
Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.’s (2013) - ctingom
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html?_r=1
======
llamataboot
The Drug War seems so out of control and Orwellian at this point, that I
unfortunately can't think of any way to stop it, as long as the general public
thinks that it's somewhere in the range of "overbearing but necessary" to
"annoying and probably evil but doesn't really affect me".

I'm excited by the chinks in the armor that have come with marijuana
legalization/decriminalization, and I think once that spreads across much of
the US, some of the Drug War will have lost its teeth, but I don't imagine it
will make a large dent the surveillance industry.

Now that we have built the infrastructure, conceived of parallel construction,
etc there will always be a shadowy enemy lurking in our midst that we need to
turn it on. Its kinda like having a giant military-industrial complex. You
really can't sustain it without war, yet it has its own momentum and seeks to
sustain itself, so it makes war more likely.

~~~
joering2
> The Drug War seems so out of control and Orwellian at this point

A friend of mine, a MBA/PHD fellow who happened to give lectures on one of the
most prestige US University, as well as working for very prestige Hedge Fund
in NYC, is a great example of this.

In 2007 we was pulled over for a missing stop light. The car was his
grandmother and he wasn't aware. As the cop approached him from the right side
to look into his glove compartment while he was reaching for registration, the
cop noticed a pill on the floor. It happened to be some sort of para-morphine
tightly controlled drug that his grandmother used for a pain from her cancer.

No amount of explanation was enough for this cop. Even when his grandma showed
up at the police station with bottle of same drug to explain.

Shortly after his life got ruined very quickly. Of course both University and
his job found out and he was removed from his duties due to "very strict no
drug policies". No amount of explanation was enough. He tried to get another
job and over 3 years went from looking jobs at Universities to trying for
McDonald waiter, but even they did not want to hire "a druggie".

As he had some savings, it wasn't the worst part. But as he got 6 years
parole, being mandatory forced to go to some sort of AA meetings where for 45
minutes a week he had to listen stories of people who couldn't hold a
cigarette cause that's how much they got their hands stung by needless, was
worst of all nightmares. He even got approached by few drug dealers who happen
to often visit those premises to try to recruit new members, and was somewhat
glad he had some savings set aside, otherwise he might have gone and really
start dealing!

Also he couldn't move out of State until the end of his parole (it would be
considered violation) and had to check once a week to the local police station
and bring updated drug test, even though he had to pay for those tests from
his own pocket. If you think you just come to overcrowded NYC police station
and drop a piece of paper at some drop box, then you wrong. Those "visits"
usually took about 3-6 hours, depending on how busy they were. Sitting in the
line in such a place every week for so long has to be nightmare on its own...

Not to end this tragic story too sad, eventually once his parole ended he
moved to his uncle to Alaska and find some peace working on a fish farm. But
his drug record will remain in the system for at least next 15 years.

So boys and girls don't "do" drugs....

~~~
1123581321
I'm very sorry about your friend, and oppose the DEA, but this is probably
something your friend told you to save face if he was wealthy, educated and
actually convicted.

Edit: there seems to be some confusion in the replies about my point. This
isn't an endorsement of drug laws. We who oppose legal injustice need to have
an accurate understanding of how these laws work and what is actually likely
to happen in order to be taken seriously, and to prioritize our advocacy for
legislation and DoJ rules. I don't believe this story is likely to be true,
and that helps me to focus on things that actually happen every day.

~~~
elif
Your skepticism is not objectively meaningful so i'll offer some of my own
useless skepticism. This is probably a belief which helps you sleep at night.
I hope you are never forced to confront the reality of our justice system.

~~~
1123581321
I really appreciate that you're writing this out of concern for people. I am
quite concerned about our legal system, probably more than most (like many in
this thread who are similarly concerned), and work regularly to improve it.

------
dmix
Sadly not much has changed since 2013 and now that we can (hopefully) move
past the Trump train wreck and look towards the future via Clinton's policies,
it seems to can expect even _more_ of the same from the next president.

Leaked emails shows she sides with law enforcement regarding encryption,
publicly she is calling for an "intelligence surge" as a core part of her
national security strategy, and in interviews she still strongly stands by her
support for the Patriot Act:

[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-wont-budge-mass-
surveillanc...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-wont-budge-mass-surveillance-
stance-leaked-emails-reveal-1586175)

The people who will end up getting appointed to the various leadership roles
is the other big question. Hillary's advisers contain many hold-overs from the
Bush-Cheney era, including ex-DHS lead Michael Chertoff who strongly supported
the TSA full body scanners (made by the company he went on to work for), who I
hope aren't given big roles.

Regardless, all of those cyber contractors in DC, Maryland and Virginia must
be excited that their gilded age was given a 4yr extension and likely a
further expansion. Not that they were ever at much risk of losing it - given
the majority of the candidates were hawkish from the start of the primaries,
the pull of influential thinktanks, and of course the media, with the NYT - in
between fawning over Hillary - publishing daily articles citing 'anonymous
intelligence sources' supporting various causes.

There's also been almost entirely silence over surveillance policies from the
tech industry/community as far as I can tell. Although typically our industry
isn't very political or partisan (until things actually go down like SOPA), so
this is not entirely atypical.

Note: most of this is regarding military/defense but it seems to spill over
into federal drug and criminal investigations. Drug policies are another big
elephant in the room.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _it seems to can expect even more of the same from the next president_

This is the saddest thing about this election. Everyone is so distracted by
the Trump buffoonery that a Generic Politician (tm) is going to take the reins
and continue policies we've been bitter about for years. And most will see
this as a "good thing" ("At least it's not Trump!")

~~~
sremani
Trump gets blame, Hillary gets blame, Dubya gets blame but hello, what about
the guy who is in charge for the past 8 years, will he be held accountable?

~~~
atom_enger
Who is in charge?

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Nobody. It's a runaway train. Blaming any one individual is naive and
pointless.

------
joesmo
The drug war is not about drugs, never was, and never will be. Only really
stupid, foolish idiots think it's about drugs and those people are used to
carry out its atrocities (certainly not the first time in history that's
happened). I'm tired of mincing words: If one supports the drug war, one
supports murder, slavery, hate, and oppression. It's not possible to support
the drug war and be a decent, moral human being.

------
darawk
I'd like to take this opportunity to enumerate some of the benefits of
legalizing all drugs:

1\. Instant 50% reduction in prison population. More than half of all
prisoners are there for drug crimes [1]. It costs 20-40k/year to house a
prisoner [2]. There are approximately 2.2 million prisoners the US [3]. That
equates to an instantaneous savings of $6.6 billion.

2\. Elimination of the DEA. Instantaneous savings of $2 billion [3].

3\. Massive reduction in crimes that are _caused_ by drugs. E.g. theft,
assault, etc. Personally, i'd estimate that as making up the bulk of the other
50% of all crime. Of course, I can't back that up with any data, but it makes
logical sense to me that the majority of crime that happens is in one way or
another connected to drugs.

4\. Drug cartels disappear essentially overnight. Yes, they might switch to
kidnapping or extortion or something. But those are not hyperscale businesses.
They would evaporate to the point of irrelevance almost immediately.

5\. Street gangs disappear or dramatically lose influence. Why fight a turf
war if there's no money to be made on the turf? Sure, some will still happen.
But they'll be dramatically reduced and the ones that remain will be severely
underfunded.

6\. Police and the communities they serve will no longer be enemies. Drug use
is a victimless crime, and people resent being shaken down and arrested on
suspicion of drug dealing and/or using. If drugs were legalized, police would
only arrest people who are antagonizing others. This would go an enormous way
towards healing the divide between police and citizens.

7\. No more impure, uncertain drugs. Things would be labelled correctly and
their doses standardized. This should dramatically reduce accidental overdose
deaths, and improve the health and wellbeing of addicts by eliminating the
nasty stuff their drugs are cut with.

8\. Reliable, cheap supply for addicts. Being an addict involves an enormous
amount of wasted time and money. It's extraordinarily difficult to hold a job,
because just getting the drugs takes lots of time, waiting, and exposure to
risk. Now, there are other reasons it's hard to hold a job as an addict, but
these are big factors.

9\. Massive reduction in social stigma around addiction and drug use. This is
a double-edged sword, of course. But I think on balance it'd be a good thing.
It would make it easier and less shameful for addicts to seek treatment.
Taking it out of the underworld would make families more aware of their
member's possibly spiraling problems, and give them an earlier opportunity to
do something about it.

10\. The way i'd like this to be structured would be that the government would
sell these drugs in unmarked shops at essentially their marginal cost of
production (which is extremely low). They wouldn't advertise, obviously, and
you could implement reasonable age controls by checking ID in a similar way to
alcohol. Now, that system is imperfect obviously. But that's ok I think. It's
not like kids don't have access to drugs now. Monitoring and maintaining open
lines of communication with these people will allow them to be studied and
given access to treatment options and help. They can be guided into jobs and
offered medical help with detox.

I say all of this as a former heroin addict. It's easy availability would make
it somewhat harder for me not to use it. On balance though, it seems extremely
clear to me that it's the right thing to do. The synergy of all the
policing/crime benefits would be extraordinarily profound. The enormous
reduction in crime and improved relationship between police and their
communities would make police even more efficient at stopping what remaining
crime there is. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see something
like a 75-80% reduction in all crime within the first couple of years.

That isn't even to address the benefits to narco-states like Mexico. There it
would be truly transformative. Terrorism would lose its largest funding source
[5]. Border patrol agents would stop facing well-funded adversaries. The civil
war in Colombia would stop. Corruption in government would be reduced to
standard corporatism. The list is just endless, and it's not like drugs aren't
available now.

What, really, is the marginal harm of making them slightly more available,
when weighed against all of this? In my opinion, the drug war and its effects
are the greatest ongoing crime against humanity in the world right now.

[1]
[https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp)

[2] [http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-
cost...](http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-
house-inmates-in-prison/)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administratio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration)

[5] [http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-financing/tracking-down-
terrori...](http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-financing/tracking-down-terrorist-
financing/p10356#p1)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
For the most part, I completely agree with you. I'm supportive of drugs being
legalized and sold - even the drugs I wouldn't personally do. I do think your
first two points are slightly flawed, however.

 _1\. Instant 50% reduction in prison population. More than half of all
prisoners are there for drug crimes [1]. It costs 20-40k /year to house a
prisoner [2]. There are approximately 2.2 million prisoners the US [3]. That
equates to an instantaneous savings of $6.6 billion._

It will cut new admittance to prisons. Anyone currently serving time would
need their sentences pardoned or legislation passed that allows for their
released. Over time, still savings.

 _2\. Elimination of the DEA. Instantaneous savings of $2 billion._

We'll still need some enforcement of the controls we put in place, though we
can do it through other branches -likely something like a combination of the
FDA, USDA, and the ATF. Lesser cost savings, but much better sort of spending.

Furthermore, I'm definitely into having marked shops for some drugs. I think
smoke shops/coffee shops (for pot and hash) would be an improvement to the
culture and give some alternative to bars. I'm fine with some hallucinogens
being sold in a marked shop - and anything else that proves to be about as
safe. I'd also make sure anyone working in the shops - either marked or
unmarked - had some training or have training levels - basic knowledge for
cashier with more advanced knowledge person on premisis at all times.

~~~
darawk
> We'll still need some enforcement of the controls we put in place, though we
> can do it through other branches -likely something like a combination of the
> FDA, USDA, and the ATF. Lesser cost savings, but much better sort of
> spending.

Under a partial legalization regime, yes. Personally i'm thinking they should
all be legalized, though. The drug shops can be self-funding by charging
slightly above marginal cost.

> Furthermore, I'm definitely into having marked shops for some drugs. I think
> smoke shops/coffee shops (for pot and hash) would be an improvement to the
> culture and give some alternative to bars. I'm fine with some hallucinogens
> being sold in a marked shop - and anything else that proves to be about as
> safe. I'd also make sure anyone working in the shops - either marked or
> unmarked - had some training or have training levels - basic knowledge for
> cashier with more advanced knowledge person on premisis at all times.

Ya I agree. I'd like to see the 'less harmful' drugs, like marijuana and
hallucinogens completely legalized. Like, you can buy them at 711 legalized.
For 'harder' stuff like cocaine, meth, heroin, et al, i'd like to see them
sold by the unmarked government-run drug shops that don't advertise or try to
encourage consumption in any way. That feels like the best balance of
interests.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
For the first bit - I actually meant with full legalisation in government run
shops with that. What you describe - I'm pretty fully in agreement with. Just
details.

I mean, they'll have to have ways to verify potency in production. Heroin, if
injected, will probably get some oversight like a drug. A infrastructure for
the stores - I'd imagine in the states it'd be contracted out to someone
private, but that still costs money. Spot tests for potency. USDA would wind
up involved in the actual plant base: I don't know who covers imports from
other countries where it is also legal. Then you have tax collection,
cleanliness standards, and things like that.

Overall, I think it would save a good amount of money - especially when you
consider 5-10 years out. The better part is that once it levels out some, the
costs seem more are more predictable.

Edit: Accidentally deleted to much on a rewording, and added it back in.

------
pschneidr
It's crazy that "decades of Americans’ phone calls" is even a thing stored
some place.

~~~
llamataboot
and text messages, and skype calls, and...

~~~
gourou
I thought Skype calls used to be P2P

~~~
verytrivial
The Skype developers tried to let us know many many years ago:
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/fishywang/318591561](https://www.flickr.com/photos/fishywang/318591561)

------
readhn
Ohh that BS war on drugs again! How come banks get to get away with measly
fines for laundering cartel drug money for do long? 100s of billions of
dollars per year of drug money flow through the banking system, sure its
profitable to pay the fines when you have so much guaranteed cash flow every
year. Banks Get caught red handed laundering drug money. Banks don't Get shut
down, CEO s don't go to jail?! Wtf? Ohh no messing with banks is hard , let's
just wiretap every potential criminal in the country citizens won't do
anything to resist this any way. They will just swallow this BS war on drugs
story. I'm just a regular citizen I got nothing to hide!

~~~
rhizome
Banks have better lobbyists.

~~~
readhn
Scarface was not too far from the truth. Except these days they don't bring in
bags of money through the front door.... Well I take it back. May be in Mexico
it it's still the case! Lol

------
gourou
Looks like The Wire could make a come-back

------
achievingApathy
"The Northwest HIDTA has recently utilized Hemisphere to track known Canadian
phones roaming in the U.S. on the AT&T network" \-- we are really going to
have to do something blatant and disrespectful for Canada to finally hate us,
aren't we? This seems well outside the scope of the DEA. Monitoring the phones
of citizens of other countries can't lead to good/happy things.

------
JoshGlazebrook
Seems kind of fishy the timing of this. Right after AT&T announced plans to
purchased Time Warner.

edit: Nevermind I'm blind.

~~~
rhizome
What is fishy about this, if anything, is that if it's supposed to be a hit on
AT&T there was a much more recent accounting of their troubling shenanigans in
facilitating parallel construction just yesterday:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-
spy...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spying-on-
americans-for-profit.html)

Maybe the repost is supposed to be a diversion, is what I'm implying. However,
I see the new story has been posted already:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12787065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12787065)

------
dredmorbius
EFF has further information on this:

[https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere](https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere)

I ran across this trying to see if there was earlier public mention. Rather
good conspiracy containment if not.

------
aRationalMoose
Piece in the Daily Beast says it's not just Drug Agents, but that it's also
used by local municipalities and to investigate medicare fraud among others.

~~~
hackuser
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-
spy...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spying-on-
americans-for-profit.html)

 _However, AT &T’s own documentation—reported here by The Daily Beast for the
first time—shows Hemisphere was used far beyond the war on drugs to include
everything from investigations of homicide to Medicaid fraud.

Hemisphere isn’t a “partnership” but rather a product AT&T developed,
marketed, and sold at a cost of millions of dollars per year to taxpayers. No
warrant is required to make use of the company’s massive trove of data,
according to AT&T documents, only a promise from law enforcement to not
disclose Hemisphere if an investigation using it becomes public._

------
readhn
I have easy solution to really cripple global drug trade. Stop drug money
flows = cripple drug flows. If a bank gets caught with drug money laundering -
all executives loose bonuses and golden parachutes, their salaries go down to
average household salary for that year. Done! Watch them Then really clean up
the banking system in a couple of years!

~~~
rwmj
An "easy solution" in the Trump sense, ie. simplistic and ignoring common
sense and reality.

~~~
readhn
Banks launder drug money. It is a fact. HSBC, BofA, JPM ... all of them are
involved.

Fines clearly dont work. We have drug epidemic currently in the united states.
What other solutions do you suggest that will stop the drug money flows? I say
bend over the banks - but no one of course will do that ;)

~~~
gajjanag
I wish someone did a detailed analysis on the whole drug supply chain, in
order to determine the best place in the chain for intervention.

I bring this up as I remember a fascinating security economics paper that
examined the economics of spam and its non-obvious conclusions regarding a
good intervention point:
[http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2014/readings/trajectories.pd...](http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2014/readings/trajectories.pdf)

Does anyone here know of a similar study for the drug supply chain?

~~~
readhn
The best places for intervention: 1. banks and offshore accounts (full
transparency) 2.Transportation via private planes. Make it impossible to move
large amounts of money using non transparent mechanisms. Make it impossible to
move drugs via private planes. (most large drug shipments are moved via
private airplanes).

[http://nypost.com/2015/05/22/smuggler-with-ton-of-cocaine-
cr...](http://nypost.com/2015/05/22/smuggler-with-ton-of-cocaine-crashes-his-
plane-into-the-ocean/)

------
schoen
(2013); related to current reporting discussed at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12788853](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12788853)

------
envy2
This should be flagged as being from 2013...

------
mbloom1915
anyone else laugh at the 2003 version of powerpoint for those sweet pie
graphs... are we really that worried?

