more on Who they are spying on

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: h_bray () globe com
Date: June 9, 2006 4:35:24 PM EDT
To: Eric Rachner <eric () mostly harmless org>
Cc: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they are spying on

I'm tempted to pack it in.  It appears that a substantial percentage  
of the
members of this list quite sincerely believe that we're in no  
danger.  In
essence, they want the US government to do little or nothing about  
Islamist
terrorism.  And with those who think this way, there's really not  
much to
talk about.

For the rest, I thought it might help to focus on one controversial
intelligance tool--data mining.  I wanted to ask--to what extent should
cops and spies be permitted to mine databases in order to identify  
possible
bad guys?  Which databases should they be permitted to use?  Which
databases should be closed to them, if any?  Should they have access to
personally-identifiable information without a warrant?





Hiawatha Bray




             Eric Rachner
             <eric () mostly harm
              
less.org>                                                  To
                                       dave () farber net,  
h_bray () globe com
             06/09/2006  
04:30                                           cc
             PM                        ip () v2 listbox com
                                                                    
Subject
                                       Re: [IP] more on Who they are
                                       spying on











> It just seems to me that the debate over this issue has mostly
> consisted of hand-wringing about our loss of liberties. It's a
> legitimate concern, but there's something else at stake too, and this
> story reminds us what it is.

The trouble with this debate is that certain people keep trying to
re-frame it, quite disingenuously, as a question of liberty versus
security.

Baleful hints to the contrary, that "something else" which is at stake
here is not our security.  It is the integrity of a government whose
executive branch operates outside the law, exempt from any oversight by
the legislative or judicial.

- Eric


Begin forwarded message:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> From: h_bray () globe com
> Date: June 7, 2006 1:00:21 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they're spying on
>
>
>
> Well, yes. But here's where rubber meets road. It'd be darn near
> impossible to investigate this kind of network if you had to get
> probable cause-based warrants at every turn. Often, you have no idea
> why somebody is calling someone else, or being called by them. So you
> can't tell a judge what you expect to find. But if you can check who's
> calling who--even if you don't know what they're saying--you can
> extract pattern data that'll give you some serious clues.
>
> This is what the government's been doing, and catching hell for. And
> although the story doesn't say so, it's a good bet that this technique
> helped them roll up these thugs. So do we really want the government
> to be barred from doing this? Or if we want to put it under more
> intensive oversight, how do we manage that without crippling the
> operation?
>
> It just seems to me that the debate over this issue has mostly
> consisted of hand-wringing about our loss of liberties. It's a
> legitimate concern, but there's something else at stake too, and this
> story reminds us what it is.
>
> Hiawatha Bray
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Farber
> <dave () farber net>
> To
> 06/07/2006 12:32 ip () v2 listbox com
> PM cc
>
> Subject
> Please respond to [IP] more on Who they're spying on
> dave () farber net






-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/