Letters to the Editor
prunes
Published Letters: 784
-
@Jake007
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because, even if YOU aren’t discussing terrorism with the terrorist, sooner or later, the terrorist will discuss it with SOMEONE -- we are trying to prevent the next 9/11 attack.
Please get appropriate warrants to tap conversations between suspsects, please. Do you agree that tapping my phone gives no one in America or the rest of the world any more security?
How are we supposed to listen in ONLY when we know that attack is going to be discussed?
Standard police procedures caught the Ft. Dix crowd. Are you really confused? I will break it down:
1) it is OK to wiretap conversations between suspected terrorists. this has been a traditional law enforcement tool since the phone was invented.
2) it is not OK to wiretap all conversations. not only does it violate privacy in the worst way, it is a waste of security resources.
Worse case scenario, the next COMPETENT Administration will be able to track down every person the next 9/11 terrorists spoke with. That's not bad, is it?
That's just not true. Please see my above post detailing the ineffectiveness of wide-scale wiretapping.
Wiretapping has a place, it is a real tool. When you try to apply it everywhere, it quits working. The reason for this is that there is no computer procedure which can distinguish "terrorist talk" from "regular talk". This is a fundamental matter of computing. The program required to do this correctly can be proved to not exist. If we make a program that tries to do an "OK" job, it will work less and less effectively the more random data we throw at it.
That is why wide-scale wiretapping is worse than useless, the negative costs very swiftly outweigh the benefits, because the ratio of correct answers to incorrect ones shrinks as you add more data.
-
@Jack007
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do NOT agree-- first, I don’t KNOW you are not going to discuss terrorism just because you type a denial here on-line.
Are you accusing me of plotting terrorist attacks? I take that as an insult. I own no weapons and do not intend to acquire any, ever.
In addition, if we have every phone call recorded, we are going to be able to go back after the next 9/11 attack and track down co-conspirators much easier, right?
No. If a conspirator is worried about this, all he has to do is set up an automated random-dialing process with his phone line (easy to do with a modem.) Then, he can produce as much extrateraneous data as he pleases, generating endless useless leads.
Not to mention: he can purchase many unrelated phone cards and never use the same one twice, he can make calls from payphones, and I believe I have read that al Qaeda members use prepaid cellphones only once, then throw them away.
Also: you know the phone box outside your house? Anyone can come by with a phone hooked to alligator clips and get on YOUR phone line, making calls to anywhere in the world. (I don't remember exactly, but I think the kid did that in Wargames.)
There is absolutely NO guarantee that phone records are valid. This is a fact of our technology, and it cannot be corrected without re-installing the ENTIRE phone network that has been built up since Edison.
As I understand the details released so far (already compromising national security), certain words like "BOMB" or "ANTHRAX" are flagged for review.
If you were a terrorist, would you say those words out loud on the phone? He can call bombs "clothes", and anthrax "cigarettes."
Meanwhile, you and I, discussing our actual security situation online, ARE getting flagged for using those words.
Who knows if a human being EVER even listens to your conversation in particular? I wouldn’t worry if I had nothing to hide.
Even if a human never hears it, who knows what sort of watchlists we may be put on automatically? Who knows if our travel will be restricted in the future, because of this very conversation we are having right now online?
Don't pretend it won't happen, there is case after case of mistaken identity in the TSA program, for the exact reasons I have discussed above: data-mining is not for security. It is for advertisers and profilers.
-
@Jake007
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]prunes: Don’t worry; be happy.
P.S. Kitt - sorry, but Mr. Greenwald has requested I only post once per page, so you will excuse me if I don’t waste that one post repeating myself to you multiple times over. Once you answer my question, in a civil manner, I will certainly return the same courtesy to you.
Listen, you little dickweed, if you don't have the brains to refute my points, then you could least have the class to admit I'm right. I've been nothing but civil, while you accuse me of terrorism and don't even give me the laaaaaame excuse you give Kitt.
If you don't at least attempt to present evidence the phone-tapping system works, this is tantamount to admitting you a) don't know what you're talking about, b) you're a flat-out liar, c) you're ennabling an attack on the American Constitution, d) you're the lamest, most pathetic sort of internet hot-shot, who talks big and has nothing in the sack to back it up.
If you really believed what you claim, you'd care enough to defend it. I think you don't even believe your own bs.
-
@Jake007
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please respond to my post detailing the inefficacy of mass wiretapping or admit you don't know the first thing about it and are entirely unqualified to discuss the matter and will defer to my somewhat greater expertise.
I do not normally make such promptings, but since you are prompting Kitt in such a way, I am sure it won't offend you.