It isn’t too often I find myself in such complete disagreement with Mark Steyn. He’s one of those guys that if I do disagree with him, I read him again because I must have missed something the first time. But on the NSA collecting data on MY phone calls, he’s just wrong.
Likewise, Richard Falkenrath is also wrong and dangerously ignorant in his Op/Ed which ran in the Washington Post.
On Thursday, USA Today reported that three U.S. telecommunications companies have been voluntarily providing the National Security Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records — that is, records stripped of individually identifiable data, such as names and place of residence. If true, the architect of this program deserves our thanks and probably a medal. That architect was presumably Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and President Bush’s nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The potential value of such anonymized domestic telephone records is best understood through a hypothetical example. …
Let’s dispel a myth right here and now. There is no such thing as anonymized data. Period. If you don’t believe me, type your phone number into google and see what you get. (and be sure to follow the link where you can even see your house on satellite imagery) Bouncing your phone number off another database to learn who you are is trivial. You just did it with google.
That Richard Falkenrath used the term 6 times in his Op/Ed insults thinking people everywhere. If the data truly was “anonymized” what would be the point collecting it? You can’t (without torturing logic outside the bounds of the Geneva convention) say the data is both “anonymized” and also invaluable in tracking terrorists.
“But there are safeguards in place… blah blah blah… The data can’t be… blah blah blah”
Anyone on the right who thinks this is a good idea should be disabused of that notion by 3 simple words. “President Hillary Clinton.” Ask yourself… Do you really trust the Clinton’s with this data. — That’s the problem with bad policy. Even if you trust George Bush and his administration today and you really believe it is only being used to catch terrorists, bad policy has a way of sticking with government forever. And only getting worse with time.
Since Richard Falkenrath wants to use hypothetical examples, here’s mine.
Some idiot staffer in the Hillary Whitehouse gets pissed at Wizbang. He has a pal pull Kevin’s phone records and the IRS comes knocking on every Wizbanger’s door 30 days later.
Don’t think it can happen? If you don’t, then you are both hopelessly naive and ignorant of history.
In creating policy, the decision must be made if the potential good outweighs the potential bad. To paraphrase Paul “Bear” Bryant (or was it Vince Lombardi?), Destroying basic civil liberties is more bad then stopping terrorists is good.*
No, the simple act of putting this information into another database is not inherently bad. But the potential for misuse is astounding. History has taught us that this much information in the hands of government will be misused. It is the natural order of things. I thought we on the right understood that. Perhaps we’re so used to protecting this administration and our beliefs from idiotic charges from the left that when there is something we should disagree with we lose sight. I can’t reconcile how anyone who claims to be a supporter of smaller goverment supports this program.
The goals of this program are laudable. As are most roads to Hell. But this program is not a solution to the terrorism problem, it is only the creation of many future problems and it should be eliminated.
* In part 2, I’ll discuss more of the upside and downside potentials of this program and my take will be so unpopular I’ll probably get death threats. (I might not be kidding) Don’t miss it.
AND Note: I agree with the recording of *suspects* in this country (the first NSA phone scandal) but I don’t agree with monitoring of everyday citizens. Call me stuck on the 4th amendment.
Anyone willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither.
I’m not discounting the problem. What gets me though is how certain people who seem to have no problem with an invasive nanny government find data crunching of phone records suddenly beyond the pale.
Sorta like all the noise about “illegal” distribution of the personal information of high school students to military recruiters. Go to a “public” school and the recruiters get a list with your name on it. It’s been that way forever. But now, suddenly, it’s “illegal” and invasive and whatever else.
Oh, and Bush’s fault.
Oh, and I’ve got no reason to think that Paul is a proponent of the nanny state, so I’m not talking about him.
Bush agrees to full NSA oversight by Congress
Tue May 16, 2006 6:18pm ET
Gee, maybe it wasn’t too much to ask after all? That didn’t hurt at all – now did it?
paul, you got one thing right: the title. nobody is buying the argument. try another issue that promotes meaningful debate. ms’media owns this shallow, tactical attempt to undermine hayden.
Hmmm.
1. I did that phone number bit and came up with nothing.
2. This is ridiculous Paul. The NSA does have a need for this data because the phone companies aren’t going to hold onto it forever. And a single link revealed could be enough to smash a sleeper cell.
As many people know, President Lincoln arrested and jailed the Governor of Illinois for his very vocal position on the Civil war. And FDR placed some 100,000 Japanese in camps against the possibility of sabotage or other treachery. We can argue pros and cons of these actions, but neither has been repeated. I don’t believe it is best to discard something which might benefit the security of the nation because the potential for abuse exists. The potential for abuse always exists, especially where governments are concerned. The Clintons used the FBI, ATF and US Marshalls to surveil groups and individuals hostile to abortion, or hostile to the Clintons! They amassed some 900 opponents (enemies) FBI files. They did not learn this behavior from Ronald Reagan or Bush 41. Shameless, corrupt, self-serving people are going to abuse the power of their position in all cases. If no precedent for such abuse exists, they will create it. If their predecessors have made honorable use of something, they will corrupt it. But to not avail ourselves of something valuable because we don’t want to give such people a head start on mischief is naive. You mention that we on the right should know the potential for abuse on the part of government. I agree. But more importantly, conservatives should recognize the honor that exists in many individuals. When we replace the proper skepticism we have for government with an overarching cynicism for everyone connected with it, we’re acting more like liberals than conservatives.
Paul
You wrote, “Anyone on the right who thinks this is a good idea should be disabused of that notion by 3 simple words. “President Hillary Clinton.””
A statement such as that goes to show what a paranoid puking right-wing-nut extremist that you are.
Nowhere can you demonstrate or substantiate such an outrageous statement.
The right’s hatred of Hillary Clinton is lunatic & baseless.
If you can swallow the Bush?Cheney lies to fraudulently lead this nation into war w/ the resulting murder now of 2448 Americans, then you have no basis whatsoever for your claim.
How does it feel, that with your votes, you have helped facillitate this murder?
As a citizen of Australia, a fair dinkum democracy, military ally of USA (ANZUS), economic partner of USA (FTA); fully active in war against ‘terrorism’ with deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and vulnerable pacific islands, etc, etc, I have absolutely no protection against the total invasion of my privacy by the agencies of the US, CIA, NSA, etc, etc.
But in no forum do I read of any American – left, right or indifferent – concerned about that.
So, as I follow your debates, my own feelings swing between universal concern for civil liberties and “Stuff You All … if its good enough us, its good enough for youse!”
But in no forum do I read of any American – left, right or indifferent – concerned about that.
You win some, you lose some.
Tob
Dopey. There certainly can be anonomized data. Your “phone number in google” is a cheap non-sequiter, and has nothing to do with your point: as if google was trying to hide what you are searching for.
Petty, unfair, and if you have to resort to this it says plenty about the strength of your position – or lack thereof.
I don’t get it. Paul presents an opposition to this kind of program from what amounts to three perspectives, the utilitarian, the libertarian, and the traditional conservative (why is there a need to insert “traditional” here?). It goes without saying that liberals are already opposed to it, either because they have libertarian leanings (like myself), or believe in a right to privacy above security, or just hate all-things-Bush. So who the hell supports this kind of surveillance by their government? It almost goes without saying that monitoring suspected terrorists and their co-conspirators should be done in every capacity possible (I say almost due to the self-destructive liberals who don’t seem to understand the value of security), but to monitor everyone? How can any of you defend this? Legal or not, who among you actually is comfortable with the government compiling detailed files on you that include your phone records, internet activity, medical records, voter registration, and more? What the hell is going on in this country?
Good point, Geoffrey. Probably about the time I graduated from high school (though I really can’t be more accurate than “quite a while ago”) there was a bit of a dust up because Israel got caught spying on the US. Indignant people were saying things about friends not spying on each other and I thought… who can possibly think that they don’t? It would be irresponsible for them not to.
Countries, even allies, have the need to keep their activities secret as well as the need for accurate information about what others are up to.
It’s not real likely, though, that you’re looking at political retribution for bad mouthing a US politician… even potentially. You’re not going to get audited by the IRS. Other than that, like the rest of us, your best bet is getting lost in the data.
mak44 should sue the Press and their Democrat Party partners for the horrible role they’ve played in furthering his ignorance …
The reason the Administration is down in the polls has a great deal more to do with the success the Press and their friends in the Democrat Party have had in pressing forward the narrative to the casual voter and ignoramuses like mak44 that until the Bush Administration, no one had ever observed, thought, said, much less written anything that would have led anyone to believe;
Apparently, all these obviously ridiculous notions sprang, fully formed, like Athena out of the top of Zeus’ head, from the diabolically creative imaginations of the Bush Administration’s voluminous cast of nefarious characters, who then proceeded to sell this hitherto unheard of idea that Saddam posed a threat to the United States to a gullible American public through a pliant American Press.
So today, we’re treated to the thoroughly absurd spectacle of journalists publicly castigating themselves, slapping their foreheads and shedding hot tears, for “not doing our jobs” and “agressively questioning” the Administration’s supposedly clearly false assertions about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, terrorism and everything else under the sun while they’re at it.
But the fact is; even if given a thousand years, not a single one of the mendacious hacks wailing and gnashing their teeth about being “misled” by the White House on WMD and Iraq would ever have thought to question the Bush Administration’s assertions about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists, his WMD programs and his willingness to attack American interests.
And that will be because most of them spent the 1990s writing and reporting things like this;
LINKS- From CNN – February 13, 1999
- From ABC – January 14, 1999
HEADLINES- US Government – Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development – New York Times (November 1998)
- Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say – New York Times (November 1998)
- U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan – New York Times (August 1998)
- Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort – New York Times (February 2000)
- Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration – New York Times (February 2000)
- Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program – New York Times (July 2000)
- Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported – Washington Post (September 1998)
Note the dates. President Bush was not elected until November 2nd 2000 (not counting the recount episode) and he did not take the oath of office until January 21st 2001. So the Admnistration officials quoted in these pieces (both on or off the record) all happen to be officials of the Administration of one William Jefferson Clinton. All the American intelligence officials cited happened to be serving the Administration of William Jefferson Clinton.
Anyone with an ounce of honesty must therefore wonder; how come it is only the Bush Administration that is accused of “misleading” the American people on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States when we have the Clinton Administration’s CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni saying that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region … Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.” before a Congressional Committee in 2000? How come it is only the Bush Administration that is being accused of “misleading” the American people when it was the Clinton Administration’s Justice Department that filed the indictment against Osama bin Laden that stated “… al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq …” in 1998?
The answer is simple. By meticulously embargoing any mention of anything ever said about, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, terrorism and WMDs prior to the start of the War in Iraq, and then purposefully ignoring anything afterward that would undermine the new narrative that Saddam Hussein was never considered a threat by anyone before President Bush came to office and “manipulated intelligence” to make it so. This would include any new articles, news programs, speeches and other public statements and documents.
Here’s an example.
… it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. – Bill Clinton [Larry King Live (CNN) – July 22, 2003]
The similarities between what was asserted by the Clinton and Bush administrations are so striking as to make it impossible to successfully accuse the Bush Administration of lying without implicating the Clinton Administration … but I’m sure mak44 is going to try.
jpm100,
There’s a huge difference here. Hillary has to ask for specific data on specific people in order to do this. There is also a trail. Hillary has the request/results, her minions have request/results, and the people holding the data have the request/results. The latter being an organization not directly beholding to Hillary.
So if Hillary started studying relationship on people who belong to the NRA, there’s a papertrail to track that abuse.
How naive. You mean like the Clintons “asked” for hundreds and hundreds of FBI files on their political enemies? They were held accountable though, right? Bottom line, leftists couldn’t care less about the rule of law. They do whatever they want.