NSA Reform Panel Member Wants Metadata Collection Expanded
While the NSA Reform Advisory Panel's recent report
surprised many people for having more than just cosmetic recommendations (not that any of the recommendations need to be adopted by the government), at least one member of the panel thinks the government's massive wholesale data collection doesn't go far enough.
Panel member and former CIA Director Michael Morell really would like the government to expand metadata collection to include e-mail and Internet activity
Morell, seeking to correct any misperception that the presidential panel had called for a radical curtailment of NSA programs, said he is in favor of restarting a program the NSA discontinued in 2011 that involved the collection of "metadata" for Internet communications...."This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11, and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened."
As many of these reports tend to do, it ignores the context that the NSA has access to live fiber splits
at most of the major carriers, instead heavily focusing on the metadata side of the story. Granted those comments come as Judges and fellow reform panel members express surprise at just how little evidence actually exists
to support the argument that wholesale metadata collection saves lives and prevents attacks.
Terrorists commnicate prior to attacks? I was unaware that the 9/11 hijackers communicated prior to the attack.
| |StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
said by Karl Bode:Yup, that's all the media talking heads, NSA spokespeople and supportive politicians ever mention.
As many of these reports tend to do... focusing on the metadata side of the story.
quote:Yeah, right. I trust em as far as I can throw em.
It's only metadata. Nothing to see here. Move along folks.
BTW has anyone else wondered what the NSA has on Peter King (R) of NY? They obviously have some great video(s)/picture(s)/document(s) on the guy. A total tool/shill that only espouses the long since discredited
• It's only metadata.
• They've prevented 50 terrorist attacks.
• blah blah blah.
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!
| |said by Rogue Wolf:Of course, we could prevent another 911 by replacing every self serving, corrupt, power hungry government (local through federal) employee, bureaucrat and elected official with people who actually care about and SERVE the country and its people instead of just stuffing their own pockets with all they can get their hands on, but I suppose that's too radical.
If we made the United States of America a prison nation. Every last citizen kept behind bars, controlled, restricted, allowed only what the jailors chose to permit them. Nobody could get up to any sort of mischeif like terrorism, violence or dissent that way!
Of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"when the people have suffered many abuses under the control of a totalitarian leader, they not only have the right but the duty to overthrow that government." - The U.S. Declaration of Independence
Devil's Advocate Let's try to apply a little logic to this, shall we? We know that there were was apparently enough "intelligence" to indicate that something like 9/11 was imminent. We further know that that there were warnings from the Russians about the Boston bombers. He claims that, were such programmes in place at the time, there would likely have been sufficient "intelligence" to prevent 9/11.
So, if these programmes are worth their costs (both financial and privacy-related ), they will have available "intelligence" to prevent such tragedies. They had such information in both cases. Therefore, we can conclude that neither 9/11 nor the Boston bombings happened, or they are not actually saving lives as a result of these activities. In the latter case, it stands to reason that all such programmes must be scrapped immediately, all privacy rights restored and the money put toward something useful, like paying down a sliver of the staggering U.S. debt. It is well-known that both of those tragic events occurred in some form or another, thus the only logical decision is obvious.