[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Quite simply, data mining is much less invasive of privacy than actually empowering humans to listen in.[/quote]
Don’t be so sure.
As computers are more capable and intelligent, with respect to speech recognition and so forth, there is very little difference.
Besides, with everything recorded and taped, humans can always listen in whenever the feel the desire.
Your willingness to accept less personal and direct invasions does not take into account how powerful those invasions have become due to advancements in technology.
Just because you are willing to trade away all your privacy, I truly hope that wiser men prevail and keep this beast at bay.
Well then as long as there’s no problems and never a mistake…
Oops!
WASHINGTON ? The FBI says it sometimes gets the wrong number when it intercepts conversations in terrorism investigations, an admission critics say underscores a need to revise wiretap provisions in the Patriot Act (search).
The FBI would not say how often these mistakes happen. And, though any incriminating evidence mistakenly collected is not legally admissible in a criminal case, there is no way of knowing whether it is used to begin an investigation.
I don’t know about you ole’ pal, but I think they need to get it right. Not unlike a doctor who is operating to save someones life. There is no room for these sort of mistakes.
Zeb,
I don’t think we can make the perfect the enemy of the good – nor can we expect perfection.
Aside from that, the story you linked indicates the language is talking about authorized wiretaps for which the phone company gave the FBI the wrong number, not the NSA-style wiretaps. A warrant doesn’t protect you against this.[/quote]
BB,
The point is the same.
If we are giving authority to various agencies to look over our shoulders we better make sure that, A. They are looking over the proper shoulders. And B. That they are not making an inordinate amount of mistakes. And even one mistake is a step in the wrong direction.
Be careful of how much power you hand over to the government. As a good conservatative, I want the governments power to be “limited” not “expanded.”
The post-cold war SIS/CI community has been desparately short of HUMINT resources (those they have being focused in Eastern Europe and the Balkans). The trend towards ELINT and SIGINT therefore had to intensify.
Moreover, there are few qualified CI agents to penetrate middle east organizations.In addition, these cells operate wihtout intercognizance, so if one is taken down, they provide no further leads. It’s not like in the Cold War when we had moles in the GRU who could pass OPSEC from the head shed.
Given the geographical and demographic size of the US and the world wide nature of the threat in conjnction with the US peoples demands of protection without intrusion / limitation of their freedoms, what is the alternative to passive SIGINT collection?
Sorry.
Basically, we don’t have enough trained operators to penetrate middle east terrorist organizations through out the world. These terrorists work in small groups with minimal knowledge of each other. If you crack one group, usually you can’t get a lead on another.
Because they are fundamental idealists, you can’t turn / double them like you could in the old days.
Seen as the US people want action and protection NOW against a world wide threat accross the whole country with minimal intervention and inconvenience to daily life, what do you do?
Use the technology and the resources you already have - the gee whizz wire tapping stuff.
Is it right? I don’t know. Is it working? Maybe - but we don’t know because it’s sensitive information and should not be revealed.
Is there an effective alternative? Post your opinion.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Be careful of how much power you hand over to the government. As a good conservatative, I want the governments power to be “limited” not “expanded.”[/quote]