URL: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/pentagon-threat-prediction-scan-communications/
So, does anybody have a problem with this?
So, does anybody have a problem with this?
Pentagon Threat Detection System Would Scan E-mails and Text
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
They're soldiers. Fair game for monitoring more closely than civilians, frankly; they agreed to it when they signed up.
Besides, I don't consider automated anomaly detection to be an invasion of privacy. Human review of any flags it brings up, sure, but not the software scan itself any more than a virus scan would be.
If you want to discuss the morality of the government watching its soldiers' communications, that's fine, but don't pretend this is a technology issue.
Besides, I don't consider automated anomaly detection to be an invasion of privacy. Human review of any flags it brings up, sure, but not the software scan itself any more than a virus scan would be.
If you want to discuss the morality of the government watching its soldiers' communications, that's fine, but don't pretend this is a technology issue.
Lindley,
The issue isn't the soldiers; the issue is all the civilians in the areas near the bases that would end up monitored in the process. There seems to be no provision to deal with civil rights issues for those who are not military or government personnel. That is my problem.
I disagree, if I put a camera in your neighbors house, aimed it so I could view into your bedroom when you were not at home, set it to a motion sensor, and left. The camera recorded everything you did the instant motion was detected in your room.
A week later, I came by, you weren't home, and I retrieved it. Even if I never looked at it, if you found out, I could imagine you'd feel that your privacy was violated.
Automated data-mining is no different, except it violates the privacy of massive numbers of people, and this surveillance is done without any probable cause, without any warrant. That is the fundamental problem I have.
That's ridiculous, this most certainly is. There is certainly a morality issue, here, but it's a technological issue too: The ethical issue exists because of the technology and it's innate potential for misuse.
The issue isn't the soldiers; the issue is all the civilians in the areas near the bases that would end up monitored in the process. There seems to be no provision to deal with civil rights issues for those who are not military or government personnel. That is my problem.
I disagree, if I put a camera in your neighbors house, aimed it so I could view into your bedroom when you were not at home, set it to a motion sensor, and left. The camera recorded everything you did the instant motion was detected in your room.
A week later, I came by, you weren't home, and I retrieved it. Even if I never looked at it, if you found out, I could imagine you'd feel that your privacy was violated.
Automated data-mining is no different, except it violates the privacy of massive numbers of people, and this surveillance is done without any probable cause, without any warrant. That is the fundamental problem I have.
That's ridiculous, this most certainly is. There is certainly a morality issue, here, but it's a technological issue too: The ethical issue exists because of the technology and it's innate potential for misuse.
Soldiers are not private citizens. They are, for all intents, property of the US government. They have no rights not accorded to them specifically by military law, policy and custom. They serve the constitution, but they are not protected by it. They have limited freedom of speech, and limited privacy. As such, any conversation you have with them has the possibility of being made part of the public record, no different than sitting in a public plaza and having a conversation.
You're using a twisted or ill-informed concept of privacy and using that to somehow cast this program as some kind of conspiracy against the people of the United States. This is all well settled law here, going back centuries. If you write a physical letter to a soldier, or he writes one to you, it is subject to search, seizure and censor. This is no different.
The "critics" in the article are even more dumb. While you can stick an on-base filtering and monitoring system to check traffic, that's entirely separate from the neighboring civilian area. Different physically (public ISP vs a contracted, dedicated trunk) and different legally (you'd need wiretap OK from a civilian judge). People need to stop having #### fests when they don't even understand how the underlying technologies and law work.
STR,
Perhaps you didn't read the part where I said the issue wasn't the soldiers. The issue was about the civilians that would be swept up in this fishing expedition who live near the base
Perhaps you didn't read the part where I said the issue wasn't the soldiers. The issue was about the civilians that would be swept up in this fishing expedition who live near the base
There is no magical way that people "living near the base" would be caught up in this, unless they are exchanging emails with soldiers, in which case they forfeit any expectation of privacy regarding those emails.
Hate to tell 'ya, but your emails are already being scanned.
Have been since the internet was invented.
The telephone systems are all computerized too.
The big question to ask yourself is: What are you doing that has you worried about someone reading your emails????????
;-)
Have been since the internet was invented.
The telephone systems are all computerized too.
The big question to ask yourself is: What are you doing that has you worried about someone reading your emails????????
;-)
Guilty until proven innocent. Why not just put a fucking camera with a miscrophone in their units and bathrooms.
I have a feeling years from now, that court will have that decision overturned. And let's face it: even if the court says so, e-mail IS private. There's a reason you have a password. There's a reason it's encrypted into servers. there's a reason isn't a secure connection. There's a reason we can't see the president's e-mails or CIA e-mails. There's a reason why the court or police can't compell you to give your password. IT'S PRIVATE.
Get your straw out of my Kool-Aid.
I have a feeling years from now, that court will have that decision overturned. And let's face it: even if the court says so, e-mail IS private. There's a reason you have a password. There's a reason it's encrypted into servers. there's a reason isn't a secure connection. There's a reason we can't see the president's e-mails or CIA e-mails. There's a reason why the court or police can't compell you to give your password. IT'S PRIVATE.
Get your straw out of my Kool-Aid.
Just A Friend,
Nothing. Regardless, the government isn't supposed to be monitoring people unless they have probable cause that you have committed a crime
Tharp Devenport,
Yup, that does seem to be the government's attitude lately
Lindley,
What's PGP?
Correct, but unfortunately, the government is seeking laws that will require all encryption used in the civilian field to have a back-door so the government can peek in when they feel like it. They're claiming it's to comply with CALEA, but I think they just want to be able to peek in whenever they want.
Nothing. Regardless, the government isn't supposed to be monitoring people unless they have probable cause that you have committed a crime
Tharp Devenport,
Yup, that does seem to be the government's attitude lately
Lindley,
What's PGP?
Correct, but unfortunately, the government is seeking laws that will require all encryption used in the civilian field to have a back-door so the government can peek in when they feel like it. They're claiming it's to comply with CALEA, but I think they just want to be able to peek in whenever they want.
The government can "require" whatever they want. We have strong, open-source encryption systems right now. There isn't much the government can do to stop that. Even if they shut down development, they won't be able to kill the distribution of the software.
I would also add that any encryption system which has a "backdoor" built into it is automatically worthless since it is, by its very design, compromised. In effect, the government would have to outlaw true encryption as a concept.
I would also add that any encryption system which has a "backdoor" built into it is automatically worthless since it is, by its very design, compromised. In effect, the government would have to outlaw true encryption as a concept.
What's funny is that at posts 7/8 it looks like Kes7 (well, her avatar) is reading JustAFriend's post and is shocked and horrified that someone's going to find out what she's been emailing people about.
Robert Maxwell,
Well, the government wouldn't use this. They would have strong encryption; the ordinary public however would only be allowed to have encryption with a back-door.
Well, the government wouldn't use this. They would have strong encryption; the ordinary public however would only be allowed to have encryption with a back-door.
Well, no kidding. I'm saying encryption for private use would be worthless. And as soon as some intrepid hackers find this backdoor and publicizes it, that'll be the end of e-commerce.
Secure encryption is a fundamental requirement for a commercially safe Internet. Destroying that would be very much a case of the government biting the hand that feeds it. Encryption may be regulated--it already is, to some extent--but going as far as putting a backdoor into all encryption systems? Not going to happen. The uproar from the business community alone would kill that idea.
Secure encryption is a fundamental requirement for a commercially safe Internet. Destroying that would be very much a case of the government biting the hand that feeds it. Encryption may be regulated--it already is, to some extent--but going as far as putting a backdoor into all encryption systems? Not going to happen. The uproar from the business community alone would kill that idea.
Up until last year I was an active duty soldier stationed at Hood. I have a secret clearance, and until I left Hood I had all the information handling certificates and accounts required by the Signal Corps.
Several points about this threat detection system seem ill-thought out. First, soldiers use the key words that intelligence agencies automated software look for, quite frequently in e-mails. Bomb, attack, Jihad, kill, whatever word you want to toss in the filter, we use routinely.
Second, we e-mail people in the Middle East far more than normal US citizens. The majority of those messages are to our friends deployed over there, but there is also a large amount to local nationals that we became friends with. In my own unit for example we served with the same Iraqi interpreters for 15 months. Even after we returned home we still exchanged e-mails with them just to stay in touch.
The automated software that the NSA and others use to look for suspicious activity is going to require a lot more human oversight and man-hours of filtering than it would on normal civilians. Which of course means it is going to be expensive.
Which brings up my final point. Had certain officers done their jobs and actually looked at the evaluation reports on Hasan and not fobbed him off on one unit after another he would never have been in the position he was.
Fix the bureaucracy we have in place that failed, instead of creating a new expensive bureaucracy that will likely still fail.
Several points about this threat detection system seem ill-thought out. First, soldiers use the key words that intelligence agencies automated software look for, quite frequently in e-mails. Bomb, attack, Jihad, kill, whatever word you want to toss in the filter, we use routinely.
Second, we e-mail people in the Middle East far more than normal US citizens. The majority of those messages are to our friends deployed over there, but there is also a large amount to local nationals that we became friends with. In my own unit for example we served with the same Iraqi interpreters for 15 months. Even after we returned home we still exchanged e-mails with them just to stay in touch.
The automated software that the NSA and others use to look for suspicious activity is going to require a lot more human oversight and man-hours of filtering than it would on normal civilians. Which of course means it is going to be expensive.
Which brings up my final point. Had certain officers done their jobs and actually looked at the evaluation reports on Hasan and not fobbed him off on one unit after another he would never have been in the position he was.
Fix the bureaucracy we have in place that failed, instead of creating a new expensive bureaucracy that will likely still fail.
This brings up a good point that can be summarized thusly: even the most perfect signals intelligence can't replace good old-fashioned human intelligence. Computers deal really well with things that are rational and predictable. People aren't. A computer might be able to help but it's not going to do the work for you--there still has to be a competent person behind the desk.
So, I absolutely agree. Using scanning software as a blunt tool to solve human problems doesn't and won't work.
Lindley,
Yeah, but they could prosecute a person who's computer they couldn't break into, for not being in compliance with the new law.
Robert Maxwell,
Advances in artificial intelligence, er, sorry, intelligent computer algorithms (the term A.I. isn't used too much anymore because I guess it conjures up images of Terminator) will eventually render the need for human intelligence unnecessary. Hell, eventually such technology will probably ultimately render humans unnecessary (I don't think this is a good road to head down, but oddly nobody seems to care at all).
Yeah, but they could prosecute a person who's computer they couldn't break into, for not being in compliance with the new law.
Robert Maxwell,
Advances in artificial intelligence, er, sorry, intelligent computer algorithms (the term A.I. isn't used too much anymore because I guess it conjures up images of Terminator) will eventually render the need for human intelligence unnecessary. Hell, eventually such technology will probably ultimately render humans unnecessary (I don't think this is a good road to head down, but oddly nobody seems to care at all).