Letters to the Editor
-
Its amazing how many people miss this simple concept...
with any program that it is done in secret and extra-legally, it will have fewer rules and procedures open to oversight, and no enforceable requirements for record keeping, which is a situation that just begs for abuse
Even if everything the defenders of the NSA program has said was spot-on (bear with me), as long as its operated without oversight by human beings, its going to become corrupted. It's simply a matter of time and human nature.
The fact that it stank of rotten fish fromn the get-go just compounds the problem...
-
@veteran novice
For instance, if the government is doing key word data analysis on a wide net search of domestic electronic communications, what key words do you put in to filter all of that data with?
You don't use key words. Except to get entry points, for which you don't really care how accurate they are. Besides, for each event (there were thousands of terrorist events just last year), you can get a few entry points that are probably higher quality. You pick up a computer from a raid in Pakistan, and you do analysis on language use patterns, you run semantic searches from the phrases there, you follow names. What you are looking for is entry points for link analysis. Where you go from there is to look at patterns and metapatterns. You filter the news media, you use people that repeat stories. You filter plane tickets, you start link graphs. You look at usage patterns of banks and services, you add people who have similar usage patterns. You look at known clusters, watch for their patterns to change. You draw belief graphs, you update them. You throw info into the system, see how it changes.
Who said anything about key words? Key words are sooo...Google.
-
NSA already gathered dirt?
Hi Glen,
I also agree with a few of the letterwriters on this blog-that perhaps the NSA program was used to spy on Dems-who may now be being blackmailed into staying silent. Should we start seeing more BS like the Jeffereson raid-then I'll assume I may be correct. I'm not so sure that Jefferson was not setup-and was meant to be a scare tactic by the WH to Dems. It was just too stupid. Who would hide that money in thier freezer? I just never have bought that. That and the fact that Jefferson maintains his innocence and that the search was illegal. Which leads to another question-where did the FBI get thier lead on Jefferson? Hmm.....wonder if this went down just before Ashcroft discovered whatever it was the NSA program was up to and did a 180 on its' legality. And subsequently fell ill and got the visit from Gonzo-the "blackmail visit".
If this quite possibly could be the case-rather than get picked off by a drip by drip campaign by the WH-i suggest dems do an aboutface and counterattack bigtime. Dems have the majority of the public on thier side-we would be way more forgiving of any small indescretions by dems than to see our entire Constitution hijacked further. If it came to a choice between Dems and GOP-even if not squeaky clean-we'd take the lesser of 2 evils.
-
Where are the Americans?
Bob Dole’s quivering words, “Where is the outrage?” about Clinton’s transgressions, hover above the truly criminal acts of this most prosecutable regime since the Third Reich. So where is it? Frankly, I think it’s too complicated for the masses of Americans anymore. Ever since Reagan let them off the hook with, “Government isn’t part of the solution; government is the problem,” Americans have slumbered to their leaders’ soporific fairy tales. Not so very long ago, America meant the best workmanship, the greatest universities, the “can-do” spirit. We’ve aged badly and very quickly. Sex — ours and others’ — now preoccupies the public mind and complexities are avoided like skunks. Those who can still think must organize and act. We must demand impeachment — and make it happen — and stand up for the America we knew before it’s vanished.
-
Jake007
So Jake, is it only President of the United States who you believe can do anything to protect his citizens?
i.e. Was it OK for Saddam to gas the Kurds to protect his citizens from danger?
I don't. Too much lawlessness.
Osama's pre-emptive strike on the US 9/11/2001 comes to mind.
But then again, I'm not a hypocrite, er, I mean Republican.
-
@ ondelette
ondelette: ”Who said anything about key words? Key words are sooo...Google."
Sorry for insufficient vocabulary. But I don't think knowledge of semantic searches, entry points, link analysis, patterns, metapatterns is necessary to make my point which is that the FBI is working and investigating "terrorist" cases inside of the U.S., that these tools formerly available only to NSA for foreign use are now available for investigations inside of the U.S., that they are being used on U.S. citizens, and that people actively working those cases will be FBI and have be working closely with both the input and output products of the various NSA tools, regardless of the names you may care to give the various input and output products.
-
The statutory requirement for a signature is irrelevant
It has been pointed out by one of our trolls who is well known for his lack of analytical skills that Comey pointed out that he was unaware of any statutory requirement for certification of legality by DOJ for "the program" and our troll thinks that no law was broken if "the program" went ahead without this certification.
It is highly unlikely that there would be such a "statutory requirement" since "the program" was not established by statute, but obviously by executive order. That the executive order required DOJ to sign off on the legality of "the program" is just a CYA mechanism allowing the executive to claim that "the program" is legal because the DOJ (supposedly an independent law enforcement body subject to direct congressional oversight) says so. If DOJ refuses to certify "the program", it is a simple matter for the executive to amend the executive order not to require this certification. This allows "the program" to continue, but without the cover of presumptive legality afforded by the DOJ certification.
In any case, the certification does not eo ipso make "the program" legal; it only expresses the opinion of the DOJ on the matter. The courts are the final arbiter of legality, which is why the executive has done everything in its power to keep "the program" from judicial review.