
Report: NSA bulk metadata collection has “no discernible impact” - fortepianissimo
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/report-nsa-bulk-metadata-collection-has-no-discernible-impact/
======
jessaustin
Wow. OK _now_ we see why we had to spend billions of dollars and shred the
Bill of Rights. Because a cab driver sent $8500 home to Somalia. It's all
clear now. Carry on, patriots.

What may annoy me even more, is that even in this article, Ars needed
"balance" so much that they let some executive branch lizard blow his pompous
bullshit at us without putting his name on it. That has got to stop. Anonymous
speech is for citizens, not tyrants.

~~~
rprospero
> Anonymous speech is for citizens, not tyrants.

That's why I can't get behind the privacy movement. No one seems to be arguing
that privacy is a right - it's just a privilege extended to those we like
(citizens), but shouldn't necessarily be extended to those who oppose us
(tyrants). Among those we don't trust, openness is necessary to avoid
despotism. Among those we do trust, privacy is a fundamental freedom.

The NSA agrees with your sentiment 100%. Your only disagreement is on who is
the tyrant.

~~~
pessimizer
Bah. This is a government worker talking about his job in a quasi-official
capacity, not "those who oppose us." I should know as much about what he's
doing at work as my company should know what I'm doing at my job.

~~~
mpyne
> I should know as much about what he's doing at work as my company should
> know what I'm doing at my job.

Is that what you tell the traffic cop too?

------
fit2rule
I believe we are watching agitprop being masterfully and skillfully applied to
the positioning on this whole metadata issue, even here among the cognescenti,
by the powers in charge of these meetings.

This is a setup for us to all start thinking "oh, metadata doesn't really mean
anything". 'It doesn't mean anything, because its obviously not useful.'

So .. here's my delegitprop thought: If today, the line is "Feds are not
achieving anything with metadata", then tomorrow .. or maybe a little later ..
the line will become "metadata doesn't achieve anything".

So we'll see.

Who is asking the politicians if they actually do know what the word 'meta-'
means? Because .. those who are collecting "meta-"data can facetiously use
that word from multiple angles .. and these totalitarians (call them what they
are, folks) are fastidious about never using words in this realm that they do
not have clearly, internally at least, defined.

The NSA has its own dictionary of the English language, for internal use. It
is used to promote internal doctrine, and it is used externally to position.
Information positioning is a refined, pure, utter science in this realm. So
this NSA dictionary should be on the table in front of any Senator, doing
their job, in these meetings. I highly doubt it is relevant what I think, but
the only way out of this mess is a total dox'ing of the agency, and a
replacement with something else ..

~~~
pyre
If it has no impact then:

1) Why are we wasting money collecting and storing it?

2) Why are we wasting time looking at it?

This does not muddy the waters to anyone with critical-thinking skills. Why
does this invasion of my privacy need to happen if it is unable to achieve its
own stated goals?

Edit:

My point was that people should be asking these questions, and these aren't
hard questions to ask. Even just asking "if this has no impact then why are we
wasting money" should be an easy question to ask for fiscal conservatives. I
really don't see many people going the route of thinking, "this is
ineffective, therefore we should just keep doing it because the metadata
doesn't matter."

I don't understand why people see me asking these questions and automatically
assume that I'm attacking them and defending the NSA or something.

~~~
marcosdumay
It has no impact on catching terrorists. That's the article claim.

It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time
creating it.

~~~
pyre
The impact may not be much though. People have wasted much time, money and
effort on endeavors based on faulty premises just because they never took the
time to evaluate their situation.

~~~
moocowduckquack
At a guess, it is a measurement tool for analysing cause and effect with the
aim of not being caught out by political mass movements. If you want to model
a society thermodynamically, you need a lot of data. But then I have always
been a fan of Asimov's Foundation.

------
suprgeek
"No discernible Impact" on preventing acts of terrorism.

But that was never the end goal of bulk metadata collection. Terrorism was the
merely the excuse to invoke those powers. The end goal is and always has been,
to give the U.S Govt unfettered access to all communications of it citizens
for whatever purposes it desires without having to go thru the legal process
(not even the ridiculously permissive FISA court).

Prediction - They will use every excuse in the book to hold onto this
capability.

~~~
lostlogin
>> The end goal is, and always has been, to give the U.S. govt unfettered
access to all communications of its citizens<< I sort of feel like this
glosses over the rest of us out here in the world. We don't have anyone to
complain to that can/will do anything and are far more likely to suffer from
US government actions. It's worse that we suffer this crap that US citizens
do, not better as we don't get any say in it.

------
Vivtek
_" This capability was put in place after 9/11 for a good reason," said a
senior administration official who asked not to be identified discussing
sensitive deliberations._

"We can't tell you exactly what those reasons are, but trust us, they're
really important."

~~~
joering2
Edit: and oh, we are anonymous when we say that... you know, just for our own
protection...

\- are we going to see a day where a SWAT team raid your house for unclear
reason, you are being tried under secret court that you have no influence
over, and decision is made by an anonymous judge or secret jury (for their own
protection, of course).

Crap, I say: capital punishment for everyone, even if it was only a
jaywalking!

/sarcasm.

------
MaysonL
Surveillence of Citizens Is ALWAYS Aimed at Crushing Dissent[0]

[0][http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/01/surveillence-of-
citizen...](http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/01/surveillence-of-citizens-is-
always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/)

------
fortepianissimo
Quote:

"A new paper published Monday by the New America Foundation... closely
examines the 225 cases... the controversial bulk collection of American
telephone metadata... appears to have played an identifiable role in
initiating, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases."

(That's 4 cases)

~~~
Vivtek
4 cases against 4 people involved in one actual attempt by a cab driver to
send $8500 home to Somalia. So allowing a figure as high as 1.8 percent is
really, really generous.

