
U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens - jalanco
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html?mod=wsj_valetbottom_email
======
sologoub
This is so typical - a government agency screws up, so it blames the fact that
it didn't have enough powers, and does another power grab:

"However, Mr. Abdulmutallab and his underwear did alter U.S. intelligence-
gathering. A Senate investigation revealed that NCTC had received information
about him but had failed to query other government databases about him. In a
scathing finding, the Senate report said, "the NCTC was not organized
adequately to fulfill its missions."

"This was not a failure to collect or share intelligence," said John Brennan,
the president's chief counterterrorism adviser, at a White House press
conference in January 2010. "It was a failure to connect and integrate and
understand the intelligence we had.""

From what I'm reading here, this person would have been within the
jurisdiction of the previous rules as a person connected with terror
activities. The agency just failed to connect the dots. If I recall recall
correctly, the guys own father had contacted US Embassy to tell them that his
son is trying to get involved with terrorists...

The solution to this problem seems to be better data interconnection between
agencies, in order to ensure that as much detail about identified threats is
available. I don't see how have more data about a much broader set of citizens
is going to help... if anything, it's going to make the identification process
more complex.

------
EliRivers
At risk of stating the obvious, the false positive rate will create a vast
number of innocent citizens flagged for further investigation. This automated
flagging will overwhelm the human investigators, creating a situation in which
terrorists find it easier to hide and operate amongst the citizenry, with the
added feature that innocent citizens swept up will become truculent and less
likely to cooperate. Net result; the US government makes terrorism easier, at
vast expense to the US taxpayer.

------
jalanco
A couple of key paragraphs:

"Now, NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center] can copy entire government
databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans
hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new
authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and
to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were
prohibited. Data about Americans 'reasonably believed to constitute terrorism
information' may be permanently retained.

"The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to
foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign
governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might
commit future crimes."

~~~
csense
> The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to
> foreign governments for analysis of their own.

What forces those foreign governments to comply with the safeguards of US law?

Especially if when they hand over the data, the feds say "do what you need to
do to tell us what we need to know (wink wink)". It's nothing less than
"extraordinary rendition" for data.

------
suprgeek
A very telling line in the Article - "The guidelines provide rigorous
oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow
purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence"

A "guideline" is supposed to provide rigorous oversight...how many guidelines
have you heard of that provide rigorous Anything? Basically the government
wants to be able to Datamine every single database within their control for
anything suspicious. Unfortunately the definition of "suspicious activity" can
be elastic enough to be almost anything.

Occupy Wallstreet? - suspicious

Protest against Oil drilling - suspicious

Blog post criticizing NY police "stop & frisk" - suspicious

Criticize the Feds for overstepping on something - suspicious

Sad - we are sleep waking into the Total information awareness state. The
terrorists attacks have worked - they have destroyed the very values that
America was built on

~~~
dragonbonheur
Add to it that paying with cash is suspicious and should be reported
immediately. [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/fbi-perfect-
terro...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/fbi-perfect-terrorist-
coffee-cash_n_1276494.html)

~~~
dr_doom
If you are a regular “cash customer” of a restaurant, you get treated like a
king.

Good inside move.

~~~
epoxyhockey
If you pay cash _anywhere_ , not only are you treated like a king, but you
will get a nice discount due to the vendor not having to pay CC processing
fees (at the least). I highly recommend that frugal HN'ers explore this
phenomenon.

------
mcantelon
No mention in this article (that I saw) that points out that this data is also
used to find new candidates for the extrajudicial "kill list" using the
"disposition matrix":

>the "disposition matrix" has been developed and will be overseen by the
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is "to augment"
the "separate but overlapping kill lists" maintained by the CIA and the
Pentagon

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-
te...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-
kill-list)

There's been a slow, steady consolidation of state power post-9/11, including
the establishment of NORTHCOM: a command post for war in North America. It
seems like they're worried about domestic insurgence rather than conventional
terrorism.

------
jamesmcn
If you haven't committed a crime how could you possibly need privacy, comrade?

~~~
dragonbonheur
You really do enjoy having lots of people watch your sex tapes, or know about
your financial situation or about how you and your parents haven't been
talking for so many years or knowing that your girlfriend/wife dated and slept
with crowd of men before meeting you, huh?

~~~
jamesmcn
(psst: might want to have your sarcasm detector recalibrated, it appears to be
giving erroneous readings)

~~~
mindcrime
(psst: text only communication is a _really_ shitty way to convey sarcasm.
Sarcasm on the Internet is fundamentally Broken)

------
dragonbonheur
Bin Laden won the war on terror. They're all scared now. Even China does not
monitor its own citizens like that. Soon Chinese citizens will enjoy more
freedom and privacy than western citizens.

~~~
tptacek
Sure. I mean, their local police are allowed to arrest people and send them to
"Reeducation Through Labor" camps for 1-3 years without trial. But sure, the
US, China, same thing.

~~~
guelo
Are you saying the US does not detain people without charges for years at a
time?

~~~
tptacek
I'm saying that the local police in China can, on a whim, send you to a labor
camp for 1-3 years, and that even after "reforms", the hearings that spring
you from labor camps take longer than 1-3 years.

And I'm saying that the police in the US can't.

Equating civil liberties in the US with those of China make you, prima facie,
a nutjob.

~~~
willurd
Please reread the NDAA 2012 (keyword: indefinite detention) and dispense with
the ad hominem attacks. If you can't make your point without calling someone a
nutjob, maybe you don't have a point to be made...

~~~
tptacek
Just citing the NDAA in this context is a tell that you haven't read it. The
authorization to detain persons without trial doesn't come from the NDAA, it
comes from the 2003 AUMF. The NDAA _narrows_ the detention powers available to
the US; the ACLU (rightly) is upset that it doesn't narrow those powers
sufficiently.

And, obviously, the detention powers available to the US under the AUMF/NDAA
are _nothing like those available to any local Chinese constabulary_.

~~~
willurd
I have read it, and I submit the relevant text from section 1021 below.

Namely, the NDAA affirms the "authority of the Armed Forces of the United
States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force". A "covered person" is someone who has "planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or who "was a part of or
substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." But no trial needs to
be held in order to make the aforementioned conclusions: "Detention under the
law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force."

So, our government can detain anybody it (who's that exactly?) deems is a
"terrorist", without trial, until the end of "hostilities" (let me make a
prediction: the "war on terror" isn't ending any time soon, hence
"indefinite").

So, no, I am not making and will not make any comparisons between the United
States and China. I am, however, backing up guelo's point that the US can
_legally_ "detain people without charges for years at a time", and very few
people seem to care.

SECTION 1021

    
    
      Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the
      United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization
      for Use of Military Force. 
    
      (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the 
        President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to 
        the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 
        50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces 
        of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
      (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
    
      (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section 
      is any person as follows: 
        (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided 
          the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, 
          or harbored those responsible for those attacks. 
        (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported 
          al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged 
          in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, 
          including any person who has committed a belligerent act or 
          has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy 
          forces.
    
      (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a 
        person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may 
        include the following: 
        (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until 
          the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for 
          Use of Military Force. 
        (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States 
          Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 
          (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). 
        (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent 
          tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. 
        (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country 
          of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. 
      (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit 
        or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the 
        Authorization for Use of Military Force.

~~~
tptacek
The problem isn't the NDAA. It's Public Law 107-40, the original 2001 Al Qaeda
AUMF. Here's the problematic language:

    
    
        (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary
        and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
        he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
        attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
        organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
        international terrorism again the United States by such nations,
        organizations or persons
    

Compare to the 1991 AUMF for the first Gulf War:

    
    
        (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection
        (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
        Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
        implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664,
        665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
         
        (b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS
        NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a),
        the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of
        Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
        determination--
         
        (1) that the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and
        other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United
        Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and
         
        (2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in
        obtaining such compliance.
    

Notice that the 2001 AUMF, which was written in a panic, authorizes arbitrary
force with no mitigating effort required not only against nations but against
"organizations" and "persons", and continues to authorize those efforts so
long as they might prevent future acts of terrorism.

It is hard to get much worse than that. The NDAA doesn't make it worse; in
fact, by putting pen to paper and outlining specific circumstances in which
the US can use its military to detain people, it ostensibly makes it better
(it is hard to imagine making the 2001 or 2003 AUMF better without repealing
it and starting over, though).

The Alex Jones take on the NDAA would be that it's a huge executive overreach
and a sign that the current administration favors an overt authorization of
Latin American-style "disappearings" of suspected terrorists. Apart from the
2001-2003 context those febrile rants exclude, there is also the fact that the
House and Senate GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to _expand_ the powers available to
the executive to combat terrorism.

It is also possible to be disquieted by detention and due process provisions
in a war powers act while simultaneously understanding the context in which a
reasonable person could assert them. For example, without some provision for
detaining US citizens abroad, how would you lawfully handle _any_ armed
conflict with the Taliban? There are more than 300MM Americans. Some of them
will win the lottery, and others will in fact fly to Pakistan to train with
militants, as has already happened repeatedly. US military forces will
eventually encounter them in armed conflict. In every war, there is always
going to some due process concern regarding the handling of possible US
citizens taking up arms to fight alongside our opponents.

The Al Qaeda AUMF is ridiculously overbroad and needs to be fixed. But the
NDAA, a utility bill that happens every year to fund the military, is not a
re-ratification of that act, nor does it create a civil liberties regime in
the US comparable to that of China.

~~~
willurd
Thanks for the info about the AUMF. I'll definitely have to look into that
further.

    
    
      Notice that the 2001 AUMF, which was written in a panic,
      authorizes arbitrary force with no mitigating effort
      required not only against nations but against
      "organizations" and "persons", and continues to authorize
      those efforts so long as they might prevent future acts of
      terrorism.
    
      It is hard to get much worse than that. The NDAA doesn't
      make it worse; in fact, by putting pen to paper and
      outlining specific circumstances in which the US can use
      its military to detain people, it ostensibly makes it
      better (it is hard to imagine making the 2001 or 2003
      AUMF better without repealing it and starting over,
      though).
    

Yea, that's definitely horrendous. That being said, the entire purpose of
Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012 is to affirm those governmental powers. There's
even a section which I cited which specifically states that the NDAA doesn't
limit the President's powers at all: "(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this
section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the
scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Which basically means
"everything we just said about limits and expansions means jack squat when it
comes to the president; (s)he can do whatever". So yea, the AUMF started this,
and it was broad and allowed everything. The NDAA is still a problem because
it continues it and doesn't actually limit anything when it comes to the
President.

    
    
      The Alex Jones take on the NDAA would be that it's a huge
      executive overreach and a sign that the current
      administration favors an overt authorization of Latin
      American-style "disappearings" of suspected terrorists.
      Apart from the 2001-2003 context those febrile rants
      exclude, there is also the fact that the House and Senate
      GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available
      to the executive to combat terrorism.
    

I don't think I mentioned Alex Jones. Also "huge executive overreach and a
sign that the current administration" and "the House and Senate GOP wanted the
2012 NDAA to expand the powers available to the executive". Both of those are
right :) Both parties are responsible for this. This is a bi-partisan effort
haha.

    
    
      It is also possible to be disquieted by detention and due
      process provisions in a war powers act while
      simultaneously understanding the context in which a
      reasonable person could assert them. For example,
      without some provision for detaining US citizens abroad,
      how would you lawfully handle any armed conflict with
      the Taliban? There are more than 300MM Americans. Some
      of them will win the lottery, and others will in fact
      fly to Pakistan to train with militants, as has already
      happened repeatedly. US military forces will eventually
      encounter them in armed conflict. In every war, there
      is always going to some due process concern regarding
      the handling of possible US citizens taking up arms to
      fight alongside our opponents.
    

If a US citizen is engaging in a firefight with US armed forces, then yes,
there's your proof they are "terrorists". If you can a US citizen in the act
of building a bomb, then yes, there's your proof. However, if through the
grape vine you gain "intelligence" that a certain US citizen is a "terrorist",
by constitutional law you must provide that citizen a fair trial by a jury of
their peers (i.e. not a military trial). If overseas, bring them back to the
US. The AUMF generally and NDAA more specifically do away with that
requirement (which is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental aspects of
american freedom).

    
    
      The Al Qaeda AUMF is ridiculously overbroad and needs to
      be fixed. But the NDAA, a utility bill that happens every
      year to fund the military, is not a re-ratification of
      that act, nor does it create a civil liberties regime
      in the US comparable to that of China.
    

If it's not a re-ratification, then why mention it? If the government doesn't
need it, why put the language in there? I think it's important to keep in mind
that few things are put into legal documentation without express purpose,
especially at the level of government.

~~~
tptacek
I'm the one bringing up Alex Jones, as a way of being derisive about people
who equate the US and China on the auspices that "the US has made policy
mistakes and China has made policy mistakes so what's the difference?". I'm
sorry that I accidentally implied that you, specifically, were regurgitating
Infowars points.

You ask, in effect, if the administration already had the ability under its
war powers to detain people, why create a new bill that re-affirms that power?
The answer is political. The conservative GOP wanted to re-affirm those war
powers that benefited the CIA, and at the same time some (but not all) liberal
elements of the Democratic party wanted to clarify and rein in those powers.
There was a fight, and then a compromise bill, which, reading between the
lines, attempts to punt the thorniest parts of the debate to the Supreme Court
while creating an immediate statutory authority for CIA and DOD to continue
doing what they're already doing.

Yes, this is a clusterfuck.

The problem in the US is that we were hit with one of the most damaging, best
organized terrorist attacks by a non-state actor during the least competent
administration of the past 50 years. Congress panicked and granted the Bush
administration a wish list of military powers, and we're spending the ensuing
decades gradually cleaning up after the resulting mess.

That's a problem. But it's not a sign that the US is gradually turning into a
dystopian hellscape.

I don't care, except for two things. First, when people bring up the NDAA,
they set off a "someone's wrong on the Internet" sensor that, as a nerd, I am
unable to suppress. Second, as much as Internet psuedo-activists do not want
to hear this, the "NDAA" issue is in fact a corner case in US policy.
Indefinite detention of political dissidents in China is not a corner case. It
is a daily fact of life, as it is elsewhere in the world.

You can make millions of dollars spinning conspiracy theories about the evils
of the government and big corporations in America, and the reality is, nobody
really cares. Try doing that in Russia; see how long it takes for you or your
coworkers to end up dead.

~~~
willurd

      I'm the one bringing up Alex Jones, as a way of being
      derisive about people who equate the US and China on the
      auspices that "the US has made policy mistakes and China
      has made policy mistakes so what's the difference?". I'm
      sorry that I accidentally implied that you, specifically,
      were regurgitating Infowars points.
    

No problem. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't.

    
    
      Yes, this is a clusterfuck.
    

That's something we definitely agree on ;)

    
    
      That's a problem. But it's not a sign that the US is gradually
      turning into a dystopian hellscape.
    

At the risk of sounding crazy myself, I've seen too many recent videos of
"peace officers" dragging peaceful protestors into the streets by their hair
and group beating them with batons before handcuffing and arresting them, to
believe that myself. But that's my opinion. And I really do wish that was the
case.

    
    
      I don't care, except for two things. First, when people bring
      up the NDAA, they set off a "someone's wrong on the Internet"
      sensor that, as a nerd, I am unable to suppress. Second, as much
      as Internet psuedo-activists do not want to hear this, the "NDAA"
      issue is in fact a corner case in US policy. Indefinite detention
      of political dissidents in China is not a corner case. It is a daily
      fact of life, as it is elsewhere in the world.
    

I don't have any examples of the provisions outlined in the NDAA and documents
prior being used, so I can't speak to that.

    
    
      You can make millions of dollars spinning conspiracy theories
      about the evils of the government and big corporations in America,
      and the reality is, nobody really cares. Try doing that in Russia;
      see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead.
    

"Try doing that in Russia; see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to
end up dead." Let's be fair, you could make that same case for the death of
Andrew Breitbart.

~~~
tptacek
Wait what? Breitbart died of a heart attack. He had a history of heart
disease. He was also beloved of roughly half the US government. Russian
activists with inconvenient positions and personal beliefs appear to routinely
end up shot to death.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia)

Anna Politkovskaya did not have a history of bullet disease.

~~~
willurd
Yea I'm not saying Breitbart was murdered lol. I'm just saying, if we're going
to talk about governments murdering inconvenient people, a case could be made
for it and we shouldn't put it past our own government to do so.

In any case this is tertiary to the original point that the situation is a
mess, regardless of whether the NDAA has anything to do with it.

------
pge
I'm guessing they would prefer to be referenced as a "Counterterrorism Agency"
rather than a "Terrorism Agency"...

