Monitoring and transparency are two sides of the same coin called security through expanding networks
Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10:18AM ARTICLE: “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls: 3 telecoms help government collect billions of domestic records,” by Leslie Cauley, USA Today, 11 May 2006, p. 1A.
Connectivity requires code. Networks create rules. Every convenience results in a trade-off on privacy.
These are essential truths of our age.
But every time we bump into these emerging realities, the media usually treats them from some industrial-age perspective, applying Orwellian logic (consistently proven wrong by history; otherwise, how would terrorists "rule the world" as we're constantly told?) to every development.
Those call databases exist. The telecoms have them, and use them for their own ends (commercial). We live in a world where all this connectivity affords bad actors new ways to harm us, and so we ask our government to devise new ways to keep us safe. But then we get very unrealistic about how that’s supposed to happen.
The question isn’t, Should the government have access to such databases? I think they should. The question is, What can they do with them? Those questions will be decided ultimately in our courts. We should remain quite vigilant on the subject, and push our press to keep us informed.
But our press needs to watch the tone of its coverage. Knee-jerking back and forth isn’t the answer, because it puts the bin Ladens of the world in the driver’s seat.
We need to focus on what’s made us strong in the past and will keep us strong in the future: our horizontal networking, our resiliency in response to shocks and threats and perturbations, and our faith in a judicial system that has slowly but surely worked wonders throughout our nation’s history.
Reader Comments (8)
I think that the question should be somewhat different. What should the penalty be when the government abuses these databases. I don't generally follow the hard right that closely where such developments create grave alarm but I di recall that during the latter Clinton administration, it was pretty standard gallows humor to wonder when your tax audit was coming. For an awful lot of conservative groups and individuals, those audits were a grim reality. Post Clinton, the right seems to have mostly agreed to let that one go (not wanting to relive the backlash of the impeachment).
So when a corrupt president comes and they not only have tax returns but also have telephone calling patterns to play with and enough CPU power to identify political affiliation as well as embarrassing personal peccedillos and pass that down through the party structure all the way to the local level, what do you do then? The failure modes do not look pretty.
My 2 cents:
I wouldn't be so worried about the database access if I felt that the federal government actually represented me and always had my interests in mind (or at least a close approximation to them). Unfortunately, our governmental system has been ossifying for some time due to gerrymandering and other practices that both parties have engaged in. There are too many "safe" districts for both sides, creating a disincentive for true representation and debate.
Eliminate gerrymandering (and impartially redraw all the districts), create term limits for senators and reps, reform campaign financing, eliminate the electoral college, allow minority parties some limited subpoena power, and introduce some sort of proportional representation in the House (ok, that last one is a bit of a pipe-dream, so I'd be fine without it). Do all those things and THEN I would have few qualms about the government keeping databases of this kind.
If changes for the better aren't made at home, then how can we make positive strides abroad? Not that the one has to be done before the other--that's essentially an isolationist argument... "Oh, let's concentrate on our problems here first," like our problems aren't connected to the rest of the world's. They must be done together.
Until then, I'll be among those howling in outrage over this story. I should add that I don't like the telecoms keeping my info. either. At least the government is potentially democratic. The market, while serving an absolutely vital purpose for our society, is not.
/end 2 cents
IMHO, the big question is what oversight exists to ensure that checks and balances are in place?
Just because you don't know oversight exists does not mean its not there, this program has been briefed to the house and senate intelligence committees, so there is your oversight
Again I think Gen. Hayden is the best person right now for the CIA. Who knows more about Networks ( human and technological ) then a former director of the NSA where they have to deal with it all the time. Who would be in a best position to know the obstacles and benefits of network more then Hayden. I think he would give the CIA the necessary worldview that they sorely need, as well as an understanding of the fundamental forces governing that worldview. This would lead them to getting their job done.
Again, in this country today, we seem to be throughly confused about the definition of "Terrorism" - is it a criminal activity or a symptom of history. Once a definition is found then only can we first find out how to deal with it.
Vinit Joshi
A briefing is not oversight. Additionally, the reaction on both sides of the Hill indicates the scope of the program extends well beyond what was originally described.
I am not specifically opposed to the program, or General Hayden's nomination. And yes, as is the case of many similar programs, this one may have oversight that is correctly hidden from the public spotlight. However, a program that is self-proclaimed to be legally compliant, is subject to no judicial review, and appears to lie outside of any previously defined legislative boundries - such as those that govern other monitoring activities - gives every impression that this program in fact has no oversight whatsoever.
DG
I feel you're wrong on this one Tom.
The huge differences between a commercial entity possessing these dbases and The G having them are self-evident.
Public oversight for companies exists, and if a bad program is outed they can not claim "national security issues" and stonewall Congress from investigating. How many times has this administration cried to the heavens about national security issues when in fact it was more likely political convenience issues? Congress and the courts have failed to show any trace of effective oversight on basically anything for over 5 years.
Secondly, AT&T can not audit, imprison or otherwise punish me if the dbase indicates choices and patterns they don't agree with.
You are correct when you say the question isn't whether The G should have access to these dbases. As by all accounts to this point it's clear they have obtained access with neither a warrant nor subpeaona authority, that question has been answered in the negative.
My question is - what is the efficiency of sweeping millions of calls looking for a connector? Shouldn't you first have an idea of who the bad guy is, then link outward from that point? What does it say about where we are in our fight against the bad guys if after more than 5 years we still don't know the difference between citizens and terrorists in our own country?
There is an arena for this policy discussion - the Congress. Yes, times change, and new connectivity demands new rule sets. But the idea in the US is that we hash over and develop the new rules in Congress.
The problem with the Bush Administration is that they saw an opportunity to grab power. They could have referred it to Congress and worked with them to develop exceptions to FISA, streamlined oversight, whatever they needed - and in the nationwide support they enjoyed after 9/11, they could have gotten it. But a high priority for the administration has always been to expand the power of the executive branch at all costs, and if playing fast and loose in a gap between reality and an outmoded rule set gave them an advantage in the Washington turf wars, so much the better for them.
That is all based on the best way of looking at this. Heaven help them if they've been tracking political and media opponents.
We don't know how the government currently uses the toll data, or what protections are already in place, so we can't necessarily form an accurate opinion on whether that use is legitimate, ethical, acceptable, or not.
While government is not terribly trustworthy, neither does it have time or inclination to intrude on ordinary people's privacy for no reason. Generally the intelligence community stays far, far away from violating the privacy of US persons (out of self preservation - intelligence officials have it drilled in to their heads that they will go to jail if they spy on Americans), and federal law enforcement is too busy with real criminals to fool around with misusing the private information of innocent Americans.
That is not to say that abuse never happens - but I think that it is now a lot more rare than it once was. And pen register collection by law enforcement is not new either - it is just a lot more sophisticated with digitally switched networks.
The biggest risk is probably when law enforcement wrongly suspects someone of a crime - they will then bring these extraordinary resources to bear in an effort to incriminate that person, often with unfortunate, and inappropriate, results.