NSA's Domestic Spying

This article from The Wall Street Journal outlines how the NSA is increasingly engaging in domestic surveillance, data collection, and data mining. The result is essentially the same as Total Information Awareness.

According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so-called "transactional" data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns. Then they spit out leads to be explored by counterterrorism programs across the U.S. government, such as the NSA's own Terrorist Surveillance Program, formed to intercept phone calls and emails between the U.S. and overseas without a judge's approval when a link to al Qaeda is suspected.

[...]

Two former officials familiar with the data-sifting efforts said they work by starting with some sort of lead, like a phone number or Internet address. In partnership with the FBI, the systems then can track all domestic and foreign transactions of people associated with that item -- and then the people who associated with them, and so on, casting a gradually wider net. An intelligence official described more of a rapid-response effect: If a person suspected of terrorist connections is believed to be in a U.S. city -- for instance, Detroit, a community with a high concentration of Muslim Americans -- the government's spy systems may be directed to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of the city.

The haul can include records of phone calls, email headers and destinations, data on financial transactions and records of Internet browsing. The system also would collect information about other people, including those in the U.S., who communicated with people in Detroit.

The information doesn't generally include the contents of conversations or emails. But it can give such transactional information as a cellphone's location, whom a person is calling, and what Web sites he or she is visiting. For an email, the data haul can include the identities of the sender and recipient and the subject line, but not the content of the message.

Intelligence agencies have used administrative subpoenas issued by the FBI -- which don't need a judge's signature -- to collect and analyze such data, current and former intelligence officials said. If that data provided "reasonable suspicion" that a person, whether foreign or from the U.S., was linked to al Qaeda, intelligence officers could eavesdrop under the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program.

[...]

The NSA uses its own high-powered version of social-network analysis to search for possible new patterns and links to terrorism. The Pentagon's experimental Total Information Awareness program, later renamed Terrorism Information Awareness, was an early research effort on the same concept, designed to bring together and analyze as much and as many varied kinds of data as possible. Congress eliminated funding for the program in 2003 before it began operating. But it permitted some of the research to continue and TIA technology to be used for foreign surveillance.

Some of it was shifted to the NSA -- which also is funded by the Pentagon -- and put in the so-called black budget, where it would receive less scrutiny and bolster other data-sifting efforts, current and former intelligence officials said. "When it got taken apart, it didn't get thrown away," says a former top government official familiar with the TIA program.

Two current officials also said the NSA's current combination of programs now largely mirrors the former TIA project. But the NSA offers less privacy protection. TIA developers researched ways to limit the use of the system for broad searches of individuals' data, such as requiring intelligence officers to get leads from other sources first. The NSA effort lacks those controls, as well as controls that it developed in the 1990s for an earlier data-sweeping attempt.

Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU comments:

I mean, when we warn about a "surveillance society," this is what we're talking about. This is it, this is the ballgame. Mass data from a wide variety of sources -- including the private sector -- is being collected and scanned by a secretive military spy agency. This represents nothing less than a major change in American life -- and unless stopped the consequences of this system for everybody will grow in magnitude along with the rivers of data that are collected about each of us -- and that's more and more every day.

More commentary.

Posted on March 26, 2008 at 6:02 AM • 52 Comments

Comments

ZGMarch 26, 2008 6:56 AM

Just one of the more interesting aspects of the "Ministry of Love". I hope you Americans are enjoying your Orwellian Reality Experience.

PatriotMarch 26, 2008 6:56 AM

What's your problem? About time they did something to counter terrorism. If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. Right?

DaveMarch 26, 2008 7:19 AM

Turn to the right and cough. It's sad to watch the US spiral downwards like this into a police state.

Philip StorryMarch 26, 2008 7:28 AM

Patriot: Define "terrorism". Also, define "something to hide".

Then, find the people who run the monitoring system, and ask them to define those terms.

They may not agree.

If the TSA and yourself don't agree on what constitutes terrorism or something to hide, then I'd suggest that you have a potential problem.

Oh, wait, you can't ask the TSA those questions. The information on what they're looking for is probably classified, so that terrorists can't use it to circumvent the system.

So how do you know that the system can't be abused?

If you're not worried about the potential for abuse yet, then you're a remarkably trusting and naive person...

George OrwellMarch 26, 2008 7:46 AM

scanning is already in progress, here and now ....

welcome to the new world

/Miniluv

Clive RobinsonMarch 26, 2008 7:52 AM

In the past a surveillence society was limited by the cost of performing the surveilance in terms of manpower and the cost and limitations of technology and the people being watched.

The "survailance operatives" where required because in the past people commited little to paper let alone any form of searchable technology, and getting a record of the spoken word was often exceptionaly difficult.

Now however the less cautious of the populace commit just about every aspect of their lives to searchable technology. And unfortunatly the rest of us are effectivly forced to commit more and more information to searchable technology as the price of trying to live normal lives.

Worse the equation is continuously changing, the cost of technology halves every 12-20 months and has now dropped so far that manpower is nolonger a consideration except for development and enforcment.

The technology has replaced the survailance operatives not just because it costs less, but the usage of searchable media for record keeping and everyday communication gives it a very significant advantage.

To make things worse the technology is now so cheap that we are at a point where peoples entire lives are so cheap to record that marketing organisations will give virtualy unlimited storage access apparently for free just to get their hands on peoples lives. Be it by writen word, spoken word or photographs and other visual medium, even your once intangable prefrences and choices are laid bare via web search and page visits (and times between page views).

I once commented on this blog "welcome to the gold fish bowl" well I think it should now be "welcome to your own personal and unavoidable Truman show".

Nick LancasterMarch 26, 2008 8:00 AM

@Clive:

If this is a goldfish bowl, I'd at least like to ask that they change the water ...

But this really shouldn't surprise us. In the seven years of the Bush Administration thus far, whenever they're told they can't do something, they do it anyway.

aliciaarolMarch 26, 2008 8:03 AM

I read all 250 comments on Bruce's REALID article and then could not make my own comment. The comments began in 2005. It is now 2008-closer than ever to when this ridiculous new threat to our increasingly dwindling freedoms is supposed to take effect. Does anybody know why the comments on the blog were disabled? "Liberty in Eclipse" by William Norman Grigg-The war on terror and the rise of the homeland security state-talks about everything that is happening. Patriot (above) is a fool. He obviously thinks supposed potential terrorism is a bigger threat to the U.S. than is the fact that the goverment is slowly taking away all our individual rights and passing laws that chip away at the Constitution. I don't have anything to hide-Does that mean I want to be spied upon? Welcome to Big Brother and 1984. It's already here, and too many people are too blind to see it because (as Grigg says) 'We are still able to go about our everyday business" Hey people, let's get RealIds-then when we get used to the RealIDS, the goverment's next step will be to plant chips in us. Human Inventory control-that is what our goverment ultimately wants. Technically we are not even a Democracy anymore. Bush calls the Constitution a "piece of paper", and he has passed a law that in the event of any type of national disaster, he will essentially become a dictator-a law unto himself-not accountable to congress or to anybody else. Power and control-that is what our goverment is after: The Military Commisions Act, The Patriot Act, HR1955-where is this all headed? The Christians believe that the Anti-Christ will someday become president, and this future president will inherit all the power that the current president (Bush) has... Can anyone say Hitler-Germany?

JeroenMarch 26, 2008 8:06 AM

Why the difference in attitude between domestic and foreign surveillance? If it's not OK for the US government to spy on US citizens, why would it be OK for them to spy on me, outside the US?

Conversely, if it is OK for the US government to spy on me for the sake of counter-terrorism (Or any other reason, for that matter), why would it not be OK to do the same thing domestically? Domestic terrorists do exist, and they can be just as lethal as the foreign kind.

I'm not advocating either position, I'm just saying that if you demand certain limits on government policy on principal grounds, you should be prepared to follow those principles to their logical conclusion. Otherwise you're ultimately saying it would be OK for the US to repress and control every country in the world, as long as the civil liberties of US citizens are kept intact.

Brandioch ConnerMarch 26, 2008 8:30 AM

@Jeroen
"Why the difference in attitude between domestic and foreign surveillance? If it's not OK for the US government to spy on US citizens, why would it be OK for them to spy on me, outside the US?"

Well the simple difference to ME would be that other governments could take steps to protect their citizens from our spying.

When it is OUR government spying on US, where are the protections?

"Otherwise you're ultimately saying it would be OK for the US to repress and control every country in the world, as long as the civil liberties of US citizens are kept intact."

Again, those other countries have their own governments. Those governments are supposed to protect their people.

RoyMarch 26, 2008 9:01 AM

Actually, it is not the military that is doing the spying. Most of the work is already done by contractors, which means multinationals. And they keep getting new contracts for more surveillance. Nobody is keeping track of how much of this is being outsourced overseas.

So, more correctly, the multinationals are spying on us, no doubt for their own ends.

The irony of this is that the Big Brother national mentality that gave rise to our surveillance society got superceded by Big Business on a global scale, so that all these resources are enabling foreigners to spy on our nation.

BenMarch 26, 2008 9:07 AM

Paraphrasing Mad Magazine, when we need to learn things about foreign governments, we use very patriotic intelligence agents. When other countries try to steal things from us, they use nasty spies.

LeoMarch 26, 2008 9:21 AM

@Jeroen
"Otherwise you're ultimately saying it would be OK for the US to repress and control every country in the world, as long as the civil liberties of US citizens are kept intact."

Exactly. It's my government's job to protect me from you and your government, by whatever means necessary, including espionage and even war. It's not my government's job to spy on me or to protect you. There should be limits on what my government can do to me, because I'm a citizen of my country. If you're not a citizen, or at least a legal resident, you don't deserve those protections. That's the logical conclusion. If you don't like that you could always convince your government to petition the U.S. Congress to be admitted to the union and then be both protected by and subject to our laws.

PatriotMarch 26, 2008 9:49 AM

@Phil thats because the system is installed with good intentions. Cars can be abused to kill people but nobody does because they were created to do us good and not harm us. Nobody cares about your worries because there is nothing to worrie about.

EchelonMarch 26, 2008 10:28 AM

Mr Schneier, your blog post contains classified information. Please report to Gitmo at once.

TheDoctorMarch 26, 2008 10:30 AM

@Leo: You are right.

But consider the following:
US government collects data from all people from other countries in a way that would be illegal in the US itself as well as in these countries.

Now the EU decides to do the same with US people.

Then they sign a treaty to share these data.

So the US as well as the EU get data about their people that would be illegal if they collected it self.

THATS the reason why you should care about the way the US government treats aliens.

GeorgeMarch 26, 2008 10:37 AM

So they're sifting through a high volume of e-mail looking for patterns. But the majority of that volume concerns fake watches, counterfit pharmaceuticals, and fraudulent "manhood enhancement" products. If they have advanced spam filters that can pick out the weak "signal" of real e-mail from the deafening "noise" of spam, perhaps something good may yet come of this monitoring program once we have a new administration that isn't obsessed with a secrecy fetish.

AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 11:05 AM

@TheDoctor

Your argument makes little to no sense in light of what Leo was stating. He stated that our government is here to protect us from such lawlessness, and instead is committing those acts itself on its own citizens. Allowing the EU to collect data on its citizens is largely the exact same offense, in principle, and signing a treaty to allow it to happen, is an even greater offense, not only to the citizens, but to the country itself.

What you said only bolsters his comments, which were quite relevant.

LeoMarch 26, 2008 11:05 AM

@TheDoctor

No, that's the reason I should care about what treaties the U.S. government signs. Treaties have the force of law in the U.S. but they do not supersede the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution was followed, with it often isn't, the U.S. government would still have to get a warrant before accepting any of that information, regardless of the treaty. An unusually liberal interpretation would even allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments in U.S. federal court for acting on such a treaty. By entering into such a treaty those governments would become an arm of the U.S. government and would be subject to the same restrictions and could be held accountable in the same way under U.S. law as the U.S. government.

This is the thing, though. The U.S. government was formed for the benefit of the U.S. people. If that means spying on foreigners, and it often does, the U.S. government would be failing in its Constitutional responsibilities if it didn't spy. The various rights in the Bill of Rights are for protection of the people of the United States. People who aren't residents or citizens of the United States should seek protection through their government and, yes, they are perfectly justified in prosecuting spies, even U.S. spies. Extending the protections of the U.S. Constitution through the U.S. government to the entire world contradicts the U.S. Constitution and puts Americans at risk. That would be a failure of the U.S. government to perform its functions.

It is not the obligation of the U.S. government to protect the civil rights of foreigners. That is the obligation of those peoples governments. If United States civil rights are extended to the entire world then all United States law must be extended as well and the United States must become the supreme government of the entire world.

Y'all are totally missing the reason that governments exist. Do they not teach civics where you live?

Winston SmithMarch 26, 2008 11:30 AM

Francis Scott Key, September 1814, asks:
"O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Komrade Uncle Sam, September 12, 2001, responds: "Not if I have anything to say about it."

dragonfrogMarch 26, 2008 11:34 AM

@Leo

Sure, it's not the job of the US government to protect the civil liberties of non-US citizens off of US soil. It wouldn't even make sense - every national constitution will define a different set of civil liberties, so which liberties would you even protect?

But one of the best ways to protect yourself is to stay out of fights. If the US wants to protect you against the spying of foreign intelligence agents (that's a big "if", but they are supposed to), one of the best ways to do that would be to avoid making situations where it's tit-for-tat fair for other countries to spy on Americans.

Your argument also uses the same logic the people who defend the horrific torture of "terrorist suspects" (in reality, ordinary people whose crimes range from being journalists for anti-US papers, to defending their homes from invasion without the benefit of membership in a national army), on the grounds that they're not Americans and they're not on American soil, so we can do whatever we want to them.

I'm not accusing you of being such a person, understand. I'm just saying that the logic of your argument can be extended to support terrible deeds very easily, which is often a good sign that there is something wrong with the logic.

AmapolaMarch 26, 2008 11:39 AM

People need to start getting involved with their local caucus process. Whether a person identifies with the Democrat or Republican Party, they both need to be cleaned up to get people who will stop this.

The main way to do this is to get involved at the local level. Right now, the majority of people who actually attend the caucus process are elderly and not always the most informed. Getting most of your news from Fox is not being well informed. They are also more easily swayed by fear. "The Power of Nightmares."

Here's an example of how the caucus system works http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus

bobMarch 26, 2008 11:42 AM

Do these data-gathering systems have spam filters?

What would happen to this data collection process if vast botnets started slightly morphing huge volumes of meaningless email information (with large attachments) and sending it to as many other computers as possible; which then in turn responded to the sender?

Who would win? To paraphase, can computers make a volume of data so large that computers cant store it? Be interesting to find out.

We could even start a "SETI at home"-like project to overflow the NSA where patriots could donate their screen saver time/BW to spamming other volunteers with (noncommercial) crap.

And of course NSA would have to keep it because if the didnt, then it is the first place terrorists would go to send messages.

alanMarch 26, 2008 12:27 PM

I have wondered why the Democrats keep folding when it comes to issues pushed by the Whitehouse. They I remember that they have had all their conversations tapped since Bush came to power.

This sort of bulk wiretapping is no good for finding Terrorists. It is great for wholesale blackmail and extortion.

AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 1:47 PM

@Jeroen
"Otherwise you're ultimately saying it would be OK for the US to repress and control every country in the world, as long as the civil liberties of US citizens are kept intact."

What - you think this is something new?

The US has been doing this since long before 2001's events. They've been toppled elected governments that weren't bowing to the US, installed dictators friendly to the US while overlookig other atrocities, been selective about which countries to "prosecute" for treaty violations while letting their friends do the same and not complain, etc.

None of this is new...

LeoMarch 26, 2008 1:49 PM

@dragonfrog
"I'm not accusing you of being such a person, understand."

Sure you're not.

There's nothing in my logic that justifies exploiting the laws of other nations to torture people. That's a failing in your logic.

The United States cannot be held responsible for deficiencies in the laws of other governments. The only way that can be made to work is if the U.S. rules the world. The proper responsibility for torture being allowed in other countries, whether the United States government exploits it or not, is with those governments. There is nothing that prohibits the United States from passing laws prohibiting its agents from participating in torture but if you extend U.S. Constitutional protections to foreign nations you must necessarily extend U.S. authority over those nations as well. You are saying that other nations should be denied sovereignty simply because agencies of the United States might exploit their bad law. Do you really believe in U.S. world domination? Or is torture in other countries only bad when the United States participates in it? That's your logic - that torture is acceptable as long as agencies of the United States are not participating in it.

Mark Mc.March 26, 2008 1:59 PM

@TheDoctor:

"US government collects data from all people from other countries in a way that would be illegal in the US itself as well as in these countries... Now the EU decides to do the same with US people... Then they sign a treaty to share these data."

Been there, done that. It is widely believed that this is a primary function of the UKUSA agreements.

AnonymousMarch 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Bruce,

Can't you post something about rainbows or butterflies that would lull me back into my former blissful naivete?

You're making it uncomfortable for me to sit here doing nothing.

Tangerine BlueMarch 26, 2008 2:23 PM

@Anonymous butterfly,

Wait a couple days. Bruce will give you something else to chew on (so to speak) every Friday.

pfoggMarch 26, 2008 3:40 PM

The bit about the FBI issuing a subpoena (without court oversight), and then the NSA initiating eavesdropping based on the possibility of an Al Qaeda link, as judged by the FBI and NSA, struck me as a serious procedural problem. It means the FBI and NSA can directly engage in trade (we'll subpoena the guy you want, if you share the information you get from this other guy), so that the subpoenas and resources of the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' can be applied to any investigative interest of members of either organization, provided they're willing to bend the rules a little bit in the spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit. It sounds like that door is wide open.

mooMarch 26, 2008 5:48 PM

I remember reading somewhere, many years ago, that CSIS spies on Americans and the NSA spies on Canadians, and then they swap data.

I've always just assumed that *someone* was spying on everything I do, maybe. The chilling effects are quite real and quite annoying. Its too bad my grandchildren are going to have to learn first-hand what the "free" nations of the world learned the hard way during World War II.

AgitMarch 26, 2008 7:14 PM

@Patriot
"What's your problem? About time they did something to counter terrorism. If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. Right?"

ZOMG teh Turrists!!!!! The US Government is the largest terrorist organization on the planet.

Your name is a complete misnomer.

A true patriot would not allow our government to do the things they have for the last 8 years without questioning the motivation and holding them 100% accountable for their actions, and screaming for them to be impeached and imprisoned for violating the very foundations that they SWORE to uphold.

And your argument of "I have done nothing wrong" doesn't hold water. There were plenty of Russians post Bolshevik revolution that did nothing wrong and either ended up dead or in gulags, because someone else decided whether they did something did or not.

ALF@HomeMarch 26, 2008 9:01 PM

"We could even start a "SETI at home"-like project"

I'm sure many of these so-called distributed computing projects are actually entirely or partly involved in processing work for the shadow orgs, it would be too juicy not to take advantage of the computing power.

Packets in packets, out. Do you examine and know what every work unit is for and doing? What about some of the projects whose source code is not available? Even if it is, again, are you digging through each work unit and verifying what the information is and is for? I doubt it.

Pretty screensavers are perfect to lull the stupid into installing something like this. You'll never see a DCP on my systems, and yes, I've studied these projects and have been following news and information about them for years, since S@H began. I'm sure F@H and some others have some merit, of that I have no doubt, but I still don't like the packets in packets out, especially to and from [other] proprietary projects.

Ctrl-Alt-DelMarch 26, 2008 11:00 PM

@Leo:

"if you extend U.S. Constitutional protections to foreign nations you must necessarily extend U.S. authority over those nations as well."

"It is not the obligation of the U.S. government to protect the civil rights of foreigners. That is the obligation of those peoples governments."

Let's reduce it to the individual level. Two men are stuck together in a situation (crowded train, plane, a jail cell, whatever). One man twists the nose of the other, something he would not do to himself. The other man objects but the first man persists, reasoning that it's the other guy's problem to look after himself. Eventually the other guy pulls out a gun and blows the first man away. The bystanders promptly club together to arrest and disarm the killer - but by then it's too late.

This is a lose-lose situation. The first man loses his life: the other man loses his liberty and maybe his life.

As you point out, it is the responsibility of other peoples governments to take care of their people. Most do try to take care of their people - and if their protests are ineffective, they will eventually resort to violence. Between sovereign nation states, this is known as war. If the offended party is not recognised as a sovereign state, it's known as rebellion or terrorism.

If you don't care about my rights, why should I give a damn about yours? Still less, why should I care about what your government does to you?

mooMarch 27, 2008 12:13 AM

The only reason the rest of us care about the rise of fascism in America, is that your country still has a lot of influence around the world (it's dwindling, but not fast enough for my taste) and we are afraid you will spread this fascism around a bit before you eventually collapse.

Britain is also pushing for full Big-Brother-mode but we aren't so worried about that because they are not a world superpower anymore, and the U.S. still is (sort of).

wingtipMarch 27, 2008 12:30 AM

The InfraGard Members Alliance (IMA) local chapters represent the heart of the InfraGard network. At the chapter level, each member has the opportunity to join with fellow private sector subject matter experts and discuss issues, concerns and threats that impact the nation’s critical infrastructure security, as well as their business interests on a local level.

"It is our mission to improve and extend information sharing between private industry and the government, particularly the FBI, when it comes to Critical National Infrastructure. As a result, timely intelligence is delivered, cases are initiated, vital economic assets are protected and lasting relationships are formed.”.......

www.birmingham-infragard.org/

TheDoctorMarch 27, 2008 3:32 AM

@Leo: as I said, your argumentation ist completely right.

The treaty I was refering to is already signed (as Mark Mc) stated and the collection of US citizen data will be done by the EU so the collection is outsourced. The US can (will) not do a thing about that, they only participate on the data the EU rightfully collects about aliens.

If you deny everyone out of your country resonable rights the others will jump on the bad example and this will sooner or later strike back.

And finaly returning to the topic: bad habits are most easy learned in areas where they are not punished and when mastered they are are applied to the own people.

As the NSA is doing (qed)

MarkMarch 27, 2008 12:35 PM

Philip Storry: Patriot: Define "terrorism". Also, define "something to hide".

Philip Storry: Then, find the people who run the monitoring system, and ask them to define those terms.

Philip Storry: They may not agree.

They may not even agree with each other. Potentially you could get at least as many answers as people you question.

Also "the monitoring system" could cover everyone from the people actually doing the monitoring to the highest level manager who is somehow connected with the monitoring. The latter may have little idea or be completly deluded about what actually happens.

raiMarch 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Choicepoint, the company that sold personal information on 30 million americans to nigerian scammers are the company that the bush junta has outsourced the totalitarian informatin access program to. This place is a huge datamine on americans and they are using the social network programing software to link every person who orders a pizza from a shop that sold a pizza to an alleged probable terrorist.

markmMarch 28, 2008 2:51 PM

Any government that maintains more than a token pretense of a self-defense capability is spying on foreign countries. Usually that includes your alleged friends - because no one that's studied much history is going to assume that friendly nations will always stay friendly. Not to mention sneaky under the table actions, such as the Europeans that helped Saddam evade sanctions by swapping limousines, machinery, and probably weapons for oil under the "oil for food" program.

Anyway, the abuses that I worry about with domestic spying are unlikely to occur in international spying. We might be able technically to surveil the whole world, but in practice we can't review the data until 99.9% of it has been excluded. If American spying happens to discover some Frenchman committing a technical violation of our laws in France, we can't arrest him. Our officials might be mildly interested in who a German politician is sleeping with, but not nearly as much as if it were one of their political opponents. And finally, in how many foreign countries can an informed person really be sure that their government isn't spying on them without probable cause and a warrant issued by a judge or the equivalent?

However, evading restrictions on domestic spying by data sharing is possible, and worrisome - it is quite possible to pick data concerning a list of political opponents out of the mass. I think it's also unconstitutional, but it's very, very difficult to build a case that you can bring in front of an American court...

Clive RobinsonMarch 28, 2008 4:04 PM

@moo,

It's not Canada but the good old UK.

Shortly after WWII the British and US govs signed a secret agrement to spy on each others citizens.

It was cald the BRUSA agrement and if you google around with NSA GCHQ etc you will come across it.

Over the years most of the WASP Nations (including Canada) on both sides of the puddles have signed up to it.

A couple of years ago I posted about it on this blog.

sammyMarch 29, 2008 3:22 PM

"Would you trust a government that would do all of this to spy on you?
Watch the PBS Bill Moyers documentary
"Secret Government: Constitution In Crisis""

Yes, everyone MUST watch that. It should be shown again on TV today, but that kind of story can't be seen on TV today, in fact I believe anyone who tried to make a story like that today would be seen as Anti-American by the PC majority!

"This video features the Iran Contra Scandal of 1987 as well as many others."

Why was Oliver North on Fox News during the start of the whole Iraq war stuff considering this history? And there was the American flag waving near the Fox News logo while he paraded around..

Boggles the fucking mind!

spoilerMarch 30, 2008 8:59 PM

I think I'll poison their data by sending out emails to everyone I know with 'trigger' words, you know, like 'venona'... I keed, I keed


jamesMarch 31, 2008 9:43 AM

It'll all be better when the bio-chips become mandatory. Less than five years?

JPMarch 31, 2008 5:01 PM

Patriot at March 26, 2008 06:56 AM: I presume you walk in the streets naked. You have nothing to hide, you don't need to fear anything. You must be damned trusting your government. It wouldn't pass through your mind that those information could be abused. BTW, the behaviour of your government and agencies is already abusive. Something like this isn't acceptable in legally consistent state. This is no more democracy, when some agencies act without judges's supervisory. The line between USA and Hitler's Germany is getting very thin. Arguments like "if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need to fear anything" are idiotic. Are you one of those who believe there's no propaganda in USA and the TV is telling you the truth?
--
"A popular response is: ``If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.`` [...] The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private.'' --George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

AnonymousApril 1, 2008 4:51 AM

Jeroen at March 26, 2008 08:06 AM: But the US wants to control every country in the world. Especially if there is oil. And the domestic liberties? Forget it.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..