Former CIA man Michael Tanji offers this response:
And quite a lot of data there is too. This is not a needle in a haystack problem; it’s a needle somewhere in an unidentified field in the western portion of Nebraska. The problem with vacuuming up data wholesale is that even with a lot of machine-based filtering, an intelligence analyst is left with a massive pile of rock in which may lay a speck of gold. Intelligence does not want, need, look at or even retain the VAST majority of what passes through the ‘Net, which is something privacy mavens conveniently leave out of their angrily worded press releases.
A more appropriate strategy in the long war – an intelligence war – is to put more feet on the ground in the world’s dangerous places. For the uninitiated it doesn’t necessarily follow that more human intelligence (HUMINT) will help solve a signals intelligence (SIGINT) problem, but that’s the dirty little secret here: this isn’t a SIGINT problem. Widespread surveillance isn’t usually what catches evil doers: tip-offs from informants, investigations and other methodologies do.
10 comments:
I have read the article in the New Yorker. The reason McConnel gives is to protect the infrastructure of big business. The US government could create a new protected internet for them and leave the current internet for the rest of us as it is.
Nice post title.
Michael Tanji says that getting enough SIGINT is not the problem. But he fails to note the real purpose of this exercise which has nothing to do with forestalling terrorism or crime. If the government were to have access to the internet activity of any individual then it has the option to target them should they so desire. Want everything on your political opponent? Want to silence an activist? That's the name of the game here. This is all about domestic control, police state methods, nothing else. And what a sick mindset: that civilian populations inherently need to be monitored in their private activities. If you're an honest person you won't object to ankle bracelets and embedded chips, right?
Let's move to China!
They don't care about terrorists, all the so called terrorists are on their paycheck. They're just trying to cover their backsides and looking for threats to their nice little scam.
I'd have to agree with designated social deviant; this is about domestic intelligence and counterintelligence operations, the purpose of which is to create a paralyzing climate of fear. Whatever happened to the "quaint" notion spelled out in the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Lest we forget, the two 9/11 miscreants who lived in San Diego were lodged by an FBI informant. One even had the cojones to list himself in the phone book under his own name.
What was the result of said information? The Bureau wouldn't permit their snitch to appear in front of the 2002 Joint Congressional Committee!
My point: NOT that "9/11 was an inside job" but that the intelligence "community" will cover-up for their own. Re-read Collen Rowley's bombshell letter to FBI jefe Mueller for further clarification.
PS: it was a great title, Joe!
We more or less acquiesced as a society in the Big Brother Enterprise. We allowed the privatization of common space with shopping malls, plazas, and complexes. So now there's only the Internets where computers go to meet. For all that, we've pretty much waived our Fourth Amendment Rights, starting with the software licensing scams and all the private law that has grown up around it (sidebar: Microsoft and its legendary shake-downs of corporate CEOs), you don't own any of the software you buy, you agree to behave with it, you agree to TOS for all your user permissions. You agree to pee into a jar only to get permission to participate in society the way you want. You can think of the frog who doesn't know it's being heated up in the cold-start pot of water. How many people want their rights back? How many want a hot tub?
This might seem like its coming from left field-- but what about that CityNet company? sure they seem benign- just offering peeps cheap Internet service.. but there's some creepy stuff there-- like how they are funded by Carlyle for starters.. but then also how they hook you up-- citynet has little robots that lay down fiber optics in the sewer systems.. they can go right into your house ("should you subscribe") all the way from the main sewer system right up to your toilet. Well the wires don't come out of the toilet-- i assume that CityNet employees, when hooking someone up, just tap in through the basement of something, but while these robots are laying down the fiber optics i wonder about two things: one is, will they only do subscriber houses? I mean, once it's automated isn't it just easier to do every house? and then even creepier-- and considering who backs them and how fast they have spread-- why should those robots stop at giving you access to the Internet. How much tougher is it to also have a fiber optic that sits in waiting reading everything that gets flushed down the toilets? If little johnny isn't taking his meds? or if poppa likes to smoke a little reefer, it is very easy to tell when bog brother has access to the crapper.
You should read some of this:http://us.builder.search.yahoo.com/search?p=at%26t+nsa&y=Search&fr=ystg-c&mobid=U0010d330ad8b07980fdc&mobvs=1
Between the congressional testimony of former AT&T employee Mark Klein and the NarusInsight and Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation computer systems, I'm convinced they already have access and are using it... this is what Russell Tice was getting at when he was discussing the 'warrantless wiretapping' scandal:
"It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet."
Post a Comment