Warrantless domestic spying doesn't work
Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.Awesome. But at least the program is limited, right?
Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress [my emphasis] -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.At most there have been a few dozen people out of 5,000 who were suspicious enough to get a domestic wiretap against.
The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, "wash out" most of the leads within days or weeks.
The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. Other officials said the disclosures might shift the terms of public debate, altering perceptions about the balance between privacy lost and security gained.
This is why we have FISA, to ensure that the people whose privacy is violated are truly deserving of concern. As someone who makes regular international calls and as someone whose international calls and emails can be a bit personal (Ms. TfK has been in Europe a lot lately), I don't like the idea that this surveillance has been subject to no formal restrictions. We have warrants, FISA, and separation of powers to protect people like me against the government in exactly this situation.
As someone who flies regularly and who has family and friends in New York and Washington, DC, I'm very concerned about the threat of terrorism, and I'm worried about all the time intelligence officers are wasting on this illegal program.