Security Leaks

[CSpindizzy]

Reasonable expectation in this scenario is 4th Amendment, FISA law, FISA Court, Telecommunications Act of 1996, etc.

As to your why do we have cameras but not listening devices? Cameras are visible. When you walk in the store you see those. If you continue, you acknowledge the cameras and accept to be videotaped. This is why there are signs that notify people this is occuring. There is NO reasonable expectation that a company I have a contract with and a law saying they cannot give my records without court or my approval will voluntarily hand over my personal records and break law and Constitution.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

As to your why do we have cameras but not listening devices? Cameras are visible. When you walk in the store you see those. If you continue, you acknowledge the cameras and accept to be videotaped. This is why there are signs that notify people this is occuring. There is NO reasonable expectation that a company I have a contract with and a law saying they cannot give my records without court or my approval will voluntarily hand over my personal records and break law and Constitution

I know why, I just find it amusing.

Do you think you have a right to keep your phone records sealed without court approval?

Do you think you have reasonable expectation of privacy when you make a phone call?

What do you think about getting your phone call list from your cell phone company every month?

Whose property are phone records?

Should every one shred their phone records before putting them into the trash?

Funny part about all of this, phone companies could be liable for billions........

If it makes you feel any better I am sure they are just targeting long distance phone calls......... :dance2:

 

[CSpindizzy]

At this point no one is sure what they're targeting. Next month, we'll see they're scouring the landfills for our trash.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

At this point no one is sure what they're targeting. Next month, we'll see they're scouring the landfills for our trash.

At least it is legal........... :banghead: :mf_surrender: :ill_h4h:

 

[volinbham]

Balancing the rights of the individual vs. the collective.

Consider the following hypothetical -

Customers are suing phone companies for "illegally" releasing phone records based on a news report. Said customers have no knowledge if they've actually been harmed by said release but feel their privacy was violated. Ensuing court cases reveal any release was legal (and different than characterized in paper) but as a result of the court case, an effective intelligence tool is rendered ineffective due to public disclosure.

Would you always side with the individual here?

 

[OWB]

I know why, I just find it amusing.

Do you think you have a right to keep your phone records sealed without court approval?

Do you think you have reasonable expectation of privacy when you make a phone call?

What do you think about getting your phone call list from your cell phone company every month?

Whose property are phone records?

Should every one shred their phone records before putting them into the trash?

Funny part about all of this, phone companies could be liable for billions........

If it makes you feel any better I am sure they are just targeting long distance phone calls......... :dance2:

I don't mind if the phone company keeps logs of my calls. They're the phone company, that's what they do. It's the giving information over to the government and whoever else that bothers me.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't mind if the phone company keeps logs of my calls. They're the phone company, that's what they do. It's the giving information over to the government and whoever else that bothers me.

We may agree on something.......................but I hope not... :biggrin2:

 

[volinbham]

I don't mind if the phone company keeps logs of my calls. They're the phone company, that's what they do. It's the giving information over to the government and whoever else that bothers me.

It bothers me if it's illegal or violates a contractual agreement between me and them.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

OWB we are moving ever so more to a socialists dictatorship...................

I think there is a "right" and "wrong" answer to those questions within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. Nor do I think this is really a question of whether or not the ends justify the means although at times it may be. Rather, an important paradox results from these dialogues. How much power may a constitutional government exercise to not only preserve its own existence but to fulfill its obligation of protecting the rights of its citizens/people?

I think in Lincoln's example the ends not only justified the means but Lincoln was convinced he operated within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. I am, at this time, inclined to agree with him based on my reading and understanding of the Framer's thoughts on and related to the nature of the union and this particular issue. I think analyzing this question through the lense of whether or not the end justify the means is dangerous. There is no room for a government of limited powers and constitutionally protected rights with a standard of assessing whether the government's conduct justifies its means. Such a standard is insufficient to the protection of rights and in limiting the amount of power the government can exercise.

Yeah I am concerned by the fact Bush has NEVER sought a search warrant from a FISA court or any court! It is possible the reason he did so was because he lacked probable cause. What if, however, he can demonstrate his program has stopped terrorists attacks? Would this justify his conduct even if at one time he lacked probable cause such an attack was being planned or imminent? That is the dilemma.

 

[OWB]

Would this justify his conduct even if at one time he lacked probable cause such an attack was being planned or imminent? That is the dilemma.

Kind of like Iraq and WMD's? That worked out well.

I'm not against the government doing what they have to do to stop another terrorist attack. I just want them to do it through the legal channels and not lie to us about it.

Like I've said before, if they have to fish through millions of phone numbers just to get a sniff of something, we've already lost this war on terror. Besides, if the terrorists didn't have other forms of communication then, they do now. They might be barbaric, but they're not stupid.

 

[volinbham]

Like I've said before, if they have to fish through millions of phone numbers just to get a sniff of something, we've already lost this war on terror.

We don't know what they were doing with the numbers. However, it appears the idea was to have the database prepared. Once they located a terrorist, they could connect the dots in real time to the contacts of that terrorist. Much different than a fishing expedition. I would imagine it was one piece in a much larger set of programs.

In Hayden's confirmation hearings he stated that these were the 3 criteria for any program:

1) is it doable - what do we have the capability to do.

2) is it operationally effective - will the program yield useful information

3) is it legal.

Only programs that met all three criteria (imagine a Venn diagram where the three areas overlap) would be pursued.

 

[volinbham]

Besides, if the terrorists didn't have other forms of communication then, they do now.

This gets at the crux of the national security dilemma - many programs must be secret to be effective. The leaks (whether you support them or not) have severly impacted the effectiveness of these programs.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The whole notion that leaking this telephone program info out somehow helps the terrorists is ludicrous. If a terrorist does not know by now, even before these leaks, that their calls were being listened to, then they deserve to be caught. They all come from countries where listening to calls is commonplace. To act as if we gave away our entire playbook is the dumbest comment that Bush or anyone can make.

 

[volinbham]

If a terrorist does not know by now, even before these leaks, that their calls were being listened to, then they deserve to be caught. They all come from countries where listening to calls is commonplace. To act as if we gave away our entire playbook is the dumbest comment that Bush or anyone can make.

So we were the only ones surprised that this type of surveillance was being conducted :blink:

You have cells here in the US that obviously have blended in since we don't know who they are. You find one and can instantaneously cast a net to identify the other "nodes on the network" so to speak. My bet would be that these terrorists that have every indication that they were unknown used the phone quite frequently to communicate.

As a result of knowing 2 tactics used by our intelligence - they are likely to modify their behavior.

Both the Senate committee and intelligence officials agree that the effectiveness of these efforts has been severely hampered.

Hayden referred to it as a Darwinian effect - the exposure of those programs NOW means that only the dumb ones will be caught.

Your argument assumes that these programs would not be effective with or without the leak - none of the Congressional members briefed on these programs have questioned the effectiveness. A few have questioned the legality but that is another matter. I would guess that the NSA, CIA and Senate Intelligence committee knows a little more about what might or might not be effective than we do.

No one suggested that we gave away the playbook - just lost effective tools.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Again, if any terrorist out there did not know there was a risk their phones were tapped prior to this, they deserve to be caught. Wiretapping is not illegal. Wiretapping happens all the time. The issue is that there is a procedure that must take place in our country. The sick thing is that FISA courts even offer a retroactive period to get warrants. That kills the excuse used by Bush that agents couldn't get warrants in time to catch the calls. The system lays out legal means and easy ways of following the laws but yet the FBI and NSA STILL choose to do it their own way.

Effective tools are not always legal tools. When we become no different than the nations we oppose, we have truly lost our edge. The reason these people hate us has a lot to do with how we operate. Now we are becoming our enemy to defeat our enemy. That is not acceptable.

 

[volinbham]

Effective tools are not always legal tools.

Agreed - just disputing your assertion that these programs were not effective.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Agreed - just disputing your assertion that these programs were not effective.

How were they? Do you know if they WERE effective?

 

[volinbham]

I don't know if they were effective but am assuming they were. I have some options on how to form this opinion.

My choices include:

1) Thinking they weren't effective because you say terrorists wouldn't be dumb enough to use the phone

OR

2) Think they were likely effective since:

(i) the NSA went to the trouble of setting up the program (i assume they have better things to do then set up elaborate and controversial programs that would not be effective)

(ii) statements from the intelligence community that suggest these programs were effective and that effectiveness has been hampered by the leaks

(iii) if you don't want to believe NSA and the intelligence community - the Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on the programs and have expressed that they are impressed and that these programs are valuable - as I stated before, they only question is the legality. Ditto for the House Intelligence Committee. As Senator Olympia Snow stated during the Hayden confirmation hearings - the Senate Intelligence Committee has over 100 years of experience in intelligence matters.

Given that I have no way of assessing your security expertise, I think its wise to go with Option 2!

 

[CSpindizzy]

Considering many on these committees weren't even briefed on these programs, I'm leaning more towards the "something's wrong since the law was not followed and everyone was not briefed" scenario. Credibility tends to erode when you do things without briefing the ones who are required to know. When you avoid the lawful route, FISA courts and briefing full committees, I tend to take little value in what is said on a thing's effectiveness and especially the legality. Since these agencies have a vested interest in self-preservation, their statements that these programs were effective makes me doubt they could be. It's sort of like 'slam dunk' and well-documented WMD's and Iraq ties to Al Qaeda. Credibility falls in line with legality in my book and both are in question on these matters.

 

[volinbham]

Well everyone's been briefed now and none have suggested the programs weren't effective.

Some staunch critics of the administration have even suggested changing the law so the legality question would be removed - this in an effort to continue the programs (Durbin was one of these advocates I believe). Seems unlikely that this route would be taken for ineffective programs.

Since these programs walk the line on legality, why would the NSA take the risk of violating the law for a program that would not do any good?

Remember that pre-war/pre 9/11 intelligence was a massive intelligence failure on a world-wide scale ranging from the U.S. to France to England to Germany to Russia etc. The NSA programs were the resulting attempt to get better intelligence - to get the kind of information we were not getting prior to 9/11.

Finally, look at a program like Able Danger that was shut down due to legality concerns. This was a massive data-mining program using primarily public information. Pattern recognition out of this work apparently identified Mohammed Atta (sp?) as one bad mo fo prior to 9/11. The FBI (if I remember correctly) refused to meet with the Able Danger briefers due to legality concerns surrounding the Goerelick (sp?) wall. My guess is that the phone records program was more likely one piece of a larger program.

Whether you support the leaks or are against the leaks -- a consequence of the leaks is the loss (or reduction in effectiveness) of intelligence tools.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well everyone's been briefed now and none have suggested the programs weren't effective.

Because they are prohibited by law from commenting on them.

As for why the NSA would risk breaking the law, ask that across the board. Why does ANY agency or person risk breaking the law for something? With the mood of the country behind 'sacrifice rights for national security' they can do as they please based on popular opinion. But popular opinion doesn't mean constitutional or legal.

The issue here is that there are legal and clearly defined methods to obtain this info. FISA courts provide a retro 48 hour approval process. Warrants, etc. are clear and legal methods to obtain this info. It provides the check of one branch to ensure the other branch is not overstepping its bounds. In all of these cases, the Executive Branch has just taken carte blanche on all of this to do as they please in the name of national security. If there is a concern, take it through the legal means. Don't be so arrogant to think you have the power to do as you wish.

As for a worldwide intel failure, sure. But none of those other countries were willing to stake their reputations on it. Obviously they weren't THAT convinced the info was reliable. Considering a few countries had direct sources right up to the day of attack discrediting this, the assertion that the whole world was wrong no longer applies. When you have the Foreign Minister in your hands telling you the whole WMD story was false but still go to war, something is wrong.

 

[volinbham]

Because they are prohibited by law from commenting on them.

As for why the NSA would risk breaking the law, ask that across the board. Why does ANY agency or person risk breaking the law for something? With the mood of the country behind 'sacrifice rights for national security' they can do as they please based on popular opinion. But popular opinion doesn't mean constitutional or legal.

The issue here is that there are legal and clearly defined methods to obtain this info. FISA courts provide a retro 48 hour approval process. Warrants, etc. are clear and legal methods to obtain this info. It provides the check of one branch to ensure the other branch is not overstepping its bounds. In all of these cases, the Executive Branch has just taken carte blanche on all of this to do as they please in the name of national security. If there is a concern, take it through the legal means. Don't be so arrogant to think you have the power to do as you wish.

As for a worldwide intel failure, sure. But none of those other countries were willing to stake their reputations on it. Obviously they weren't THAT convinced the info was reliable. Considering a few countries had direct sources right up to the day of attack discrediting this, the assertion that the whole world was wrong no longer applies. When you have the Foreign Minister in your hands telling you the whole WMD story was false but still go to war, something is wrong.

Interesting but doesn't really address the issue of were the programs effective. Did they have operational value? Congress can speak to that - Feinstein said the programs were very impressive, as stated before other Dems have suggested law changes so the programs can be CONTINUED without the uncertainty surrounding the legality.

The legality can be/should be argued. But it is a separate issue from a question of whether or not the leaked programs helped identify terrorists and terrorist threats.

The ends may not justify the means as you suggest but that's a separate issue from debating whether or not the programs helped meet the "ends".

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well hell, I can use a program like carnivore and skim all phone calls and it would be very effective. I can round up every Muslim in the country and be effective. I can bug every mosque. 'Effective' was what the SS and KGB were.

 

[volinbham]

The whole notion that leaking this telephone program info out somehow helps the terrorists is ludicrous.

I've simply been responding to this statement. I think you'll find I've openly acknowledged questions of legality and stated that if illegal, these programs are wrong, should be stopped and there should be consequences.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I saw yesterday that STILL not everyone has been briefed on all of these programs. But the ones who have are being interviewed for potential leaks themselves. Conspiracy #3698 - maybe only a few were briefed in anticipation of a leak to see who would do it? Easier to track a small few than several committees and their staff.