Posted on 11/09/2002 9:31:25 AM PST by rs79bm
By JOHN MARKOFF
he Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe — including the United States.
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States.
Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.
"We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options," he said in a speech in California earlier this year.
Admiral Poindexter quietly returned to the government in January to take charge of the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa. The office is responsible for developing new surveillance technologies in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
In order to deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness, new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress. That legislation would amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies could do with private information.
The possibility that the system might be deployed domestically to let intelligence officials look into commercial transactions worries civil liberties proponents.
"This could be the perfect storm for civil liberties in America," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington "The vehicle is the Homeland Security Act, the technology is Darpa and the agency is the F.B.I. The outcome is a system of national surveillance of the American public."
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been briefed on the project by Admiral Poindexter and the two had a lunch to discuss it, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
"As part of our development process, we hope to coordinate with a variety of organizations, to include the law enforcement community," a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
An F.B.I. official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said the bureau had had preliminary discussions with the Pentagon about the project but that no final decision had been made about what information the F.B.I. might add to the system.
A spokesman for the White House Office of Homeland Security, Gordon Johndroe, said officials in the office were not familiar with the computer project and he declined to discuss concerns raised by the project's critics without knowing more about it.
He referred all questions to the Defense Department, where officials said they could not address civil liberties concerns because they too were not familiar enough with the project.
Some members of a panel of computer scientists and policy experts who were asked by the Pentagon to review the privacy implications this summer said terrorists might find ways to avoid detection and that the system might be easily abused.
"A lot of my colleagues are uncomfortable about this and worry about the potential uses that this technology might be put, if not by this administration then by a future one," said Barbara Simon, a computer scientist who is past president of the Association of Computing Machinery. "Once you've got it in place you can't control it."
Other technology policy experts dispute that assessment and support Admiral Poindexter's position that linking of databases is necessary to track potential enemies operating inside the United States.
"They're conceptualizing the problem in the way we've suggested it needs to be understood," said Philip Zelikow, a historian who is executive director of the Markle Foundation task force on National Security in the Information Age. "They have a pretty good vision of the need to make the tradeoffs in favor of more sharing and openness."
On Wednesday morning, the panel reported its findings to Dr. Tony Tether, the director of the defense research agency, urging development of technologies to protect privacy as well as surveillance, according to several people who attended the meeting.
If deployed, civil libertarians argue, the computer system would rapidly bring a surveillance state. They assert that potential terrorists would soon learn how to avoid detection in any case.
The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers.
The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information efficiently, all from their individual computers.
The project calls for the development of a prototype based on test data that would be deployed at the Army Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va. Officials would not say when the system would be put into operation.
The system is one of a number of projects now under way inside the government to lash together both commercial and government data to hunt for patterns of terrorist activities.
"What we are doing is developing technologies and a prototype system to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists, and decipher their plans, and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully pre-empt and defeat terrorist acts," said Jan Walker, the spokeswoman for the defense research agency.
Before taking the position at the Pentagon, Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted in 1990 for his role in the Iran-contra affair, had worked as a contractor on one of the projects he now controls. Admiral Poindexter's conviction was reversed in 1991 by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case.
Well actually FreeReign, you had first used #5 against the NYTimes. I didn't call you any names. I simply questioned your argument, and when I saw the bookmark, it was just one of those things that make you go "hmmmmm"...
The NY Times' references to what Poindexter said are poor. You don't even argue that.
You didn't say that you were raising that issue, so why WOULD I argue it? In what way are these references poor?
So we are left with the DARPA TIA slide, any dangerous specifics of which the NYTimes or you have not articulated.
And what is it about the slide that doesn't back up what the NYTimes states? You did notice the types of information that would be accessed from the left side of the image haven't you?
From my FR homepage -- "What bothers me most, is the lack of critical thought I see throughout the country and sometimes even here at FreeRepublic."
Well I'd have to agree with that statement.
If you don't like that I question your presentation of what you posted, then go some place else where people can read your posts and kiss your feet.
You need not kiss my feet FreeReign. In fact, I'd rather you didn't...
The governments imposition on our privacy is an important issue -- in fact pretty damn important. I don't completely trust our standing administration and I don't trust the enemies of the current standing administration even more.
I agree with the first part of that paragraph. But just who exactly are these "enemies of the current administration"? If you're referring to OUR enemies such as Al'Queda, then I'd say you might have a point. If you're talking about Americans that question the MOTIVES behind this administration's policies, I'd say that your fear is misplaced.
Your presentation as stated does not lead me to conclude that the current administration is plotting to F* with our privacy.
You come to a different conclusion than I. And even if THIS administration doesn't intend on misusing the system, there's NO GUARANTEE that a future administration wouldn't. Once in place, it is there FOREVER...
Toxic rivers and streams, mandatory drug tests at the workplace every morning, random searchs of cars, individuals, and homes, gun confiscation. Americans forced to take minimum wage jobs while foreign workers work as engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, nurses, and government officials. Free college education for foreign nationals. No "right to privacy", where ALL information is deemed public. Skyhigh real estate costs forcing ALL family members to work 7 days a week, children included, in order to pay the rent and buy food.
Not a pretty picture if those who "represent us" get their way.
Nowhere on this thread did I claim the specifics of what a person said without using a FULL QUOTED CONTEXT. Thus the question you bring up about my honesty is simply a personal attack for no GOOD reason. That's what you did and it says more about you and your judgement then it does anything about me -- "actually".
The New York Times on the other hand in this article references many things that Poindexter supposedly says without using the direct FULL QUOTED CONTEXT and in some cases, without using PARTIAL QUOTES or even NO QUOTES. There are also many unnamed sourced statements in this Times article. Thus, the NY Times makes their own honesty an issue. THEY ask us believe the specific things that they claim people say without using proper quotes and sources. Thus it is reasonable to critically question their accuracy in the defense of freedom over the history of their published work.
See the logical difference.
So given that we are ASKED to believe what the Times says without proper quotes and sources, do you have any questions about the track record that the NYTimes has given us about it's accuracy in the defense of freedom?
You didn't say that you were raising that issue, so why WOULD I argue it? In what way are these references poor?
I raised that issue to you on the other thread yesterday.
And what is it about the slide that doesn't back up what the NYTimes states? You did notice the types of information that would be accessed from the left side of the image haven't you?
What data sources on that slide does the Military currently not use to fight terrorism and what data sources on that side does the FBI currently not use to fight crime?
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
The above is an example of The NY Times asking us to trust them about the specifics of what Poindexter says. Where are the quotes from the Poinsy speeches... hmmmm? No quotes? Then trust becomes a reasonable issue to the critical thinker on FR.
Good question. ...It doesn't appear that there are many on this forum that don't swallow the entire government line. One would hope we could protest this thing peacibly and convince our leaders of their folly. ...However, I fear to the core of my heart itself, that their path was planned a long time ago. ...God help us.
That raises an interesting issue. I'll bet they plan on using gun sales records and instant check info as well. So we will in fact have a gun registration database, no matter what they've promised.
I'm sure that it's been in the works for at least 70 years, probably longer. If I were to think about where this country went wrong, it is the Civil War. From that point on, the slide to tyranny was inevitable. There MIGHT have been those who were plotting behind the scenes BEFORE that, but they were effectively powerless until the Civil War took place. Then again, perhaps they were responsible for THAT as well....
Let's rewind. Your ENTIRE argument rests upon the credibility of the New York Times. So, I questioned YOUR credibility, as I've never really seen you around much and don't know you. Don't take it personally, but when you are attempting to argue upon the credibility of a news source, you should also expect YOUR credibility to be questioned.
The New York Times on the other hand in this article references many things that Poindexter supposedly says without using the direct FULL QUOTED CONTEXT and in some cases, without using PARTIAL QUOTES or even NO QUOTES.
Well now at least I have an idea of what you're talking about. One question I'd have though, is that if Poindexter DIDN'T say what they say he did, wouldn't he simply run to the Washtington Times and tell them the story about how the New York Times either misquoted him or had simply fabricated things out of whole cloth?
In fact, I don't see what you're talking about when I look back at the article. Here's what they said in relation to Poindexter..
Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.
"We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options," he said in a speech in California earlier this year.
I don't see any 'SINGLE QUOTES'. And I don't see where they've said anything here that can be construed as dishonest.
There are also many unnamed sourced statements in this Times article. Thus, the NY Times makes their own honesty an issue.
Point me to ONE. I myself can't find any.
THEY ask us believe the specific things that they claim people say without using proper quotes and sources. Thus it is reasonable to critically question their accuracy in the defense of freedom over the history of their published work.
Again, show me where in the article where these statements are that you claim have no legitimate source.
I raised that issue to you on the other thread yesterday.
No, there you simply questioned the honesty of the NYTimes and told me that I was guilty of making an "emotional appeal" in relation to this issue. And you told me THAT in Latin.
What data sources on that slide does the Military currently not use to fight terrorism and what data sources on that side does the FBI currently not use to fight crime?
Well let's see. Here's the list of biometric info that's listed on the slide...
As far as the "Transactional Data", we have the folllowing list...
As far as housing, again, with a search warrant that might be understandable. Are they talking about forcing landlords to list all of their tenants along with the dates of occupancy?
And just what IS a "Critical Resource". It isn't defined and can mean many things.
And Communications, well, again with a search warrant phones and email can be intercepted.
BUT, with this idea there is NO search warrant required. And WHEN it becomes possible to utilize such a system that holds ALL of this information along, promises to the contrary be damned, they WILL use it in ANY manner they so please.
IF you are challenging the issue of the necessity of a search warrant to utilize any of the above data, where in the article it was alluded to that none would be necessary, look again..
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
Now the issue here is, just WHICH documents and speeches is it mentioned that Poindexter has stated this to be true. Perhaps that is where we should look.
I'd say that's the ONLY thing we really can do. Destiny will follow it's path, and we are all given the choice as to which path we will choose along the way. IF we can save some lives and some souls, so much the better....
Point me to ONE. I myself can't find any.
From the NYTimes -- Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been briefed on the project by Admiral Poindexter and the two had a lunch to discuss it, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
From the NYTimes -- "As part of our development process, we hope to coordinate with a variety of organizations, to include the law enforcement community," a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
From the NYTimes -- An F.B.I. official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said the bureau had had preliminary discussions with the Pentagon about the project but that no final decision had been made about what information the F.B.I. might add to the system.
Anyway, the DARPA slide is a good sourced quote, so on to it...
BUT, with this idea there is NO search warrant required. And WHEN it becomes possible to utilize such a system that holds ALL of this information along, promises to the contrary be damned, they WILL use it in ANY manner they so please.
Private data that requires a warrant to access will still need a warrant to collect in a database and for searches. If you can prove differently, then you've got a story to tell
IF you are challenging the issue of the necessity of a search warrant to utilize any of the above data, where in the article it was alluded to that none would be necessary, look again..
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
The above reference to what Poindexter said is not quoted. Since it is not the direct wording of Poindexter, it is the NYTimes giving their interpretation of what Poindexter said. While I don't discount it, I also don't think it as conclusive evidence.
I may be mistaken, but I believe warrants are not used now to access Internet mail through government servers. Also if I'm not mistaken, the internet was invented under DARPA(with no help from Gore) and the backbone is still not privatized.
Now the issue here is, just WHICH documents and speeches is it mentioned that Poindexter has stated this to be true. Perhaps that is where we should look.
Bingo, give me a ping if you track that down.
Also, who owns the internet backbone, the devices of which our e-mail passes??
I questioned YOUR credibility, as I've never really seen you around much and don't know you.
Oh, there are some Freepers around here who know me for holding their feet to the fire. IMO it's a good thing that I do.
Regards!
Yeah, but it is really good cheese. Aged Wisconsin cheddar. (salivate)
The project calls for the development of a prototype based on test data that would be deployed at the Army Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va. Officials would not say when the system would be put into operation.The system is one of a number of projects now under way inside the government to lash together both commercial and government data to hunt for patterns of terrorist activities.
Note that even if this project should somehow be defeated, there are duplicates out there in the woodpile. One of them will get through. It's time to shift the focus to surviving in an absolute police state. The genie is out of the bottle; the government is now--or will be shortly--totally out of control, IMO.
There are several threads on this, and I don't have time at the moment to read through all the replies, so I apologize in advance if I've flagged people who have already seen this.
These new developments are concerning. I don't think many are aware of the increased authority given to the federal government to monitor and disrupt Online activities. For example, after passage of the Patriot Act, if the FBI identified a website that was critical of FBI activities and presented information exposing FBI wrong doing, it would be completely legal for the FBI to spend time, resources, and taxpayer dollars to shut down the critcism. What's more is the individuals assigned to monitor dissidents no longer have to be federal agents.
These activities were illegal prior to the Patriot Act;however,the power is now available to the FBI just as I described it. I hope they use their new power to monitor and disrupt online activity more wisely than they have wielded their power in the past.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
Chief Concerns
The EFF's chief concerns with the USAPA include:
Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances.
USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied up what it has done.
ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance.
One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§ 803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include: Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.
The USAPA removes many of the checks and balances that prevented both police and the foreign intelligence agencies from improperly conducting surveillance on US citizens who are not involved in criminal or terrorist activity. For Internet users, it opens the door for widespread surveillance of web surfing, e-mails and peer to peer systems. In addition, the protections against the misuse of these authorities -- by the foreign intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens and by law enforcement to use foreign intelligence authority to exceed their domestic surveillance authority -- have been greatly reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know what a peer to peer system is?
Maybe you should re-think your position on this. Many Americans are becoming fed up with ever increasing intrusions into their privacy under the excuse of "national security". At some point, the govt, and those who think as you do are going to intrude one too many times.
At that point, the people who should be nervous will be people like you who promote such dangerous statist ideas.
And no matter the federal law that makes it illegal.
And no matter the federal law that makes it illegal.
They ALREADY HAVE a Gun Registry database...
Court to Hear Gun Info Privacy Case
So much for laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.