
‘We Kill People Based on Metadata’ - Libertatea
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/may/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/
======
mturmon
The N.Y. Review has been very strong in reporting in depth and critically on
the post-9/11 security state, and (before the mainstream media caught on) on
the thoughtless run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Mark Danner has been writing a series of articles there re-examining the
Cheney legacy (two recent ones are here:
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darkness-
dick-cheney/) and [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/03/dick-
ch...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/03/dick-cheney-he-
remade-our-world/)). They have been just brutal.

------
unclebucknasty
It's odd that in all of what is essentially the fallout from 9/11--two wars,
subversion of American rights, spying on Americans, torture, rendition,
massive security/surveillance state, etc.--no one seems to have ever seriously
asked "why do these people want to kill us".

Beyond the quotable but facile "they hate us for our freedom" line, there
hasn't been much _real_ discussion of this sort.

And, here, as we parse the latest round of bills, legal interpretations,
infringed freedoms, etc., there is still no such earnest discussion about why
we find ourselves in this position in the first place. It's just assumed that
this is somehow where we "should" find ourselves, and the only question is how
much further we should go in our response to our inevitable position.

EDIT: At this point, I would go beyond the question of why these people want
to kill us and ask who and how many are there who actually do want to kill us?

~~~
mpyne
> no one seems to have ever seriously asked "why do these people want to kill
> us".

Plenty of people have asked that question. That the answer isn't what you
expect doesn't mean the question wasn't asked.

It turns out that the goal is to establish (or rather, re-establish) the
Caliphate, or at least some twisted takfiri version of it.

In order to establish the Caliphate you need somewhere to put it -- namely,
the Muslim countries of the Middle East.

But the countries already have states running the show. In AQ's viewpoint,
they are "the near enemy". The near enemies have supporters too, including the
U.S. (which was "the far enemy"). Other enemies include the United Nations
(both since the UN Charter is incompatible with takfiri Sharia extremism, but
also because the UN recognizes Israel), Shi'a Muslims, etc.

In one of the key decision points for OBL post-Gulf War, he decided to focus
on the far enemy first instead of the near enemies.

At this point, the "crime" of the U.S. wasn't drones or bombing brown babies
or anything so snide. The U.S.'s only crime was putting infidel soldiers on
Arab soil to evict Iraq from Kuwait, and for maintaining regional stability
for what I'm sure were completely self-serving reasons that provided no
benefit whatsoever to the rest of the world.

Accordingly AQ attacked the U.S.: The 1993 World Trade Center bombings... the
1995 "Bojinka" airline bombing plots (yes, plural) that was only discovered by
accident at the last second by an alert Philippine policewoman... the 1998
embassy bombings... the 2000 attack on USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.

The U.S. response was remarkably restrained throughout this entire period.
Despite hundreds of Kenyans alone being killed by AQ in the 1998 bombings, the
U.S. response was limited to dropping cruise missiles on known AQ training
camps in Afghanistan and a chemical production facility in Sudan that showed
evidence of working with AQ to produce nerve gas. The evidence was not
ironclad, mind, but that was it: No boots on the ground, no roving drone
patrols, no NSA massive surveillance efforts.

The problem for AQ wasn't what the U.S. was doing to the rest of the world by
2000, the problem was that the U.S. wasn't doing enough. AQ had somehow failed
to get America's serious attention, and had failed to evict America completely
from the Middle East, so they decided that they had to go bigger. And they
did.

So while the facile "they hate us for our freedom" line is not the answer,
it's not far off: They attack because Muslims still live in either
approximately free societies, or tyrannies under the wrong dictator (i.e.
apostate regimes). There will be no end unless they establish the Caliphate,
and even that doesn't necessarily represent the end, since the stated goal of
this new caliphate by Ayman al-Zawahiri is to extend jihad against the U.S.
and the West.

If you want to research yourself the motives of the various and many
insurgent/terrorist groups out there then there's certainly no lack of
material, from the very many people who have asked the same question you say
has never been asked. I'd recommend going through some of it. Articles asking
(and trying to answer) this question have been published since long before
9/11\. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" article dates to Bosnia.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I appreciate your thoughtful response and I have, in fact, heard this
mentioned over the years. I am not sure that it is entirely accepted as the
rationale (and, in fact, it has been disputed by some), but it has certainly
be suggested.

I should probably have been clearer in my initial question. While there has
been some discussion about in different circles regarding the genesis of this
"problem", it has largely been muted. At a minimum, the volume and quality of
earnest discussion has been remarkably limited relative to the importance of
such discussion. Instead, we get pablum such as "they hate us for our
freedom", even while we drone strike, destroy, and kill.

Remarkably, the theory that you repeated fits with this pablum as it puts
virtually no emphasis on our actions, save for a passing mention or two.
Somehow, even with a long and complex history of involvement in the region, we
magically have no responsibility for any of wha is happening, save for being
free and not Muslim. I find that absolutely incredible and profoundly myopic.
Still, even if one can somehow remove the notion of consequences for previous
behavior as a cause of 9/11 and what preceeded, and also manage to detach all
responsibility from the West, there should be little doubt that our current
course of action (yes, including drone strikes), provides indisputable cause
for real grievances borne of our actions and, potentially, a generation of
terrorists that modern history has yet to see.

Or, to put it in your terms, unless the goal is to kill every single Muslim or
sympathizer who could have either answered the call for the Caliphate or been
affected by the loss of a loved one who was presumed to have done such, then
it seems that our current course is either exceptionally stupid or
specifically designed to create perpetual conflict.

But, back to my original point: all of this that we are discussing here is
incredibly important and lurks beneath the surface. It has brought us down
this path of surveillance, etc., yet it is not questioned or discussed. Think
of how fantastically stupid it is that we are in such a reactionary mode that
we no longer question key assumptions regarding why we are doing what we are
doing in the first place. Even if you believed that it's all about the
Caliphate, shouldn't that single word be part of our daily discusion for as
long as we ar at war, drone striking, and spying on Americans? Shouldn't we be
openly discussing what it means and how we might work to not radicalize
members of that community? Shouldn't there be a sober assesment of Western
policy and how it might intersect with legitimate complaints and even radical
ideas? This, instead of an attitude that "they hate us for our freedom",
followed by more drone strikes, spying on Americans, etc.?

Apologies for length. Just hoping to better make my point.

~~~
mpyne
> Somehow, even with a long and complex history of involvement in the region,
> we magically have no responsibility for any of wha is happening, save for
> being free and not Muslim. I find that absolutely incredible and profoundly
> myopic.

U.S. history is not at long as you think, nor as one-sided as you might think.
Such history as does exist is due only because the British decided that they
could no longer maintain any regional presence in the Middle East with their
other Cold War commitments. Sure, you have your 1948 counter-coup in Iran (who
are, notably, mostly the _opposite_ sect of Islam than the ones we're talking
about in this thread). But there's also the 1956 U.S. invention in _favor_ of
Nasser in Egypt that everyone conveniently forgets to mention when they're
talking about U.S. meddling in Muslim affairs, to speak nothing of the very
Bosnia case I noted in my last comment.

But U.S. involvement in the Middle East was limited otherwise for a long time
precisely because there was a strong Iran allied to the West. It wasn't until
the Shah fell for good in 1979 that you saw the Carter Doctrine and the
invitation for American presence from Gulf states worried about their ability
to export oil.

What I find to be incredibly myopic is the idea that if someone, anyone, has a
problem with a group, that it is the group's responsibility and even _fault_.

You could give in and do what they ask for as long as you like, but you'll
find at least two things are true: 1) Their demands are rhetoric, not their
actual key fault with you (as proven with Bosnia and U.S. support for
Afghanistan 1979-1989), and 2) you'll simply "radicalize" some other group who
would be put at risk by a worldwide Caliphate.

> Shouldn't we be openly discussing what it means and how we might work to not
> radicalize members of that community?

Sure. People are. I don't understand why you keep asking why people aren't
doing something that's actually being done. President Obama's speech at NDU in
May 2013 made almost precisely the same point, and I assure you it's not
because the President just had a whim that day.

I certainly hope you don't get all your news about U.S. and the West's foreign
policy from HN (or God forbid, cable news), as otherwise I'm at a loss to
explain where you get this impression from. The discussion is going on, but
you do how to go try to find it, it's not like it's happening in the "To the
Editor" section of the New York Times.

But as long as people keep giving credence to the idea that even perceived
slights committed by some amorphous politico-cultural nexus are legitimate
bases for terrorist retaliation, then I'm not sure what you expect for
corrective action.

The way to fix that might be to help educate the masses of people who act as
the best recruiting base for Islamist and other extremists, but good luck
doing that without scaling up to something even worse than an occupation like
Afghanistan's. As it stands now, Islamists control the educational apparatus
at these places and they have no incentive whatsoever to teach their youth
anything other than that the U.S. and the West are evil, _whether it 's true
or not_.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _U.S. history is not at long as you think, nor as one-sided as you might
> think_

Well, I'm pretty sure it's about as long as I think. But, admittedly, it may
not be as long as you think I think. :)

The salient point is that there is a history, it is complex, and it is
reasonable to consider that it is significantly responsible for disdainful
sentiments toward the West. I'm not sure that's in dispute anywhere. Also,
note that I frequently reference the West and not just the U.S.

But, really, I think the history lesson itself doesn't really address my
point, which is precisely that such historical discussions are not a part of
our (the public's) reckoning with regard to the symptomatic issues with which
we are dealing.

I know you've expressed bewilderment at that statement, but your reasoning for
that bewilderment is, effectively, that the history is known and has been
discussed _somewhere_ by _someone_ (even Obama). We agree there, though the
degree of causality for _everything_ that we are seeing is arguable. In any
case, where we really differ is simply that my view is that such discussions
should not just be _somewhere_ between _someone_ , but should absolutely
dominate the public discourse. Instead, it is largely absent from the public
arena, which really provides cover for policymakers to push through agendas
that are orthogonal to solving the real problem, and instead serve other
interests. Here, they have moved the goalposts from solving the problem to
providing the public with a set of false choices based on the foregone
assumption that the problem is well-defined _somewhere_ and otherwise
unsolvable.

So, the question is allowed to become not "why do they want to kill us?", but
"how much power should the government have in invading our privacy?" At some
point, the causal element is so far divorced from the symptomolagy, that any
real relationship between the choices we're making and the actual problem is
only illusory.

You say I shouldn't look to cable, HN, etc., but should instead presumably be
pulling from _Foreign Affairs_ , history books, etc. I say that's the problem
I'm describing. I mean, an NDU speech? Should we really be content with
confining the discussion to channels such as these? If so, then why is it
reasonable to have a discussion about our liberties (e.g. Snowden, etc.) via
the various public media, but not one about why such a discussion is
neccessary in the first place?

Because, that's the problem that I'm identifying and, by suggesting that I
turn to more esoteric channels, you're basically acknowledging the problem and
responding that such public discussion is not only missing, but _should be_
missing. So, I suppose the obvious question is why--in your view--is it OK
that it's missing from the wider public arena?

------
sakopov
I find this totally hilarious. The NSA can come out and say whatever the hell
they want and everyone just buys it because they don't have a choice. What are
we going to do, go look at their data logs to make sure they're not lying? Oh
no we don't record the contents of your calls. What a bunch of bullshit. You
think any spying has stopped since Snowden revealed that NSA is looking up
your ass when you're dropping one? This is hilarious because it's so absurd.

~~~
dan_bk
> You think any spying has stopped since Snowden

I remember that "internal" NSA memo which tried to reassure the employees,
basically saying "don't worry, we'll just winter the storm, it will pass...".

And that's exactly what they're doing: Wait. And it's all that's necessary,
because everybody has already shut up and is anxious about the next iPhone.

------
msandford
Okay so why can't we get any reporting with any numeric literacy?

How many people does the average person make contact with in a 5 year time
span? Let's call this number X for hop 1.

How many people does each of the people in X then make contact with in the
same 5 years? If we assume that on the whole people know ABOUT as many people
as others, we can also call that number X for hop 2.

Now of course there's going to be overlap, out of X people somewhere between
0% and probably 70% might overlap between any one person of interest, hop 1
and hop 2.

Let's say that on average there's a 40% overlap. And let's call the Sweep(X)
the number of people that get caught up in surveillance as a result of a
single suspected terrorist.

Sweep(X) = 0.4 * X (first hop) x 0.4 * X (second hop)

Sweep(X) = 0.16 * X ^ 2

That's quadratic and as anyone who knows math, and especially people who know
about Big-Oh notation, it's bad because Sweep(X) grows much faster than X
does.

But how big is X? Well we can look to Dunbar's number to give us somewhere to
start. Wikipedia says that it's between 100 and 250 but most people use 150 as
a reasonable approximation. Of course that's STABLE relationships, not
acquaintances, friends-of-friends, or anything like that. I think it's pretty
reasonable to assume the 150 number and then assume that you probably make
contact with one random person every week. Over 5 years, that's another 250.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number)

So if we assume that X is 150 + 250 = 400 what do we get?

Sweep(400) = 0.16 * 400 * 400 = 25,600 let's just say 25k for short.

Now there are around 300 million people in the US. 300mm / 25k = 12000. That
means that the NSA need only find 12,000 people (on average) to get all the
call records for everyone in the US for the last 5 years.

It gets worse, though. What happens if you make contact with TWO random people
every week? Then X = 150 + 500 = 650

Sweep(650) = 0.16 * 650 * 650 = 67,600. 300mm / 67k = 4477 people suspected of
nefarious deeds in order to gain all call records.

As you can see this gets really out of hand really fast. And that's why I'm a
bit upset that nobody's doing the math around the "two hops" argument because
I assure you that the folks at the NSA aren't rolling over and giving up. This
is something that SOUNDS reasonable but in actuality means little/no reform
whatsoever.

EDIT: wikipedia link

~~~
k2enemy
It is actually much worse than that. You're assuming a uniform distribution
over the numbers that people call, but there are some numbers that a
significant fraction of the population call. For example, how many people are
three hops away from a "target" through Comcast, Time Warner, Dell, etc?

Of course the NSA would probably ignore these spurious connections to generate
leads for an actual investigation. But I assume that they would use them to
create the largest possible list of people that they are "allowed" to collect
and store information on.

~~~
msandford
Yes I was being conservative so that few reasonable people could challenge the
assumptions I made.

But you're completely correct. I bet Amazon gets you the second hop to at
least 20% of the whole country. Once you add in all the 800, 866, etc phone
numbers I'd imagine that two hops gets you to very nearly every person in the
US with a starting pool of perhaps only a few dozen people.

I could easily see someone's job being to figure out which (presumably
innocent) people to "target" for the sake of ensuring a full or nearly full
data collection. You know, to make things more efficient. "So we don't always
have to go crawling to judges and the phone companies every single time we
think something bad might be going down."

This two hops thing really is a scam.

~~~
sbirchall
"I could easily see someone's job being to figure out which (presumably
innocent) people to "target" for the sake of ensuring a full or nearly full
data collection."

Twitter makes that job damn easy, don't you think?

[EDIT: s/Twitter/Facebook/WhatsApp/SnapChat/etc.]

------
lotsofmangos
Metadata has turned into such a slimy word. Metadata isn't a type of data, it
is a description of the relationship between two sets of data.

~~~
ska
That is far to narrow: metadata is literally "data about data", be it
structural or descriptive.

It's also worth remembering that this is not categorical, particularly for
descriptive metadata. In one context a piece of information may be metadata,
in another data.

------
Sambdala
"Stop being so paranoid. Nobody's interested in reading your emails.

Besides, they're only collecting _metadata_."

