I’m supposed to take that sort of feckless perfidity serious. When pigs fly out of my butt.
- Only children believe knock knock jokes will work in the adult world. Thats why they’re out of power, and thats why they’ll stay that way till they drop the dumb ass acts and get a party plan.
- Bang
I just stumbled onto this forum, looking to find out why the USA Today of all places broke this news. As such I have no real substanative idea about the political creed followed by the writers and readers. However if you think that tapping 300 million phones and the Internet that can be gotten ahold of even Could make you safer you gotta be joking.
Okay look at that previous figure, the population of the US minus 20-50 million, and think about HOW MUCH DATA that really is. They aren’t looking for a needle in a haystack–they’re looking for a lost ring in a desert! Please there is no reason to try and get political over our privacy, this is yours AND mine, but there are many concerns to be had.
First: off such a database would be an enormous financial resource, and I wouldn’t trust anyone to keep out of that honeypot, I mean MY bank sells my info–jeez.
Second: the information security on a database that is a honeypot, in the sense that its desired data by all sorts, like Lexus Nexus or anywhere else is subject to security breaches and centralizing the data makes it easier to fall into the wrong hands. Last I looked I could buy my telephone records online too.
I recently got enamored by a group of older military strategists who wrote up a bunch of stuff on ‘asymmetric warfare’ and ‘4th generation warfare’. I highly suggest looking up those aforementioned topics on wiki and giving them a look over.
My understanding is that during the Clinton era, we discontinued our use of regular human intelligence agents, good ol’ fashion spys, and thought we could move into a wholy technology based approach. This just hasn’t been working out, it turns out, and now we need the people that were all fired years back and we need them up to date and speaking Arabic. Sadly this is not quick. Human intelligence has be instrumental to the US in bringing down dictators before and I think many people are wondering why we didn’t do it that way again.
Basically missles and bombs don’t do anything against ‘terrorism’ as we define the word, they kill so many innocents as to whip those eligible into a blind faith-frenzy. (yes there are smart bombs, and they’re smart 50% of the time and the other 50% well then they’re stupid)
We need an over haul and sorry to say it has little to do with Bush or his administration, but the appartus of warefar itself and the strategy of nation-building. Remember to extremist groups our troops killing innocents is as good as new recruits. Just like when H W Bush ordered the Iraqi resistance to rebel over ten years ago and failed to provide suppport for them as Saddam’s helicopters gunned them down- so now we again have a Bush to lead us and again he has widdled our allies’ thin.
D
civil libertarian and jerk ; )
From Baklava
>> jax wrote, “The legality of the NSA collecting data is rather murky to me.”
>>That’s a good honest message. I respect that. I’d say the same thing. I just want to point out MANY people on the left are acting like experts and saying this is undoubtably illegal.
People who post on these forums tend to be young. Young people can overstate things. They can also be lazy and not get their facts right. This shouldn’t mean that the position they hold is wrong. I read crazy things from both parties.
>>CB wrote, “I suppose that you too refuse to believe that the globe is getting warmer”
>>Leaving aside the other condescension about living in a hole in that paragraph, I’d like to point out that >>the globe has not gotten warmer over the last 8 years
If you think he is condescending to you, rip him a new one. But don’t reply to his post by talking about global warming. This is a red herring.
>>BTW Jax, your second paragraph of your last post was irrelevant. There are the Kristens and the Debras of 9/11. Both sides of the political spectrum are represented by 9/11 survivors and 9/11 widows and broken families.
>>Jax asked, “Have I established my bona fides? ”
>>Not really. Again. You could be wrong and right on the issues no matter where you were that day. Do >>you recognize that?
I don’t think it is irrelevant at all. On retrospect, I wish I hadn’t shared my personal history here but Bang seemed to insinuate that I had forgotten about 9/11 or that I was blithely risking another 9/11. I was there on 9/11 and hadn’t forgotten anything, nor would I want anyone else to undergo what I experienced that day. The bona fides I mention refer to the same.
>>Jax lamented the condescension (didn’t like sparky) but provided some of his own by saying, “I think I >>know something about 9/11 that you don’t, Chief. Where were you that day, in your survivalist bunker >>clutching your AR-15?”
Bang also called me sport in a decidedly unfriendly way. He was getting nasty; I returned the favor.
>>Jax asked a question that MAY have a false premise, “you support the government to asking companies >>to break laws on its behalf ”
>>Why would others have to respond to a question that may have an incorrect premise?
What incorrect premise are you referring to?
From Severian
>> Notice that the same people who are whining “it may be legal but is it ethical” are the same people who >>were staunch supporters of the “it depends on what the meaning of is is” and “a blow job is not really >>intercourse” crowd.
I asked whether legality should be the only issue we should be concerned with. I did not mention ethics at all. I asked this because whether NSA data collecting is legal or not seemed to be central to most of the posts on this thread. Only CB Howell asked could this could really work. The ethical question is always important because at it’s heart what it really asks is can we as a society support a particular action. Other questions that could have been asked are: Can this work?, Is this an efficient use of resources? If we allow this to happen will NSA ask for further data to make results more meaningful? Should laws be set up to eliminate the possibility of this slippery slope? These questions didn’t even surface. I’m sure you can think of more.
As to the blow job comment, I remind you that hair splitting is common to politicians of both parties. During arguments for oil drilling in the Alaska nature preserve, some proponents argued that the presence of any oil rig built would have a minimal presence. They argued that only the space displaced by the stilts upon which the massive rig is placed. should be counted. By extension, I would be able to argue that my desk only occupies 1 square feet although I have a computer, a 19 inch monitor, several books, a bag of chips, a soda and several other items on my desk. I can make this argument because I only count the legs of my desk and not its horizontal surface.
From Bang
>>Actually its a little simpler than all that. there is a pile of posts on this dead old horse, if the people that >>jump on here and start expecting responses that have been gone over ad nausea, were not to lazy to click on and read. What point is there in rewriting the same things that have already been gone over and over, since you just know immediately from the paranoid “Oh dear our government is out to get us” tone of the questions what the real reason for them is in the first place.
I didn’t ask for you to respond. You chose to respond with a post whose message is primarily “looney liberal”. Not helpful or otherwise interesting. Nor was the post old. The news story was first posted on 5/11. My first post was on 5/12. This lazy comment comes out of nowhere. Care to prove that everything I say has been asked and answered?
>>- Its not about intelligent debate, its about demonizing BushCo at every opportunity. Now we get to listen to a bunch of bitter losers yammering about anti-espionage and law enforcement techniques that >>have been around in one form or another since before WWII.
If I wanted to hear my own thoughts echoed to me I wouldn’t even have posted on this board. What is with the persecution complex? Why do you even feel the need to defend BushCo? Is he the Republican ideal? I can understand being passionate about traditional Republican values but Bush the man? Further, the fact that techniques exist going back decades should not mean that the actual execution of those techniques should be given a immediate pass. There is a huge difference between being able to do something on a theoretical or limited basis and doing the same thing on a persistent and massive scale.
>> I’m supposed to take that sort of feckless perfidity serious. When pigs fly out of my butt
I have never been called a moron with such eloquence. (Congratulations on your SAT score, I am sure you did well.) .
>>Only children believe knock knock jokes will work in the adult world. Thats why they’re out of power, >>and thats why they’ll stay that way till they drop the dumb ass acts and get a party plan.
Huh?
Jax wrote, “On retrospect, I wish I hadn’t shared my personal history here ”
That’s cool. My point on that remains there are the Debra B.’s and Kristen B’s. You don’t have a certain view point just because you had a loved one taken from you or breathed the dust.
The question of legality is the main question. Hayden maintained today that it is legal. I agree based on my limited unclassified citizen research.