“Bush Authorized Domestic Spying”

[realtraveller]

Americans are okay with this by 2 to 1 according to the ABC/Washington Post poll, posted by Jeff.

Here's my question, which the MSM will never, ever look into. But I think it's important in order to find out if factionalism, cronyism or politics is undermining national security efforts.

1. Who was the leaker? (Someone at USA Today knows).

2. What was the motive for the leak? My guess is that the leaker is someone inside the CIA who doesn't want Hayden confirmed as CIA director. Does this person have a political or personal ax to grind? The timing makes this blatantly obvious.

[rmthunter]

Quite aside from the usual reservations about polls on any given issue, if most Americans approve (which could change on the next poll), that doesn't make it legal. If the Democrats are hiding in a corner, that doesn't make it legal. If the Pentagon claims it enabled us to thwart an al Qaeda attack on Peoria, that still doesn't make it legal.

Basic American principle: rule by law.

[realtraveller]

I haven't read anything indicating that this program at NSA was illegal. Prof. Volokh has a long dissertation on the subject and his basic conclusion is "it depends".

Second, given the poll the headline on the USA Today is nothing more than puffing to sell newspapers. The word used is "FUROR". Given the poll, the word should be "SHRUGS".

[erik_kosberg]

If Bush ordered the torture of thousands of little old ladies, I have no doubt that there would be posts here to the effect that XX% of Americans support torturing little old ladies, BFD, "it depends", etc.

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

If Bush ordered the torture of thousands of little old ladies, I have no doubt that there would be posts here to the effect that XX% of Americans support torturing little old ladies, BFD, "it depends", etc.

Apparently, you've never read Volokh.com. The contributors are law professors, not people 'wanting to justify the torture of old ladies'.

[erik_kosberg]

Actually, I have read Volokh.com

What, law professors can't be as clueless as those without a J.D. after their names?

[phoenixx]

Snippet borrowed from another site's blog on the recent "poll" conducted on the NSA wiretapping issue today:

Can one help but wonder that, given the current atmosphere and the knowledge of both the NSA call tracking program and the warrentless wiretapping program, also by the NSA, are people now biased toward simply conceding that monitoring and surveilling Americans is acceptable and might actually be doing so out of, oh, I don't know ... fear of being watched?

[conradd]

phoenixx said

Snippet borrowed from another site's blog on the WSJ "poll" conducted on the NSA wiretapping issue today:

First, it wasn't a Wall Street Journal poll, it was the Washington Post. Second, while the critique has some merit, the results from this poll are fairly consistent with other polls on the same subject taken over the past few months. (I remember reading a Gallup poll summary that had better methodology a few months back, but it's no longer free on their site. I'm looking for another source.) Finally, if attention can be diverted to national security from the economy, gas prices, and immigration, it's good news for Bush. It's the one area where folks seem to like what he's doing.

[rmthunter]

realtraveller said

Apparently, you've never read Volokh.com. The contributors are law professors, not people 'wanting to justify the torture of old ladies'.

I've read Volokh. I have aso read Jack Balkin and Michael Froomkin, both of whom are law professors, and both of whom, as I recall, think it is illegal.

[phoenixx]

conradd said

First, it wasn't a Wall Street Journal poll, it was the Washington Post. Second, while the critique has some merit, the results from this poll are fairly consistent with other polls on the same subject taken over the past few months. (I remember reading a Gallup poll summary that had better methodology a few months back, but it's no longer free on their site. I'm looking for another source.) Finally, if attention can be diverted to national security from the economy, gas prices, and immigration, it's good news for Bush. It's the one area where folks seem to like what he's doing.

Edited to correct my late night typo.

And this folk does not like what he's doing. Especially in national INsecurity, much less other issues.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

IIRC, the Gallup poll numbers have trended downward - it used to be (a couple years ago) 75% of people were willing to give up privacy for the sake of looking for terrorists, now it's more like 69%.

[rmthunter]

I think as more of the dirty laundry is hung out to dry, that percentage will continue to drop.

[rmthunter]

Just ran across this post at Firedoglake about that WaPo poll:

So before the phone records story even breaks, Morin — who knows absolutely what he is doing — starts polling people who have no idea what he’s talking about and giving it his best shot, tying it to the War on Terra. It works. Today it’s plastered across the front page of the washingtonpost.com like Carol Doda’s bright red lightbulb tits flashing at the Condor Club.

This appears to be Morin's modus operandi. Read the post. It's enlightening.

[conradd]

ROFL, like the poll covered breaking news? Everything covered in the poll has been reported for months - last December in the NYT and last month in the National Journal, for just two examples. People know. And it sounds like they understand the reason behind the data collection and have figured that giving up a bit of personal privacy (I give up far more privacy every time I make a purchase through Amazon) is worth the tradeoff in terms of national security.

[rmthunter]

Actually, the poll was happening while the latest wrinkle -- AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South handing over millions of records --was just breaking.

Somehow, I think that might have affected people's responses, particularly with the NSA saying (unofficially) that they want to assemble a database of every phone call ever made.

[conradd]

Well, yes. In order to find patterns in communication data that identify terrorist activity, you need a LOT of data. Think about the data gathered every time you use your preferred shopper card at your local grocery store (there's a previous thread on this somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it). You give up some personal privacy in order to save a buck on ice cream. Or, every time you use your credit or debit card. Your transaction goes into a huge database and some fairly sophisticated computer algorithms mine that data constantly to target shopper buying patterns in the first example, and potential consumer fraud in the second. Here, patterns of phone calls are analyzed. When suspicious patterns are found, they're investigated to see if it's innocent or should be investigated. But you have to have the data first. And, the only thing being collected is where and when the calls are made. It's not like NSA operatives are sitting around with headphones on, listening to me discuss recipes with my mom. But, if I got a phone call every Wednesday morning from the sister of an Al Queda operative who had just received a call from her brother in Syria, and that pattern continued over time, that might raise some interest. I would hope so, anyway.

It's a tradeoff. I'm giving up a small amount of privacy for enhanced national security. Do I care if my phone records are going into a national database? These records are the same ones that are mailed monthly to my home address. And I don't shred the call listing when I throw it away after I mail my payment. That makes my records far more accessible than if they're just one more data point in a national database.

Shrug. Non-issue.

[drmomentum[$]]

Raise your hand if you think they're not tracking what websites you visit.

Anyone?

A tradeoff is when you give up X to get Y. Like if I decide to give up my weekend to work in return for comp time (as if that ever happens).

Has there been any information released on how many arrests or terrorist plots have been stopped specifically through these types of intrusions? I don't even think you can call it a tradeoff until you see you're actually getting something in trade. Even before you get to the discussion aobut whether it is a good tradeoff.

-JP

[phoenixx]

Seen and heard around the 'net:

But a Newsweek poll conducted after a day or so of the news sinking in now shows a flip in opinion and 53% say that the program "goes too far in invading people’s privacy" and that 57% disapproved of the Bush/Cheney surveillance measures, in general. While this is somewhat heartening, it is still shameful that disapproval of this latest revealed affront to the American public is not significantly higher.

Has the massive NSA wiretapping (a scandal which the NSA phone call tracking being discussed here is a part of) led to the promised Al Queda information? Nope. But it has led the FBI to what that agency began referring to as "more calls to Pizza Hut".

The Los Angeles Times reported in December that AT&T provided the NSA with a "direct hookup" into a company database, code-named Daytona, that has been recording the telephone numbers and duration of every call placed on the AT&T network since 2001. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T over that and other alleged violations of privacy law, said the call database spans 312 terabytes, a quantity that would fill more than 400,000 computer compact discs.

Americans are now so bludgeoned with news of Bush administration lawlessness, they have simply gone numb with scandal fatigue.

This line, packed a decent way down into the article in the Washington Post, jumped out at me as the most significant ...

Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening.

This piece in Daily Kos, while peppered with liberal-friendly language that may stop some from reading further automatically, is one even the conservatives among us should read. It is packed with facts, timelines and comprehensive links to documents, web sites and other information outlets around the nation about every aspect of the NSA scandal. One of the links I enjoyed reading the most was a link to a Washington Post piece offering quotes about the NSA scandal. One of the quotes that struck me was:

"It's fair to say that what was in the newspaper this morning is not content collection. ... Nonetheless, I happen to believe we're on our way to a major constitutional confrontation on Fourth Amendment guarantees of unreasonable search and seizure." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

In point of fact it is a combination of the already unconstitutional Patriot Act and the private company behind the NSA wiretapping scandal that worries me most. No, the government isn't supposed to really listen to your calls, but ChoicePoint, Inc., the company that created the technology behind the scandal, can. Then, thanks to the Patriot Act, they can sell the records they keep as citizens to the government, and those records, not being restricted by the same laws, are much more detailed. (Yes, I know it is from BuzzFlash, liberal bastion. Read it anyway, even if you are conservative in your heart of hearts. This is something everyone should know.) Excerpt:

The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed , called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

From TidBits, in a report on this years big CFP conference that happens every year, come some interesting takes on upcoming issues of technology, privacy and freedom. Some sound bites:

A spirited discussion centered on whether computer activity without humans involved had any bearing on the term "unreasonable," based on the beginning text of 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." Depending on your point of view, this is either a meaningless philosophical debate or crucial to the concept of freedom and Constitutional rights.

In short, the overwhelming feeling at the conference was that the worst threat to privacy is apathy in the general public.

---------o0o---------

Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression. ~Gerard K. O'Neill, "2081"

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. ~William Faulkner

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, "Historical Review of Pennsylvania", 1759

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter

Let freedom never perish in your hands. ~Joseph Addison

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. ~Edward R. Murrow

Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. ~D.H. Lawrence, "Classical American Literature", 1922

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery. ~Author Unknown

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. ~Louis D. Brandeis