Wiretapping and such

[billydkid]

I'm sorry if this is too obvious or has been addressed in another thread. I am thinking, aren't terrorists going to use codes and encryptions in any of their messages anyway? It seems to me, the only info the government is going to be able to understand is from people who have nothing to do with terrorism and are not hiding anything anyway. Certainly, email encryptions are now very sophisticated and virtually unbreakable and wouldn't any terrorist message be using these encryptions? I guess it's plausible that the government could get some useful information with their dragnet, but it seems unlikely to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm sorry if this is too obvious or has been addressed in another thread. I am thinking, aren't terrorists going to use codes and encryptions in any of their messages anyway?

You can't really do that with phone calls without specialized equipment, which most terrorists will NOT have.

It seems to me, the only info the government is going to be able to understand is from people who have nothing to do with terrorism and are not hiding anything anyway.

Who a terrorist communicates with and when is also useful information, which is obtainable even without decrypting any secret content.

Certainly, email encryptions are now very sophisticated and virtually unbreakable and wouldn't any terrorist message be using these encryptions?

You might think that, but it's probably not true for most of them. There's lots of terrorists who simply aren't that good. Their main protection is not spy techniques, but simple anonymity.

 

[MWare]

You can't really do that with phone calls without specialized equipment, which most terrorists will NOT have.

The leadership of groups like Al Qaeda absolutely have access to some pretty sophisticated technology. I would find it difficult to believe that a group with the logistical organization to execute something like the September 11th attacks wouldn't be able to access encryption/decryption tools.

Who a terrorist communicates with and when is also useful information, which is obtainable even without decrypting any secret content.

Absolutely.

You might think that, but it's probably not true for most of them. There's lots of terrorists who simply aren't that good. Their main protection is not spy techniques, but simple anonymity.

The NSA has the most sophisticated surveillance tools (and some of the most brilliant mathematicians/cryptologists) in the history of mankind. Little is known of their newer systems outside of speculation and legend, but if even a fraction of the suggested capabilities of these systems exist, I would be worried if I was trying to communicate something I didn't want the government to hear.

While it is terrifying that the line between counterterrorism defense and civil liberty infringement is becoming more blurred every day, it is a bit reassuring to consider the concept of too much information. There is no way for the gov't to even begin to analyze the multitude of communications that occur each second of each day. For the government to eavesdrop on a particular person, one would assume there would be a significant reason for doing so. It is the reasons why someone's communications may be considered dangerous that is most concerning to me. Without a legal process, the criteria for someone being a national security priority is quite open to interpretation.

On the other hand, as someone who has lived and worked in NYC before, during, and after 9/11/2001 (I'm currently working in a relatively high target skyscraper), if there was another 747 headed our way, I'd like a little notice so I could try for the stairs.

 

[Ziggurat]

The leadership of groups like Al Qaeda absolutely have access to some pretty sophisticated technology.

We're after more than just their top leadership. And the turnover has been large enough that there's plenty of B-Team and even C-Team players in the game now.

The NSA has the most sophisticated surveillance tools (and some of the most brilliant mathematicians/cryptologists) in the history of mankind. Little is known of their newer systems outside of speculation and legend, but if even a fraction of the suggested capabilities of these systems exist, I would be worried if I was trying to communicate something I didn't want the government to hear.

If two terrorists are talking on the phone, and they decide to meet up at some location or join up with some contact, there is absolutely nothing in that communication which you can filter for UNLESS you know that these people are of interest to begin with. Which means that most terrorist communication is completely safe as long as they remain anonymous - in fact, encrypting your phone conversations might even increase your risk of getting caught, because you draw attention to the fact that you aren't just two of the hundreds of millions of people just talking, you're a member of that small class of people with something to hide. And if you were anonymous before (always your best protection, regardless of technology), you might just have lost that precious asset.

It is the reasons why someone's communications may be considered dangerous that is most concerning to me. Without a legal process, the criteria for someone being a national security priority is quite open to interpretation.

I understand concern about privacy, but from the perspective of protecting legitimate dissent and innocent citizens, it doesn't matter what the government knows about people nearly as much it matters what the government DOES with that information. THAT is the line you really need to draw firmly and defend vigorously, because you'll never stop governments from obtaining information about their political opponents. Enough of that kind of information is public anyways that a government which is able to step over the line on action is the real danger, whether or not it can do any spying. And even if it knows everything there is to know about its political opponents, if it is properly limited in its actions, then it cannot stop or even really stifle political opposition.

 

[Lurker]

I understand concern about privacy, but from the perspective of protecting legitimate dissent and innocent citizens, it doesn't matter what the government knows about people nearly as much it matters what the government DOES with that information.

I disagree. You assume we would KNOW when the govt crosses that line and misuses illegally obtained information. I submit that many times we would not even know. I mean, how could we know since we would never know we were spied on and I doubt the govt would be forthcoming with that tidbit of info. It would just be a mystery.

No, it is more important to ensure the govt does not obtain that info illegally in the first place. Thus, warrants are a good check and balance.

Lurker

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree. You assume we would KNOW when the govt crosses that line and misuses illegally obtained information.

No, I don't assume anything. I just recognize that as soon as you start talking about the government doing something illegal in secret, then they're already willing to break the law. If they're willing to break the law in misusing information, why wouldn't they break the law to obtain said information? How do laws against obtaining information really protect you from a government that is already willing to break laws? No, for that you already need to look somewhere else for protection.

I submit that many times we would not even know. I mean, how could we know since we would never know we were spied on and I doubt the govt would be forthcoming with that tidbit of info. It would just be a mystery.

But it's not the spying that ultimately matters, but what the government does with the information. If they're illegally spying on you, it makes little difference until they start illegally harassing you with the information they gain. Governments generally won't bother to do the former unless they're interested in doing the later. But at that point, it's not laws against spying which you really need to protect you, but laws against the harassment.

No, it is more important to ensure the govt does not obtain that info illegally in the first place. Thus, warrants are a good check and balance.

I don't agree. The right to due process is much more important than protection against searches. And from a practical standpoint (though not necessarily a constitutional one), searches are much more serious than spying. If the police come and search my house, I'm directly inconvenienced, and the neighbors might take a dim view of me as they watch policemen march in and out. If they secretly tap my phones, the very fact of secrecy rather proves that it's not intrusive in the same way. So practically speaking, there really is a difference in the effects as well.

 

[drkitten]

You can't really do that with phone calls without specialized equipment, which most terrorists will NOT have.

The equipment isn't that specialized -- a laptop computer and a program I can download for free.

But most terrorists -- most criminals in general -- make mistakes or simply aren't that bright. That's the only real way most law enforcement has to catch them in the first place.