The presumption that blanket data mining is effective against terrorism.

[MichaelMcGuire]

Director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (C Bowden) describes how blanket data retention is unlikely to be effective. I know hes talking with the (RIP) Act 2000 in mind.

I wonder how far removed it is from other such blanket data retention programs?


"surveillance via ISP and telephone traffic data can easily be evaded by using pre-paid (or stolen) mobile phones and web-based e-mail from public terminals to avoid identification. Organized criminals already routinely use the former, and reports of the modus operandi of the 9/11 terrorists indicate they used the latter. Web-based e-mail services can be provided via any website and will leave no trace with the ISP. They can be set-up on any computer with an always-on connection (domestic broadband is ideal), and there are thousands of examples large and small."

Even with the use of:

"compel logging and retention extends beyond ISPs and telephone companies"

However even with:

"such drastic measures would not eliminate possibilities for undetectable communication. The stealthy techniques of steganography (information hiding) allow messages to be camouflaged in sound, pictures, or other routine content in ways analogous to hiding a pebble on a shingle beach."

Brings up the question if these types of blanket data retention is next to useless against terrorism what is it for?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=dltr

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fumesucker]

1. Data mining is effective against average people doing average things

Which is why it's so desirable for anyone seeking power, profit or both.

[MichaelMcGuire]

3. Must be.

As its not effective against fighting serious crime either.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/27/data_retention/

[nashville_brook]

12. +1 -- it's a mechanism to deter democratic participation.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. What is it for? Easy.

Suppose I do something the Gubmint doesn't like. Perhaps organize a protest or start some sort of organization that threatens their power. In doing this, I probly won't be using stolen prepaid phones or hiding my message in every 13th word of a meandering email. Thus, unless I plan to hide my activities from the beginning (something I might not have contemplated before the present revelations), they'll have open and readable communications from me. Once they've identified me as a target, they can go back & dig up all my emails & phone calls & listen in. They will also know whom I've been talking or writing to, & can widen their net to include them.

Then, if what I've been doing is legal but they still want to get me, they can sift through those same communications for evidence of any nasty habits I might have. Like maybe I visited some questionable porn sites or an Aryan Brotherhood site or "eco-terrorist" sites or something. They could use any such information either to blackmail me or to tar me as a pervert of some kind. Maybe I contributed $$ to NORML & wrote an essay somewhere about medical marijuana. Some court might decide that's probable cause to break down my door in search of illegal substances. If they don't find any, they can plant some. Maybe I also own guns, so they can get me on committing a drug felony while in possession of a firearm.

This kind of surveillance is much more effective against babes-in-the-woods than against trained, organized evildoers. It can be highly useful in suppressing dissent even if it doesn't have any use in preventing terorism.

[MichaelMcGuire]

4. You get it, but how many times have you heard claims otherwise?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Did it help them stop Boston Bombers? Nope. They were tipped off, interviewed

one of them face to face and these geniuses let the guy go blow people to bits.

[kentuck]

6. It probably serves little purpose...

Except to enlarge the government bureaucracy that deals with intelligence and the defense industry.

[uponit7771]

7. The presumption that the 4th amendemnt can be fixed without the 15th fixed first is illogical

[moondust]

8. It would never be 100% effective at prevention.

It is probably supposed to work similar to a Rolodex in law enforcement. Say you pick up Whitey Bulger for doing a hit on somebody. You search his home and find a Rolodex full of names and numbers. That gives you a lot of leads as to where to look and whom to question regarding other organized crime activities. The Rolodex didn't save Whitey's victim but follow-up on the leads pulled from Whitey's Rolodex may save some potential victims of Whitey's associates. Theoretically at least, nobody is going through people's Rolodexes without just cause as determined by the FISA court.

[kentuck]

9. Laws are seldom 100% effective.

The speed limit may be 55 mph but how many people follow it? But it is still the law. Laws are meant to protect people not to burden them or to spy on them.

[moondust]

11. If you had read what I posted

you would know that there is nothing in it about "spying on people."

It's really easy to agitate people into a frenzy over "spying on Americans" even though you may not have the slightest idea what is really going on and have no easy way of finding out because you do not work in the NSA departments in question and you don't know anybody who does.

[sabrina 1]

10. He's assuming it's for terrorism purposes. All we have to know is that they were unable to

stop the Boston Bombers to know the story that this is to prevent terror is pure BS. It's far more likely that it's for Big Business purposes but the scandal is the billions of dollars they are handing over to multi Billion Dollar Security Corporations on the pretext that they are 'fighting terror'.