Mass-Spying, Like The TSA, Actually Hurts Rather Than Helps Anti-Terror Efforts
Comprehensive piece at WashingtonsBlog laying out why mass spying by our government is not only an affront to our values, it's not effective at keeping us safe, and even makes us less safe by far.
Some main points:
So the problem of growing government spying is three-fold.-First, it is against the American system and reduces liberty.
-Second, it is a misapplication of resources, in other words money is being spent and liberty sacrificed for no real gain.
-Third, since government decisionmaking and policy about international terrorism is very bad the threat is increasing.
And just below that bit, former NSA exec William Binney -- previously head of NSA's entire digital spying program -- said the spying dragnet by the government is less than useless:
They're making themselves dysfunctional by collecting all of this data.
Much like I've said about the TSA. You don't catch terrorists by having repurposed hamburger clerks at the airport treat every single American who flies to see grandma as a plausible suspect behind a terrorist plot; you have trained intelligence experts using targeted intelligence and probable cause to zero in on actual plausible suspects.
Our current "security" effort at airports: Do you have large breasts? They're a sign of al Qaeda training camp visits.
I've been trying off and on for years to get my husband to agree that I should have a breast reduction. Now I can argue that if I don't, the terrorists win!
Sosij at June 30, 2013 2:32 PM
More seriously...
If you were taking a picture of dense woods at very high resolution, you could not manually examine the resultant picture for, say, ants. Even though there would be billions of them in the picture, they are hard to pull out of the visual clutter.
Machines don't have problems with visual clutter. An example is iPhoto, which found all the faces in a 12,000-plus-photo folder I imported in about 15 minutes. A more advanced device, working on already-digitized media, could work through data and find something clandestine. The big deal, really, is what the machine owners do with the info (see, "IRS Scandals").
Just 100 years ago, the common entry in public arrest records was "could not be found". Now automation and social trends expose people to surveillance in new ways.
I suggest that the public does not care. So long as it can watch a sport involving a ball, drink beer, smoke weed and have sex, the public doesn't give a damn about principles - in fact, it doesn't even understand them, especially when they get in the way of instant gratification.
Radwaste at June 30, 2013 3:42 PM
So your software sees my face 1000 times in your 12,000+ photos. Is that a pattern? And why?
There is still no probable cause to suspect me of anything.
Jim P. at June 30, 2013 7:30 PM
JimP, dammit, it's an example of machine intelligence, that's all.
Now, if it shows your face with John Gotti's, some inferences can be made - like, "he's a waiter, just delivering the salad". These assessments can be automated, too, delivering us right to the threshold of decision regarding felonious acts.
Context, man, context!
Radwaste at July 1, 2013 8:49 AM
So do you feel like being questioned five years after you delivered pizza to John Gotti's house every Thursday for a year because the metadata showed you were there?
I know you work for the government, directly or indirectly, but do you really trust the fed, let alone the states that much?
Jim P. at July 1, 2013 8:06 PM
JimP, nothing about my post says that. You're adding your own content again.
If I describe the operation of an H&K MP5, it will not involve the BATF killing children at Waco - it will only be about the MP5.
Every tool can be misused. We know that. Banning tools doesn't work. We know that, too. Now, hopefully, everyone who reads this knows that.
Radwaste at July 2, 2013 2:41 AM
My argument is that you want to examine the tool and say it isn't bad or good. I can agree with that. I have had a loaded shotgun in my house for years. It has still failed to go off without pressure from me to fire.
The problem is the possessor of the tool. You can examine iPhoto, or the Prizm system. They are no more evil than my shotgun. A wood chipper is a tool as well. What the possessor processes through it can be bad.
The problem isn't that the Prizm system is sucking up your data or whatever system that is sucking up the data for cell phones.
So if you had a camera system around your house and see some guy visiting your wife everyday at your house, and even cameras in the bedroom -- about all you can legally do with it is get a faulted divorce or something similar through the civil justice system. Or even if it was a home invader or burglar it would be evidence for the criminal justice system.
That possessor of these data collection systems is the United States Federal Government in the form of multiple departments whether the DOD, NSA, DHS, ICE, etc. that needs to be judged by the rules.
The rules are listed in The United States Constitution. So evaluate the tools all you want. That is not the problem. You need to look at the possessor and what they can do,
That is the context. In that context the Federal Government can say I don't like what rad posted on Amy's blog let's check him out. Since you need a security clearance to do your job they can then look at the IRS, your phone calls records and locations, every e-mail you have sent. They can find where you sent an e-mail to buddy that says "I bought a nice new Craftsman tool to pull bolts at the plant. It really helped get the tire off my Jeep on Sunday." They then accuse you of malfeasance, FWA or such similar charges. You are now out of a job.
Essentially the government follows the Golden Rule:
The United States Constitution is supposed stop that.
Jim P. at July 3, 2013 8:47 PM
Leave a comment