Decius wrote:
80% of the phone calls flagged by it would likely be flagged because of various prejudices.

Oh, no, not at all. You see, that's where the social network analysis comes in. These calls you monitor ... they aren't just randomly chosen. No, the calls that get routed to you have been carefully selected (by a computer, okay -- not to worry!) to be far enough away from you (on the positive repcap network) so as to not have too-strong ties. The negative repcap network comes into play, as well, so as to keep you from hounding your known enemies (and their friends). According to all available data, you are perfect for those calls.

Therefore, in this environment, to be a successful terrorist, it no longer works to keep a low profile. Instead, the goal is to be outrageously popular across an incredibly diverse fan base. This tends to insulate you from popular surveillance because no one passes through the filter when it comes time to select a listener for your calls. And then you're back to fighting against the professional eavesdroppers, which of course everyone knows is no challenge at all.

Of course, this has the side effect that real celebrities are sometimes mistaken for terrorists.

To compensate for the inability to find a suitable "lone listener" in the cases of suspected celebrities and real terrorists, these calls are automatically multicast to a wide audience in hopes that the collective efforts of the broader community will overcome any individual biases that may exist. Tuning in to these multicasts, which are an eclectic amalgam of amateur reality television, satellite radio, and fire/police/rescue scanners, becomes a major American pastime, largely replacing sitcoms, and thus finally unseating Ray Romano as the nation's most reliable evening entertainment.

Now, since every ten-year-old formally learned Arabic at the Defense Language Institute in preparation for the draft at age 16, another side effect of the Filter is that all of the underground rap is now in Arabic. This trend presages a larger cultural divide between the older generation and those who were kids during the draft era. After two decades, the authorities decided that actually going to DLI was optional; you could test out of it as long as you could pass the Lone Listener proficiency exam. This became increasingly common as the kids began teaching each other Arabic on the streets.

RE: Wired News: Mass Spying Means Gross Errors

The United States government either currently has, or soon will have, new technology that makes mass surveillance possible. The next question for citizens and other policy makers is whether and when to use this capability.

You may remember, from late 2004:

People say to me, "Whatever it takes." I tell them, It's going to take everything. And still I see a woman in row four, cutting an apple. With a four-inch knife.

Back to the Granick story:

It is also possible that the disclosure of any details about the search and scan strategies and the algorithms used to sift through them would immediately allow countermeasures by our enemies to evade or defeat them.

That would be a weak algorithm, anyway.

Any search algorithm, whether public or not, is unlikely to be able to distinguish between innocent and criminal communications.

That's it! A public algorithm. What we need here is a global-scale collaborative filter. We could resume the draft, but for NSA instead of the Army. You could work from home, or even in your car, for an hour each day, listening in on phone calls. But mind you, as the President said, that "There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring." This is just the detection phase. If you hear something suspicious, you just press a number key, 1 through 9, to indicate how urgently dangerous it seems. The call is then forwarded to a professional for further handling, including FISA procedures as necessary.

More information doesn't make us smarter. We need smarter information.

Easily said, but not so easily done. Ideas?

Wired News: Mass Spying Means Gross Errors

There's nothing newsworthy in this rehash of an article, but did you know that VeriSign sells surveillance equipment and "all-in-one" surveillance services to the carriers? I hadn't known that.

See also:

VeriSign® NetDiscovery™ Services Selected by Vonage

VeriSign NetDiscovery Services Implemented by Cox Communications

Eavesdropping leaps into 21st century

We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in The New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department's December 22, 2005, letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration's defense of the program.

This letter is a bit repetitive due to its structure, but the legal explanation offered here is relatively clear and concise.

On [Domestic] NSA Spying: A Letter To Congress

Britain, already the world's leader in video surveillance of its people, will soon be able to automatically track the movements of millions of cars on most of its major roads.

"It will revolutionize policing," said John Dean, the national coordinator of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system, or ANPR. "Our aim is to deny criminals the use of the roads."

They should integrate the ticketing system with mobile phones, so that if you run a red light, you immediately get a message chastizing (and fining) you for it. And maybe they could also send a message to all of your AIM buddies, too, letting them know about your dangerous ways.

What's really needed is an in-car augmented reality system that provides the ticketing and accident history for all of the drivers/cars in your immediate vicinity. And if someone's been stopped for suspicious behavior in the recent past, it would alert you to that fact, so you could keep an eye out.

Electronic Eye Grows Wider in Britain

From a selection of letters to the public editor regarding NYT's handling of the domestic surveillance story, here's an interesting if somewhat contrived legal question for you to consider:

It is sweetly ironic to hear the editors' claim that information cannot be shared with you (and us) lest the reporters' sources and methods be compromised and leakers be revealed for possible negative repercussions, in this case prosecutions.

Isn't that the same basic explanation given by the administration for its secrecy?

How is it acceptable for the paper to keep certain information secret, especially if obtained illegally, to protect sources and methods, but for the government to do so is somehow un-American?

How The Times Handled the Surveillance Story

The Open Source Center will gather and analyze information from the Web, broadcasts, newspapers and other unclassified sources around the world.

The Center will study obscure sources like T-shirt slogans in countries of interest.

All Your Base.

Intelligence Center Is Created for Unclassified Information

Last week's arrests included an executive of a major satellite television company, suspected of spying on a cable television rival; two cell phone companies suspected of eavesdropping on a mutual rival; and the Israeli importer of Volvos and Hondas who is suspected of spying on the company that imports Audis and Volkswagens.

Caught in a Web of Spies

"We expect the men and women of the F.B.I. to protect us, and yet some advocate constraints that would tie their hands unnecessarily."

After Talk of Compromise, Panel Is Again Split on Patriot Act

But running spies is not the NSA's job. Listening is, and more listening is what the NSA knows how to organize, more is what Congress is ready to support and fund, more is what the President wants, and more is what we are going to get.

Black Arts, by Thomas Powers