[SpaceMonkey]

Another interesting NY Times article: The N.S.A.'s Math Problem

While it now appears that the government is not tracking local calls, it does seem likely that they are tracking long-distance calls. Jonathan David Farley, of Stanford University's Center for Security and International Cooperation, argues that such a tracking program will probably yield few results.

But legal or not, this sort of spying program probably isn't worth infringing our civil liberties for — because it's very unlikely that the type of information one can glean from it will help us win the war on terrorism.

Mathematicians who work with pictures like this are called graph theorists, and there is an entire academic field, social network analysis, that tries to determine information about a group from such a chart, like who the key players are or who the cell leaders might be.

But without additional data, its reach is limited: as any mathematician will admit, even when you know everyone in the graph is a terrorist, it doesn't directly portray information about the order or hierarchy of the cell. Social network researchers look instead for graph features like "centrality": they try to identify nodes that are connected to a lot of other nodes, like spokes around the hub of a bicycle wheel.

But this isn't as helpful as you might imagine. First, the "central player" — the person with the most spokes — might not be as important as the hub metaphor suggests. For example, Jafar Adibi, an information scientist at the University of Southern California, analyzed e-mail traffic among Enron employees before the company collapsed. He found that if you naïvely analyzed the resulting graph, you could conclude that one of the "central" players was Ken Lay's ... secretary.

In addition, the National Security Agency's entire spying program seems to be based on a false assumption: that you can work out who might be a terrorist based on calling patterns. While I agree that anyone calling 1-800-ALQAEDA is probably a terrorist, in less obvious situations guilt by association is not just bad law, it's bad mathematics, for two reasons.

The simplest reason is that we're all connected. Not in the Haight-Ashbury/Timothy Leary/late-period Beatles kind of way, but in the sense of the Kevin Bacon game.

A second problem with the spy agency's apparent methodology lies in the way terrorist groups operate and what scientists call the "strength of weak ties." As the military scientist Robert Spulak has described it to me, you might not see your college roommate for 10 years, but if he were to call you up and ask to stay in your apartment, you'd let him. This is the principle under which sleeper cells operate: there is no communication for years. Thus for the most dangerous threats, the links between nodes that the agency is looking for simply might not exist.

[Dork.]

This op-ed assumes that the call information is the only thing that the NSA has to go on in its analysis. The NSA does have other information at its disposal. If they have suspects in mind through other channels and are using the call patterns to determine who they might be related to and determine their relationship to the terrorist cell using other sources, then the program is probably providing some benefit to law enforcement. Whether it is constitutional, or whether the "other methods" they use are constitutional is a separate issue. Then again, they can probably do the same thing by requesting information specifically on people under surveillance, and not building a comprehensive database.

Why would the need a comprehensive database? If the program is using calling data to find primary supects, then it is probably providing mostly false positives and being a net detriment to our efforts to find these cells.

<tinfoilhat>
Unless this NSA effort is really a way to keep track of groups opposed to this Administration's policies under the guise of fighting terrorism. Calling patterns generate a possible suspect, and the NSA gets approval to do more invasive surveillance. The result of that surveillance is a false positive, but in the meantime the NSA knows what that group is up to. Because of the broad secret powers that this Government has developed during the Bush administration, these groups will never find out that they were under surveillance. </tinfoilhat>

I'm not sure if I believe that what I just wrote is what is really happening. But in any case, I don't trust what the Government is doing here.

[BRussell]

The article makes a very good point. One good reason for probable cause is not just a substantive reason dealing with rights, but a statistical one. If a test has any error rate at all - and they all do - then mass testing will always result in large numbers of false positives.

It's why I think mass drug testing is bad, or mass polygraph testing or even medical testing. If you get a positive HIV test but you aren't at risk, the chance that your positive result is a false positive is likely greater than the chance that it's accurate, even if the test itself is very accurate.

The same principle basically applies here. If there are, let's say, a few dozen would-be terrorists in the US right now, and 300 million non-terrorists, the chance that some pattern raises a red flag on a non-terrorist is probably many times greater than that it raises a flag on a real terrorist.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The article makes a very good point. One good reason for probable cause is not just a substantive reason dealing with rights, but a statistical one. If a test has any error rate at all - and they all do - then mass testing will always result in large numbers of false positives.

It's why I think mass drug testing is bad, or mass polygraph testing or even medical testing. If you get a positive HIV test but you aren't at risk, the chance that your positive result is a false positive is likely greater than the chance that it's accurate, even if the test itself is very accurate.

The same principle basically applies here. If there are, let's say, a few dozen would-be terrorists in the US right now, and 300 million non-terrorists, the chance that some pattern raises a red flag on a non-terrorist is probably many times greater than that it raises a flag on a real terrorist.

Well, I suppose it MIGHT be better for the government to have LESS information with which to make a decision about who to nab.

That makes sense if you think our intelligence was up to snuff before 9/11 and before the invasion, right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

Well, I suppose it MIGHT be better for the government to have LESS information with which to make a decision about who to nab.

That makes sense if you think our intelligence was up to snuff before 9/11 and before the invasion, right?

The issue is not whether or not the government would like to have more information. Of course they do. But everything has a price. The op ed suggests the possibility that, even leaving privacy issues aside, the intelligence that the program provides may not even be worth the administrative costs of running it, or the opportunity costs of not using the program's funding for other intelligence ventures.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by abe

Well, I suppose it MIGHT be better for the government to have LESS information with which to make a decision about who to nab.

That makes sense if you think our intelligence was up to snuff before 9/11 and before the invasion, right?

It ain't our intelligence, it's our political leaders. Before 9/11, our intelligence was good (e.g., "Bin Laden determined to strike US"), but our political leaders ignored them. Before the invasion of Iraq, our intelligence agencies were correct in their analyses (e.g., "Iraq didn't go to Africa for nukes), and our political leaders again ignored them.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It ain't our intelligence, it's our political leaders. Before 9/11, our intelligence was good (e.g., "Bin Laden determined to strike US"), but our political leaders ignored them. Before the invasion of Iraq, our intelligence agencies were correct in their analyses (e.g., "Iraq didn't go to Africa for nukes), and our political leaders again ignored them.

And when you believe the people doing a job need help to do it better do you provide them the tools they need or not?

[Rumor]

Abe,

Since you are all knowing, please explain to us ignorant masses exactly how looking at call patterns is going to provide information on terrorists.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Abe,

Since you are all knowing, please explain to us ignorant masses exactly how looking at call patterns is going to provide information on terrorists.

If you were a terrorist and you made it to America you might phone home to get further instructions or let your support team know you'd made it safely. Calls going to a certain country or city might be of interest.

If the FBI ALREADY knew that Mr. XYZ in NYC was already a known supporter of jihad and he called a certain phone number in Tehran on a regular basis and then the FBI saw that a NEW phone has begun making calls to that SAME number in Tehran wouldn't you want to look closer at who this NEW person was calling Tehran?

But that possibility is no longer useful since the wiretapping program was leaked to the press.

The incriminating phone numbers and calling patterns have all been changed now.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

If you were a terrorist and you made it to America you might phone home to get further instructions or let your support team know you'd made it safely. Calls going to a certain country or city might be of interest.

I think he may have meant domestic calling patterns, which is the focus of this other program. Not the wire tapping program.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by abe

If you were a terrorist and you made it to America you might phone home to get further instructions or let your support team know you'd made it safely. Calls going to a certain country or city might be of interest.

If you ALREADY know that Mr. XYZ in NYC is already a known supporter of jihad and he calls a certain phone number in Tehran on a regular basis and then you see that a NEW phone has begun making calls to that SAME number in Tehran wouldn't you want to look closer at who this NEW person is calling Tehran?

But that possibility is no longer useful since the wiretapping program was leaked to the press.

The incriminating phone numbers and calling patterns have all been changed now.

What if the intelligence about Mr. XYZ is wrong and he call Tehran on a regular basis to speak with his parents? What about Mr. Jihad and Mr. Durka that live a state away from each and are helping plan an attack?

IMO, the percentage of legitimate calls to the Middle East vastly outweighs the number of "terrorist" calls.

Thanks for the respose though.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

If you were a terrorist and you made it to America you might phone home to get further instructions or let your support team know you'd made it safely. Calls going to a certain country or city might be of interest.

If the FBI ALREADY knew that Mr. XYZ in NYC was already a known supporter of jihad and he called a certain phone number in Tehran on a regular basis and then the FBI saw that a NEW phone has begun making calls to that SAME number in Tehran wouldn't you want to look closer at who this NEW person was calling Tehran?

But that possibility is no longer useful since the wiretapping program was leaked to the press.

The incriminating phone numbers and calling patterns have all been changed now.

If the US Intelligence authorities already knew that a phone number in Tehran was suspicious, they would already be monitoring it. If they have reason to believe a new phone number might be of interest, they can monitor that, too. They can do all of this without monitoring all calls.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

What if the intelligence about Mr. XYZ is wrong and he call Tehran on a regular basis to speak with his parents? What about Mr. Jihad and Mr. Durka that live a state away from each and are helping plan an attack?

IMO, the percentage of legitimate calls to the Middle East vastly outweighs the number of "terrorist" calls.

Thanks for the respose though.

Contrary to popular belief there are many levels of checking and cross checking information to assure it's accuracy. The call logs are just one tool that can be used in any number of ways, not at all limited only to my intentionally sophomoric example.

If the intelligence about Mr. XYZ is ambiguous or misleading then more scrutiny would be paid a particular subject when and where needed. People's careers are devoted to these endeavors and years are spent studying and learning not just the techniques but the law and the ramifications of their actions. The fear you pose in your post does not take their sophistication, diligence and desire to do the right thing in the right way into account.

Many people really underestimate the level of complexity and professionalism of people in the intelligence service when all you hear about are the few failures that are leaked and those failures are intentionally painted by partisans to make it look like the whole establishment is nothing but buffoons.

That is not the case.

There are laws which govern our listening to calls within the US. The Administration has and will continue to provide for the common defense in a legal manner.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

If the US Intelligence authorities already knew that a phone number in Tehran was suspicious, they would already be monitoring it. If they have reason to believe a new phone number might be of interest, they can monitor that, too. They can do all of this without monitoring all calls.

No one ever said they were monitoring all calls. See? That's how the partisans have painted the news of the wiretap program and of the call logs...so that many Americans believe EVERY call is being monitored.



Everyone, please check your assumptions.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by abe

And when you believe the people doing a job need help to do it better do you provide them the tools they need or not?

The "tools" Bush et al. need to govern properly are beyond humankind's capability to provide.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

No one ever said they were monitoring all calls. See? That's how the partisans have painted the news of the wiretap program and of the call logs...so that many Americans believe EVERY call is being monitored.



Everyone, please check your assumptions.

"Monitoring" = "Looking at call logs". Happy? The point still stands.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork.

"Monitoring" = "Looking at call logs". Happy? The point still stands.

And for good measure, from another article published today that I linked to in another thread:

A senior government official, granted anonymity to speak for publication about the classified program, confirmed on Friday that the security agency had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States.

Abe, again, we're talking about the database of call logs that appears to cover all domestic long-distance calls. Not the selective wiretapping of international calls. The article that I started this thread off with suggests that such a database of all domestic long-distance calls has very limited utility, and could lead to many false positives, further wasting U.S. intelligence resources.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by abe

Contrary to popular belief there are many levels of checking and cross checking information to assure it's accuracy. The call logs are just one tool that can be used in any number of ways, not at all limited only to my intentionally sophomoric example.

If the intelligence about Mr. XYZ is ambiguous or misleading then more scrutiny would be paid a particular subject when and where needed. People's careers are devoted to these endeavors and years are spent studying and learning not just the techniques but the law and the ramifications of their actions. The fear you pose in your post does not take their sophistication, diligence and desire to do the right thing in the right way into account.

Many people really underestimate the level of complexity and professionalism of people in the intelligence service when all you hear about are the few failures that are leaked and those failures are intentionally painted by partisans to make it look like the whole establishment is nothing but buffoons.

That is not the case.

There are laws which govern our listening to calls within the US. The Administration has and will continue to provide for the common defense in a legal manner.

I'm not "fearing" anything. I just made a couple of examples. Best of luck to the administration. So far all they have succeeded in is pissing off the citizens. If they actually make any use of this data remains to be seen.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'm not "fearing" anything. I just made a couple of examples. Best of luck to the administration. So far all they have succeeded in is pissing off the citizens. If they actually make any use of this data remains to be seen.

Your doubts are noted. But intelligence successes or failures are not supposed to make the news. Will you assume, in a period without big headlines stating they have ****ed up or that they have scored an intelligence coup, that the intelligence community is doing a good or a bad job?

If it's good, then I commend you for being able to think independently. If it's bad, then I will point out that there are and have been people who have wanted to harvest this crop of domestic America bashers and Bush bashers all along and they must be pleased that things have worked as well as they have.

If any of the sales people I ever managed tried to make a sale by influencing the least sophisticated, least experienced members of a household, in other words the children, I'd have disciplined them.

But when it happens here there is nothing that can be done.

Foreign agents do exist.

[tie]

Originally Posted by abe

Foreign agents do exist.

And the democratic party just happens to be infested with them. And pretty much every news organization except Fox. Fortunately, we now have the tools to monitor their every communication.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The "tools" Bush et al. need to govern properly are beyond humankind's capability to provide.

For better or worse they are the ones we have to depend on til January 09. Why undermine their efforts to perform for US when they are the only ones who can do the job until the next election?

I'll never understand that.

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

And the democratic party just happens to be infested with them. And pretty much every news organization except Fox. Fortunately, we now have the tools to monitor their every communication.

Hyperbole much?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

"Monitoring" = "Looking at call logs". Happy? The point still stands.

HUGE difference.

Not only one step lower but at least 2 steps lower than what would reasonably be considered objectionable.

Objectionable = Breaking the law by listening.

Minus 1 = The public's mistaken belief that a legal wiretapping program was illegal.

Minus 2 = A list of numbers called with an emphasis on international call patterns.

It's almost zzzzz-able.

[abe]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

And for good measure, from another article published today that I linked to in another thread:



Abe, again, we're talking about the database of call logs that appears to cover all domestic long-distance calls. Not the selective wiretapping of international calls. The article that I started this thread off with suggests that such a database of all domestic long-distance calls has very limited utility, and could lead to many false positives, further wasting U.S. intelligence resources.

You seem to believe in a TV version of law enforcement. And not even a show as realistic as Law & Order, at that!

First of all, let it be the professionals on the job who tell me what is useful to them, not some analyst who may have an interest in bashing the Administration. False positives are expected in such a crude filtering method. It's not SUPPOSED to be the final word. NO ONE is going to be arrested on the basis of just a call log. It can be used to narrow the search. It can be used to substantiate OTHER evidence. It can be used to establish irregularities in calling patterns from a group before a previous attack so that the similar patterns can be recognized before future attacks.

That's as specific as I will get.

Your fears are unfounded.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by abe

Your doubts are noted. But intelligence successes or failures are not supposed to make the news. Will you assume, in a period without big headlines stating they have ****ed up or that they have scored an intelligence coup, that the intelligence community is doing a good or a bad job?

If it's good, then I commend you for being able to think independently. If it's bad, then I will point out that there are and have been people who have wanted to harvest this crop of domestic America bashers and Bush bashers all along and they must be pleased that things have worked as well as they have.

If any of the sales people I ever managed tried to make a sale by influencing the least sophisticated, least experienced members of a household, in other words the children, I'd have disciplined them.

But when it happens here there is nothing that can be done.

Foreign agents do exist.

I'm going to have to say it's a mix of both. Rarely are we going to hear when they do an outstanding job, but of course we'll hear when they **** up. Without actually being involved in that field, I cannot say whether they are doing an overall good or poor job. It would be mighty presumptuous of me to cast judgement either way.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The article makes a very good point. One good reason for probable cause is not just a substantive reason dealing with rights, but a statistical one. If a test has any error rate at all - and they all do - then mass testing will always result in large numbers of false positives.

It's why I think mass drug testing is bad, or mass polygraph testing or even medical testing. If you get a positive HIV test but you aren't at risk, the chance that your positive result is a false positive is likely greater than the chance that it's accurate, even if the test itself is very accurate.

The same principle basically applies here. If there are, let's say, a few dozen would-be terrorists in the US right now, and 300 million non-terrorists, the chance that some pattern raises a red flag on a non-terrorist is probably many times greater than that it raises a flag on a real terrorist.

You are assuming the consequences are comparable. That seems like an incorrect assumption. The consequences of a false positive in an information screening program is that some investigator will take the lead, look more closely, and decide it was a waste of time. That is much like a lot of policing. Not every lead turns out to be meaningful, but that is not an argument for not looking for the lead.

Compared to the consequences of a terrorist cell going undetected, a false lead is rather trivial. If the terrorist cell goes undetected, the consequences could be like 911 times a thousand. Jokes aside, you have to remember that terrorists are in the business of terrorism. You seem to have forgotten that. Even if there are a huge number of false leads, it is worth it if you catch the terrorists. Especially, of course, if you succeed in "connecting the dots" (which a couple of years ago everyone was complaining we were failing to do) before the terrorists act.

By the way, the reason why mass drug testing and the like generally isn't allowed (exceptions being the military and airline pilots) is because the Fourth Amendment is triggered in those cases. It has nothing to do with the number of false positives, everything to do with ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis. But that doesn't apply here because the Supreme Court has already held that this isn't an issue where the Fourth Amendment applies.

And that, of course, is why the NYT writer is wrong when he said:

But legal or not, this sort of spying program probably isn't worth infringing our civil liberties for

Civil liberties simply aren't being infringed because (so the Court tells us) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this kind of information.

And a final thought on this essay: The NSA is in the business of signals intelligence and code breaking. By reputation, they are the best in the business. I trust them to know whether something is worth doing more than I do the New York Times.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'm going to have to say it's a mix of both. Rarely are we going to hear when they do an outstanding job, but of course we'll hear when they **** up. Without actually being involved in that field, I cannot say whether they are doing an overall good or poor job. It would be mighty presumptuous of me to cast judgement either way.

I commend you. And the country would be better off if all the dissenters recognized what you do.

[FeLiZeCaT]

"1-800-ALQAEDA"

That made me smile.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And a final thought on this essay: The NSA is in the business of signals intelligence and code breaking. By reputation, they are the best in the business. I trust them to know whether something is worth doing more than I do the New York Times.

That's funny, because for a while CIA was the top of Intelligence, then after 9/11, they were a disgrace.

Now NSA is top of the world.

OK. I re-read your post: NSA is better that NY Times.

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

"1-800-ALQAEDA"

That made me smile.

It was a good line.

I smiled too.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by abe

It was a good line.

I smiled too.

Yeah. It's like those sex-lines, where the only sex you get is in your head.

Bummer; another telephone con!

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Yeah. It's like those sex-lines, where the only sex you get is in your head.

Bummer; another telephone con!

That's another story! Off topic.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

That's funny, because for a while CIA was the top of Intelligence, then after 9/11, they were a disgrace.

Now NSA is top of the world.

OK. I re-read your post: NSA is better that NY Times.

CIA and NSA don't overlap in function. Signals intelligence and codebreaking are NSA's balliwick. By reputation, they are the best in the world.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You are assuming the consequences are comparable. That seems like an incorrect assumption. The consequences of a false positive in an information screening program is that some investigator will take the lead, look more closely, and decide it was a waste of time. That is much like a lot of policing. Not every lead turns out to be meaningful, but that is not an argument for not looking for the lead.

Compared to the consequences of a terrorist cell going undetected, a false lead is rather trivial. If the terrorist cell goes undetected, the consequences could be like 911 times a thousand. Jokes aside, you have to remember that terrorists are in the business of terrorism. You seem to have forgotten that. Even if there are a huge number of false leads, it is worth it if you catch the terrorists. Especially, of course, if you succeed in "connecting the dots" (which a couple of years ago everyone was complaining we were failing to do) before the terrorists act.

If it's truly a bad program that simply clogs up their databases with useless information, then they should be even more reluctant to use it when the stakes are high, because the waste of time is even more consequential.

By the way, the reason why mass drug testing and the like generally isn't allowed (exceptions being the military and airline pilots) is because the Fourth Amendment is triggered in those cases. It has nothing to do with the number of false positives, everything to do with ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis. But that doesn't apply here because the Supreme Court has already held that this isn't an issue where the Fourth Amendment applies.

Even if the 4th amendment doesn't apply to this call records case (I'll take you word for it), other relevant statutes absolutely do.

One thing I'll say about this: Our intelligence services seem to be in outright rebellion right now. I don't know exactly what's going on, whether it's partisan liberals trying to get back at the conservative administration, or patriotic Americans acting as whistle-blowers against a government breaking the law, or a turf war, or what. But it's really astonishing what's going on. I'm not so much concerned about these revelations hurting national security, as I am about what it says about the morale of these folks. Things must be pretty bad right now for all this to be happening.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

If it's truly a bad program that simply clogs up their databases with useless information, then they should be even more reluctant to use it when the stakes are high, because the waste of time is even more consequential.
Even if the 4th amendment doesn't apply to this call records case (I'll take you word for it), other relevant statutes absolutely do.

One thing I'll say about this: Our intelligence services seem to be in outright rebellion right now. I don't know exactly what's going on, whether it's partisan liberals trying to get back at the conservative administration, or patriotic Americans acting as whistle-blowers against a government breaking the law, or a turf war, or what. But it's really astonishing what's going on. I'm not so much concerned about these revelations hurting national security, as I am about what it says about the morale of these folks. Things must be pretty bad right now for all this to be happening.

From both of our limited knowledge of the facts of the matter and the procedures and details and protocols and etc. involved, NEITHER of us can say for sure whether it will or it WON"T CLOG UP THEIR DATABASES.

So, in lieu of a poster coming here with detailed intimate knowledge and experience to clear it up, don't you think the only prudent thing to do is trust that the people doing the jobs know what they are doing and they shouldn't be second guessed by people who are only applying their limited knowledge and frames of reference on a task that in actuality few people in the world have the brains or the training to do at all or the experience to do well?

What you are doing is like coming up to a person working on a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and removing half the mess of pieces on his table while reasoning, "oh, he doesn't need these pieces! He's got too many as it is!"

How can you say things must be bad?

Your thought processes are negative and you speak from your emotions without much fact to back up your statements.

I think maybe you should leave this commenting on politics and foreign policy and things to those who are better equipped to do it objectively.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

(...) NSA (...)By reputation, they are the best in the world.

Prove it, instead of bringing hearsay.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by abe

From both of our limited knowledge of the facts of the matter and the procedures and details and protocols and etc. involved, NEITHER of us can say for sure whether it will or it WON"T CLOG UP THEIR DATABASES.

FUZZY ALERT

Failure to interpret correctly

Originally Posted by BRussell

clogs up their databases with useless information

If the information is useless. By sitting in the database with no real use for it, it "clogs" it up since that space could be used for information that is useful.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

How does one decide if information is useful or not, until it's been checked out?

This whole thing sounds like another of those issues that few other than the people actually tasked with doing the job, know anything about.

So everybody and their brother can before the fact second guess and gripe "you shouldn't do this and that...", then after the fact Monday Morning QB and gripe "you should have done this and that..." but never actually have to know how anything actually gets done.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

How does one decide if information is useful or not, until it's been checked out?

This whole thing sounds like another of those issues that few other than the people actually tasked with doing the job, know anything about.

So everybody and their brother can before the fact second guess and gripe "you shouldn't do this and that...", then after the fact Monday Morning QB and gripe "you should have done this and that..." but never actually have to know how anything actually gets done.

I'm just harrassing Abe. Check my post farther up.

[dcmacdaddy]

I have some VERY limited knowledge about the general computing capabilities at the NSA from a previous co-worker.

Yes, it is true that they have tremendous amounts of computer storage (petabyte-sized databases are the norm for NSA) and computational power (NSA owns the most number of supercomputers in the world) but the logic still applies that searching for a needle in a haystack (the few calls being made by terrorists out of hundreds of millions calls being made by everyone else) could be done better with different search methods.


The government has a terrorist watch list with several hundred thousand names on it. Why don't they focus on the phone records of those individuals? Simple logic dictates that a small number of positive results from a small set will provide a higher rate of success than a small number of positives from a much, much larger set.

Now, if you want to argue about the "known unknowns" and the likelihood that there might be some terrorists out there the intelligence community doesn't know about, then you have to ask yourself what systemic problem is there with our terrorist detection system that they can come up with a list of several hundred thousands possible suspects but not have confidence that this list is all-encompassing.

I don't buy the argument that analyzing all call records just might, maybe, perhaps, possibly help root out a couple new bad guys we don't know about. And more important, I am not willing to trade civil liberties on the infinitesimally small chance that there are un-known bad guys out there we need to find. If that logic is employed then it becomes a reductio ad absurdum because no matter how large a group of calls you surveil you can always make the claim that their is "just one more" call needing to be monitored. At that point, EVERY call is suspect and the concept of personal privacy is gone. I don't want that and will fight it every step of the way!

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

FUZZY ALERT

Failure to interpret correctly



If the information is useless. By sitting in the database with no real use for it, it "clogs" it up since that space could be used for information that is useful.

Learn to use the Fuzzy Alert right or don't use it at all.

Who says it is useless? YOU-seless? BRussell? ObtUSSELLess? You two aren't in the position to make that call, son.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by abe

Learn to use the Fuzzy Alert right or don't use it at all.

Who says it is useless? YOU-seless? BRussell? ObtUSSELLess? You two aren't in the position to make that call, son.

I'm fun at you. Read my post though and it says if, which is the keyword.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I have some VERY limited knowledge about the general computing capabilities at the NSA from a previous co-worker.

Yes, it is true that they have tremendous amounts of computer storage (petabyte-sized databases are the norm for NSA) and computational power (NSA owns the most number of supercomputers in the world) but the logic still applies that searching for a needle in a haystack (the few calls being made by terrorists out of hundreds of millions calls being made by everyone else) could be done better with different search methods.


The government has a terrorist watch list with several hundred thousand names on it. Why don't they focus on the phone records of those individuals? Simple logic dictates that a small number of positive results from a small set will provide a higher rate of success than a small number of positives from a much, much larger set.

Now, if you want to argue about the "known unknowns" and the likelihood that there might be some terrorists out there the intelligence community doesn't know about, then you have to ask yourself what systemic problem is there with our terrorist detection system that they can come up with a list of several hundred thousands possible suspects but not have confidence that this list is all-encompassing.

I don't buy the argument that analyzing all call records just might, maybe, perhaps, possibly help root out a couple new bad guys we don't know about. And more important, I am not willing to trade civil liberties on the infinitesimally small chance that there are un-known bad guys out there we need to find. If that logic is employed then it becomes a reductio ad absurdum because no matter how large a group of calls you surveil you can always make the claim that their is "just one more" call needing to be monitored. At that point, EVERY call is suspect and the concept of personal privacy is gone. I don't want that and will fight it every step of the way!

Without going into detail that I have no knowledge of I will just ask this: How many exceptions to your rationale here would it take to validate the importance of these calls to the people who requested them?

One.

How many ways are there to make use of this information?

Innumerable.

How many ways are you considering in trying to make it seem as though you know best how to protect this country?

Two or three.

I think that's enough said about that.

But should your friend have spoken with you at all about NSA capabilities?

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Prove it, instead of bringing hearsay.

It's generally recognized by everyone who is knowledgeable. If you don't know the basics I think you should take him at his word or do your own homework to play on this level or to DISPROVE what he says.

It would be like someone asking you to prove that Newfoundlanders are like America's rednecks.

Everyone who knows it, knows it. Those who don't know it should just take their word for it. Anyone who doubts it should find out for themselves.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by abe

It's generally recognized by everyone who is knowledgeable. If you don't know the basics I think you should take him at his word or do your own homework to play on this level or to DISPROVE what he says.

It would be like someone asking you to prove that Newfoundlanders are like America's rednecks.

Everyone who knows it, knows it. Those who don't know it should just take their word for it. Anyone who doubts it should find out for themselves.

I see. You say it means it is true.

Well I think you are an ***hole. I know it, and It's generally recognized by everyone who is knowledgeable. If you don't know the basics I think you should take me at my word or do your own homework to play on this level or to DISPROVE what I say.

It would be like someone asking me to prove that Americans are like fish.

Everyone who knows it, knows it. Those who don't know it should just take their word for it. Anyone who doubts it should find out for themselves.

Well I found the Truth.

Thanks Abe!

Do you now see the absurdity of your reasoning?

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I see. You say it means it is true.

Well I think you are an ***hole. I know it, and It's generally recognized by everyone who is knowledgeable. If you don't know the basics I think you should take me at my word or do your own homework to play on this level or to DISPROVE what I say.

It would be like someone asking me to prove that Americans are like fish.

Everyone who knows it, knows it. Those who don't know it should just take their word for it. Anyone who doubts it should find out for themselves.

Well I found the Truth.

Thanks Abe!

Do you now see the absurdity of your reasoning?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

One thing I'll say about this: Our intelligence services seem to be in outright rebellion right now. I don't know exactly what's going on, whether it's partisan liberals trying to get back at the conservative administration, or patriotic Americans acting as whistle-blowers against a government breaking the law, or a turf war, or what. But it's really astonishing what's going on. I'm not so much concerned about these revelations hurting national security, as I am about what it says about the morale of these folks. Things must be pretty bad right now for all this to be happening.

I agree with you that some people have been in rebellion. I happen to know one of them: Mary McCarthy. She is indeed a partisan liberal -- friend of Rand Beers (Kerry national security advisor), protege of Sandy Burger, former colleague of Joe Wilson. She is also personally a nice person in my experience, but that is besides the point. She is a loyal Clintonite, who made her career under Clinton's appointees, would have done very nicely under Kerry, and I think transparently tried to use her classified government position to embarrass the Administration at a politically opportune time. And of course, hurt national security in the process.

Now, I really don't know enough intelligence community people to know how widespread the Mary McCarthys are. I suspect not very widespread. Most civil servants in my experience are quite professional and understand that they have to put aside their personal political views and that they have an obligation and duty to follow the policy decisions of the elected leaders of the day. Unfortunately, a few -- and yes, they do seem to be overwhelmingly disaffected liberals -- don't take that professional obligation seriously. And so they break the law when they feel like it.

The thing is, a handful of Mary McCarthy's can be responsible for an awful lot of damage to national security. For all we know, this story could have originated with McCarthy as well. She worked in the IGs office, and so would have had access to a great deal. Or, of course, it could have originated with a congressional staffer. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. But there is no reason to assume it is one leak per one leaker.

It is a crying shame to see this happen though. A whole agency, or series of agencies tarred by the petulance of the few.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Without going into detail that I have no knowledge of I will just ask this: How many exceptions to your rationale here would it take to validate the importance of these calls to the people who requested them?

One.

Sure, one intercepted call could make a difference. I have not argued otherwise. But if they haven't fond that one important call then they go back and keep looking and looking and looking until they look at every single call. You seem to be under the impression that this type of surveillance (data gathering and manipulation) WILL someday detect the one call where two guys are talking about a terrorist activity. I think that is a highly questionable assumption to make.

How many ways are there to make use of this information?

Innumerable.

Hardly. There are a very limited number of ways to make use of this information. Either they detect a pattern in certain calls that leads them to terrorists or they don't.

But should your friend have spoken with you at all about NSA capabilities?

The only part I didn't know for sure was about the exact size of their database/file management capabilities. This co-worker confirmed it was in the petabyte range; That is all. If you want to know what is going on all across the government IT sector, including the military and intelligence communities, read Government Computer News or Federal Computer Week on a regular basis. They always list which big IT consulting firm got the latest implementation contract or what systems integrators are pushing as the latest and greatest hardware. Hell, they will even mention NSA by name in some article relating to the letting of IT contracts.

I remember being shocked to learn, early on in my government IT career, that the Secret Service was building a national driver's license database. I read about it GCN when they were discussing the letting of a big contract--I think it was to IBM--for the server and storage hardware. The Secret Service, through the Treasury department, was the group pushing the requirement that states adopt digital drivers licenses. Now, every time you get a new drivers license a copy of your picture and the license goes into a big Secret Service database; That is how they provide ID confirmation. I saw this in practice once on a tour of the White House public rooms (arranged through work). A group of us were coming in the visitor's gate and a bike courier pulled up to drop off a package--Yes, bike couriers deliver packages, or at least used to in the mid 1990s, to the White House--and while we were milling about just inside the gate gathering our group together I watched the guy hand over his drivers license to an officer inside the gate. The officer went to his computer terminal, typed in some info, and up on screen appeared the guys drivers license.


If you want to hear a great story about how the Secret Service uses Mac Xserve clusters to crack Windows passwords, just ask and I'll tell you. I heard it at an Apple seminar a few weeks ago from the Apple guy who set up the systems for them. In a nutshell, they have a 50-node Xserve cluster that can crack any Windows 32-bit operating system password in under 30 seconds. They use this in their financial crimes division when they find a computer they suspect has been used in credit card fraud. They copy the data to a "clean" hard-drive, ship it off to headquarters, copy the data into the cluster, and Bingo! 30 second later any Windows password used to secure the data has been compromised and they have proof of the crime and the information on who has had their information stolen.

[Dork.]

No matter what you think about these various government programs, there's one thing I think we can all agree on: any government official who can be traced to these leaks will probably not be a government official for very long. And even if it is found that some of these secret programs are flagrantly illegal, it doesn't necessarily absolve the people doing the leaking. It is a career-ending move, plain and simple. Not only that, but those who are caught will likely make their next career move to the federal penal system.

I find it hard to believe that someone in that position could be so partisan as to flush their career down the toilet and risk imprisonment specifically to damage the President. It makes more sense to me that maybe these people see something that they percieve as so fundamentally wrong that they rationalize that it's more detrimental to the country to keep it secret then to break the law and let the public know about it. But maybe I'm just a disaffected liberal.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It is a crying shame to see this happen though. A whole agency, or series of agencies tarred by the petulance of the few.

Gosh, I just feel torn up when people violate the NSA's privacy. The irony brings a tear to my eye.