NYTimes: Warrantless Eavesdropping Dispute Over Data Mining

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:09:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Bush Administration has leaked the following story to the NYTimes as an explanation for Attorney General Gonzales' seemingly incorrect testimony:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program. . . . The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation.
The confrontation in 2004 led to a showdown in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, where Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, tried to get the ailing Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the N.S.A. program.
Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining. If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

Personally, I am at a loss at how this exonerates Alberto Gonzales. He flatly stated there was no dispute over the TSP. Later, he stated it was about the program President Bush confirmed. Data mining is a search without a warrant. The data mining is part of the same program. The speculation, indeed JUSTIFICATION, from many conservative legal scholars was that President Bush was discussing data mining. In fact, this NYTimes reporting is flat wrong, since in his discussion of the TSP, President Bush expressly referenced "the program" described in news reports, news reports that expressly discussed a data mining program. More.

Anonymous Liberal wrote a thorough post reviewing Gonzles' testimony on the matter and it is worth going through what he gathered with this new information in mind:

Here's the key passage that many have quoted from Gonzales' February 6, 2006 testimony:
SCHUMER: It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?
GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into. I will also say...

SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?
GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed. And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.

This testimony, imo, fits into the narrative the NYTimes story is tryong to weave. The problem is the President confirmed the existence of a program that existed PRIOR to the infamous Comey/Goldsmith/Meuller revolt:

At another point in the testimony Gonzales said:
GONZALES: Of course, there were debates, Senator. If I may just finish this thought, think about the issues that are implicated here: a very complicated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- it's extremely complicated -- the president's inherent authority under the Constitution as commander in chief, the Fourth Amendment, the interpretation of the authorization to use military force. You've got a program that's existed over four years. You have multiple lawyers looking at the legal analysis. Of course, there's -- I mean, this is what lawyers do. We disagree, we debate, we argue.
Here again, Gonzales concedes that "the program" has existed for over four years. So he can't now claim that he was only referring to the program that existed from mid-2004 onward.

AL then hits on the clinching problems for Gonzales:

And here's the final nail in the coffin. Gonzales testified that "there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed." He has repeatedly used this construction to hedge his statements.
Fine then, let's look at what the President actually confirmed. President Bush first revealed the existence of the NSA program in his weekly radio address on December 17, 2005. Here's what he said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. . . .
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

Obviously this predates the adjusted program, as AL notes but it does more in my mind -- it in no way excludes data mining.

The President neither described nor confirmed any particular method of eavesdropping.

In a different post, Orin Kerr discussed data mining as a possible program described by the President:

That seems somewhat odd to me, because, as I've explained before, my primary legal concerns are statutory, not constitutional. This raises a couple of different possibilities. For example, it may be that the program doesn't violate FISA after all, and the debate within government has really been about the Fourth Amendment. The concern within some government officials may be that scanning traffic en masse for phone numbers or e-mail addresses of even foreign calls may violate the Fourth Amendment rights of domestic people whose communications are scanned (even only in the passing way that any Internet wiretap must scan all traffic). That is consistent with Risen's claim that "Now that [foreign to] foreign calls were being routed through switches that were physically on American soil, eavesdropping on those calls might be a violation of the regulations and laws restricting the NSA from spying inside the United States." The "regulations and laws" don't seem to be FISA, as I believe FISA is implicated only when the person monitored is in the United States; could those "laws" be the Fourth Amendment? Are there other "regulations" that govern the NSA that might be implicated here? It's hard to tell. Of course, it's also possible that the Fourth Amendment concerns are a bit of a red herring: the claim may be a cover for other motives. Who knows.

It is very clear that Orin Kerr considered data mining as one of many potential aspects of the program "confirmed by the President." Indeed, it seems clear to me that the President was intentionally very non-specific about what he was describing. How could Gonzales have been so sure what the President was describing was NOT data mining? As AL notes, Gonzales' own testimony describes the program that existed prior to the exclusion of data mining.

The Times simply gets it wrong when it writes:

In response to the [NYTimes] articles, Mr. Bush confirmed the eavesdropping, saying it was limited to communications in and out of the United States involving people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. He did not, however, confirm the data mining, nor has any other official done so publicly.

Let's repeat what the President said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. . . .
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

(Emphasis supplied.) Intercepts do NOT exclude data mining. Nor did the "reports" that President Buish EXPRESSLY mentions exclude data mining. On the contrary, those report expressly feature data mining issues as the Times itself describes in this article:

In December 2005, The Times published articles describing the program, the data mining and the internal legal debate. The newspaper reported that the N.S.A. had combed large volumes of telephone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. . . . The uproar grew when USA Today reported in May 2006 more details of the N.S.A.’s acquisition from telephone companies of the phone call databases. In response to the articles, Mr. Bush confirmed the eavesdropping, saying it was limited to communications in and out of the United States involving people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

The President SPECIFICALLY referenced the news reporting and the programs described therein. It is thus untenable for the NYTimes to now state:

He did not, however, confirm the data mining, nor has any other official done so publicly.

He in fact DID confirm that he was talking about the program described in the newspaper reports, that DID in fact report a data mining program.

Thus when:

Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

He did not tell the truth. The President was referring to newspaper reports that described data mining; he confirmed those reports. This is bad work by the NYTimes, yet again.

< Milwaukee Officers Found Guilty in Beating Case | NewSpeak: Bush's FISA Proposal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NYTimes: Warrantless Eavesdropping Dispute Over Data Mining | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Stupid talking points (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:14:51 PM EST

to RW bloggers, and a red herring to the New York Times. What does this add up to, disarray or a plan?

I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:36:36 PM EST

IT is perplexig but really bad work by the Times.


: The can't seem to get past (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:43:46 PM EST

Judy Millerism. Now that Gail Collins is back, maybe she can criticize the other side of her paper.

It seems obvious (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by buhdydharma on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:10:41 PM EST

that in the heady days after 9/11, Bushco and the Intelligence community went hog wild on spying on everybody...using every method at their disposal and (undoubtedly at Cheney's urging) didn't worry too darn much about the legality if any of it.

Now that they are being called to account for it they are trying to control the damage and spin the facts and Cover their ass as much as possible.

In the process they have perpetrated a massive conspiracy to cover up the illegalities and are perjuring themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire.

It is exactly the same thing they did with rendition and the networks of secret torture prisons as well. I don't know when or if that excrement will strike the whirling blades...but if it does, it will be incredibly damning as well.

Remember all the Muslims they rounded up here as well. Thousands of them...all released....eventually.

These guys engaged in HUGE excesses as they saw themselves as Superheros saving America from the Muslim Menace and got their Jack Bauer on. They were totally out of control and positive that the Rules of War would vindicate them. But there was and is no global Jihad threatening America to the point were we needed to suspend the Constitution and Geneva. That is what they were counting on to justify their excess.

From where I sit, they might as well have Guilty As Sin tattooed across their foreheads.

Well (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:16:34 PM EST

if the big secret was data mining, there was no big secret.

That's my point here.


I think "The Secret" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by buhdydharma on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:57:32 PM EST

Is what was done with the data that had been mined.

How did they use it? Who was targeted? What criteria were used for targeting? What steps did they take to pursue them? How far did they go?

How many other programs are there? What are those?

But, you were/are talking specifics and I was generalizing, so I was in essence, off topic. To me data mining has always just been a logical extension, so I never considered that that was what they were trying to cover up, either.

Now if there was a wider extent of data mining under the OTHER programs...they might not want to emphasize or let talk about data mining appear at all...


: That is possible (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:59:27 PM EST

They're just kicking more dust in our eyes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:58:50 PM EST

trying to confuse the issue enough to give Fredo room for benefit of the doubt. Their starting point is always the political payoff - assume anything substantive is to that end. They want everyone parsing and untangling and wading through conflicting stories in the media trying to find the truth. The only way they're going to be able to escape responsibility is to keep it all too complicated for a distracted public to follow. If it can't be set out in a clear simple tale of malfeasance - a lot clearer than all this - they're going to be able to brazen it out, stonewalling all the way.

: That seems clear (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:23:41 AM EST

Parsing becomes you. (1.00 / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:10:17 PM EST

And you claim they are the same program??

I had always wondered what happened that made Ashcroft decide to not sign the phone conversation monitoring extension. After all it had been around for years and he had signed off time and again.

Now we know. It was a different program. Gonzales spoke the truth.

Again. No SP. And if you want to impeach, impeach. Don't talk.

Understanding (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:15:59 PM EST

is not parsing.

Since you seem to understand nothing, it makes little sense to engage you.

Yet again you type a post that is utterly nonsensical.

It was the SAME program that the President had been getting approved. Why Ashcroft didn't sign off? Are you really this dumb? He was in the freaking hospital under sedation you dope.

That is one of the big controversies, why did Gonzo and the CoS try to bypass Comey.

Honestly Jim, you are either really stupid are really dishonest.


Go a head and cry (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:29:50 PM EST

Honestly Big Tent, you hate to lose worse than anyone I have ever known.

Look, Rove played the game brillantly. He waited patiently until your side over extended themselves and then chopped them off at the knees.

Data mining was a completely separate program. Gonzales waved the flag and the Demos charged. I mean, how many people wrote: "How could he be so stupid to say...." without ever thinking that was a trap being laid.... What I really think is funny is that Schumer just got done telling everybody how the evileeeeee Bush and company out smarted him and would never do it again..

Yeah. Sure. Well, not for a week anway.


Cry? Lose? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:40:24 PM EST

Tell me what in blazes I am crying about? What did I lose?

Frankly, it is clear you actually do not even have the foggiest notion what this is about.

You can't even troll the issue cuz you have no idea what it is about.


Is there a word (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by aj12754 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:02:09 PM EST

that would capture the concept of a person so willfully and woefully uninformed that the word troll is actually too good for them? Some thing that captures both the extent of their slavish dependence on talking points proveided by others as well as their inability to grasp even the clearest line of logical reasoning?

Hmmmm -- bottom feeder maybe?


Is there a word? (1.00 / 2) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:30:42 PM EST

That captures the essence of someone who doesn't debate but makes only nasty personal comments?

Yes there is, but I won't use it because you have used it on yourself.

Please continue the attacks. They define you.


I see... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by aj12754 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:52:36 PM EST

In Jim we have a thin-skinned bottom feeder.

Nothing in any of your postings deserves any kind of debate"on the merits" because there is nothing substantive in what you post.

So you take offense. Like that's gonna help your position. Try a fact. You might like it if you don't choke on it.


BION (1.00 / 1) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:18:09 PM EST

I don't mind your attacks because they do define you, not me. And I've been around for four years so it isn't like I haven't had a few.

My point remains. You don't debate, you merely snark. Just look above. Not one point regarding my comment, just personal attacks.

Like I said, keep it up.


: Apparently a thin-skinned, none-too-bright (none / 0) (#55)
by aj12754 on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 07:17:26 PM EST

bottom feeder.
Per usual, you missed the point. Nothing in what you said added anything to the discussion and thus was not worthy of response. Clear enough for you?
Wanna a better response, build a better case.

Oh really? I don't know what the issue is? (1.00 / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:28:30 PM EST

Do you not understand that you have been caught in a huge over extension? The Demos have managed to do what all thought to be impossible. Make Gozales an object of sympathy.

Congratulations.


You do not even understand (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:25:59 AM EST

what the issues are.

You need to wait for an issue you can actually understand before you try and troll it Jim.


Heh (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:14:25 AM EST

The issue is?

The issue is that the NYT article confirmns what Gonzales said.

The Demo talking point is now that TSP and data mining are actually one in the same so Gonzales committed perjury.

That's thin gruel for dinner.


As I said (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:28:04 AM EST

You have no idea what the issue is.


I think he does, actually. (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM EST

But he pretends not to. His intention is to try to confuse the issue, as Bush and Gonzales do. He's a troll...

Data Mining, sifting through data records obtained through warrantless surveillance of Americans in Bush's intentionally misrepresentionally and obfuscatingly named "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP) can in no way be considered two separate programs. One leads to the other which depends on the first.

It would be like calling the head and the tail of a cat two separate things that have no connection with each other.

Neither does one (TSP) cause Data Mining. They are part and parcel of the same animal.


Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:53:51 AM EST

He is a Rove wannabe without the beef.


Heh! Well, ok... (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:10:36 AM EST

Maybe he's not pretending then. I keep asking him and he can't seem to answer though, so I guess that does support him not pretending.... ;-)

I just try to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to believe anyone real could be that deficient, you know?


But then (5.00 / 0) (#43)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:23:38 AM EST

I guess it really doesn't matter whether he's pretending or not. Either way lends no credence to anything he says, does it?

;-)


Mendacity and Dimness (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:30:14 AM EST

Are not mutually exclusive terms. But his low intelligence makes him slightly sympathetic. Ever so slightly.


: squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:18:33 PM EST

Ah squeaky.... I have tried to think of something simple enough to explain this to you....try this.
The walls of house and the roof of the house are part of the house.
But they do not provide the same function and they are not constructed the same.
In fact, we could all agree that we have perfectly constructed walls, and disagree totally over the roof's construction, ability to shed water, etc,
In fact I would opine that there have been many law suits over roofs that never mentioned walls.

edger (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:11:39 PM EST

From a legal point of view they are entirely separate.

Phone tapping has been around since 1971 and...

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:
"In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

Data mining has not.


No they are not. (none / 0) (#47)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:16:29 PM EST

And since you are not a coward I know you have an answer for this, ppj.

I am right that you are not a coward, yes?


No, he just has other (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by jondee on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:32:37 PM EST

priorities.


Edger - Loves strawmen. (1.00 / 1) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:22:53 PM EST

So you want to claim that war is bad, people get hurt and some Iraqis are angry??

Now.

How does that refute my claim that the two programs are entirely separate?


Didn't really think (none / 0) (#53)
by Edger on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:42:02 PM EST

you could face her or address what she said in any real way.

Too much of a mirror for you....


: edger hugs the strawman (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:47:22 PM EST

So you have no response to my factual claim that the two programs are not the same.
Nothing unusual there.

It's political (none / 0) (#8)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:28:59 PM EST

Ten bucks says they were spying on Congressional Democrats. Again. Karl must have been whining and whining after they shut down that little backdoor hack that he -- oops, I mean, overzealous staffers -- had been using.

: Democrats? (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:58:21 PM EST

More likely Rethugs, to keep them on the plantation and in lockstep.

Er... (none / 0) (#13)
by Strick on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:48:11 PM EST

Data mining is a search without a warrant.

Quite true it is a search and there's no warrant. Of course, as I understand the law, no warrant is required, since the government is "mining" data it already has or acquires legally. Data mining is essentially a very complex google search of what the government already knows.

More specifically, data mining is using data you already have to look for patterns (statistical patterns, think lots of exotic math) you believe are related to some behavior.

The classic example is a convenience store data mining its sales records to discover that there's a correlation between diaper and beer sales. The theory is that when a husband is sent out for diapers late in the evening, if he thinks about it, he'll pick up a six pack of beer. Want to increase beer sales? Put a display of beer near where you keep diapers to increase how often he notices it. Marketers love this stuff.

Where this program is concerned, I assume they're looking for factors they believe might indicate terrorist behavior.

Data mining for terrorist activity is controversial, because, as a statistically based technique, it's been argued we just don't have enough terrorist attacks to make anything we're looking for statistically significant. See what Jeff Jonas has to say.

Jonas's argument is only as his understanding of what the government's looking for, though. While he's right that statistics won't predict another 9/11 because there's only been one of them (thank God), it might be effective against more frequent events, such as money laundering.

I realize that that's an aside on the issue of whether Gonzales lied or not, but in any realistic sense, there's probably no connection between their data mining program and any surveillance program that listens in on phone calls. Data mining doesn't really work with that kind of data.

Interestngly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:53:37 PM EST

Apparently, Comey, Goldsmith and Mueller disagree with you when you say:

"Of course, as I understand the law, no warrant is required, since the government is "mining" data it already has or acquires legally."

Take it up with them.


Bet They Can't Define Even "Data Mining" (none / 0) (#19)
by Strick on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:25:00 PM EST

It would be interesting to hear exactly what they're objecting to. As far as the mining itself, perhaps you could explain the legal theory that requires it to have a warrant?

Let me give you an example. A police officer pulls a car over. Does he require a warrant to run a computer search to see if its license plate is on the stolen vehicle list? Why? The license plate is in plain sight and the data he's searching belongs to the government, right?

Data mining itself is just a more complex version of that computer search, the only difference being you're not sure what you're looking for when you start the query. Or rather you know what your looking for, you're just not sure of the pattern in the data you can use to find it.

Again, as I understand it, the government needs a warrant to acquire data under certain circumstances, but not to use what it already has. So unless they were concerned about how the data was acquired, or, perhaps, were using data that's illegal to share with law enforcement with out a warrant (e. g., income tax returns), I can't imagine why a warrant would be needed.

Simply mining the data is not a search in the Fourth Amendment sense, because it's not searching an individual or his property, it's searching the data the government has acquired about lots of individuals.


: Well (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:47:45 PM EST

Take it up with them.

: Look (none / 0) (#21)
by Strick on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:56:25 PM EST

Maybe this blog entry by an expert in the field is relevant: What Is Data Mining?
Note the last definition as proposed by Senator Feingold. He appears concerned about combining databases from more than one source, whether from different Federal agencies or from non-government sources. Note, too, that this is not in reference to searches about an individual, but about the search for patterns.
Jonas shreds Feingold's definition, of course, but it does seem to suggest what some people in Congress are worried about. At the same time, at least as a layperson, I can't see how the Fourth Amendment is relevant, since there is no privacy expectation on data you've already given a third party. Right?
BTW, maybe all this is about the first definition in that blog entry:

Data Mining, noun 1. Torturing the data until it confesses ... and if you torture it enough, you can get it to confess to anything.
Wonder if that's what Gonzales was trying to hide.

"red herring" is mot juste (none / 0) (#24)
by Sumner on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:41:14 PM EST

These little red herrings about an SP simply serve to distract that it is all about the entire and complete control and command and understanding of the Noosphere, (or if you prefer, "Infosphere").

Here's an excellent site referencing the current field of knowledge about info-ops theory.

Much as has been the dissembling regarding our total surveillance society, the dissembling about torture appears to be similar enough to provide a useful analogy.

What do "they" mean by DataMining. (none / 0) (#26)
by MetaData on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:22:55 AM EST

The problem with this discussion is that nobody can really keep track of WHICH program is which. This has to be an intentional effort to mislead or divert attention: WTF does Gonzalez mean by "the program we are talking about today."

DataMining may mean many different things, and we do not specifically know what data they have in their hot little hands, which means we have not choice but to speculate a bit about what they are really doing.

What data mining or eavesdropping excesses could they have engaged in that would make Ashcroft or other officials balk at approval? At that date they weren't worrying about any oversight, so any problems must have been pretty severe.

I feel it is appropriate to assume broad violations, rather than narrow ones.

(1) Narrowly: Maybe they have a list of all phone numbers and all phone calls from each to each. Or all email addresses from and to. Looking for bad guys may mean looking for correllations among all these numbers or emails, without actually listening in to the calls or looking at the content of the emails.

(2) Broadly: If they have no shame and no concern about anyone looking over their shoulders, then there is nothing to keep them from looking far more in depth. You don't even have to be a conspiracy buff to believe this. As a data guy myself, I KNOW that you want to maximize the data in order to find ALL the links and all the possible correlations:
- Full indexing of all emails (aka google search)
- Correlations between phone numbers, internal and external,
- key words,
- algorithms to flag emails of interest.

You just don't get decent results from this kind of data mining unless you have ALL, and I mean every last scrap of data you can find. If you were to eliminate internal US phone correlations (for example), you would be restricting possible successes.

I mean, what if Google only indexed the first sentence of all webpages. You might never find the content you were looking for, or you might never flag the important documents because the important keywords are scattered down in the text somewhere.

GOD, it makes too much TECHNICAL sense. Which is a different question from what is legal, and what did they actually do?

No (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:24:43 AM EST

The key is what did BUSH mean.

There is nothng in what Bush said that excludes data mining from the "program the President confirmed."


But, of course.... (none / 0) (#34)
by MetaData on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:54:28 AM EST

Of course they are Data Mining.

There is no question about that. I actually worked in a company with a data mining product that had a visit from the NSA in the early 2000s to inquire about using it. Datamining is the only appropriate way to drill-down, correlate, track, discover, categorize, etc. It really is just googling, in a more sophisticated way, and better kinds of automation.

What program? I assume all of them.

What did Bush mean? Who knows?

I don't think Bush has much technical understanding of datamining. He probably has some understanding of the political issues. I doubt he has any ability to understand where the technical and the political collide.

(or else I just don't understand why you think Bush's meaning is important).


: Because Gonzo is banking on it (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:48:56 AM EST

Did you not read the post?

Possible problem with analysis. (none / 0) (#30)
by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:47:43 AM EST

There's one possible problem in the analysis, that I see; it involves dates.

On Dec. 16, 2005, the NYT ran a long story about wiretaps, but not data mining: link.

On Dec. 24, 2005, the NYT ran a story adding data mining, specifically: link.

Bush talked on Dec. 17, 2005, about the program "revealed in media reports".

link.

That seems to leave open the notion that Bush was not talking about data mining, when he mentioned the program revealed by media reports.

I don't know if there were other reports, besides the NYT that happen to mention the data mining, prior to Bush's Dec. 17 talk.

There were other reports (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:48:44 AM EST

prior to that.


On data mining I mean (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:51:15 AM EST

TIA specifically. Moreover, there is nothing in the report that EXCLUDEs data mining.


Okay. (none / 0) (#33)
by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:52:56 AM EST

: On data mining (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:58:26 AM EST

was my point.
But thanks for making me reread the article.
There is an EXPRESS discussion of a dispute that led to a change in the program in the article,. Was it THIS dispute?
Then how could Gonzo have been telling the truth?

Also consider this (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:57:10 AM EST

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.
For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.
A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.
One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.
A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping.
According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.

If this is reporting the VERY episode that led to the scene in Ashcroft's hospital room, then how in blazes could Gonzo's testimony be true?


: Yeah, I see your point. (none / 0) (#37)
by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:12:48 AM EST

I just wanted to make the specific point about Bush's one remark. I don't doubt for a second that Gonzales can be caught, here. His dance is too intricate and precise.
I think a lot of it involves, obviously, selling the idea that wiretapping and data-mining (used to help figure out who to wire-tap) are seperate "programs". I'm sure anyone in the meetings would find that pretty hilarious.