NSA Surveillance: More Hay and More "Hey!"
By David Henderson
In a post earlier this week, “NSA Surveillance: A Cost/Benefit Analysis,” I quoted John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart’s statement, “However, the reaction has continually been to expand the enterprise, searching for the needle by adding more and more hay.” It turns out that one of the snoops, who became a whistle-blower in 2008, made that same point.
Here are two excerpts from an ABC news story done by Brian Ross. Excerpt one:
“These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones,” said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA’s Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.
Kinne described the contents of the calls as “personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.”
Here’s where Ms. Kinne makes the haystack point:
“By casting the net so wide and continuing to collect on Americans and aid organizations, it’s almost like they’re making the haystack bigger and it’s harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody,” she said.
Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad’s Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007.
“Calling home to the United States, talking to their spouses, sometimes their girlfriends, sometimes one phone call following another,” said Faulk.
“Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News.
By contrast, Roger Pilon and Richard A. Epstein recently wrote:
Yes, government officials might conceivably misuse some of the trillions of bits of metadata they examine using sophisticated algorithms. But one abuse is no pattern of abuses. And even one abuse is not likely to happen given the safeguards in place. The cumulative weight of the evidence attests to the soundness of the program. The critics would be more credible if they could identify a pattern of government abuses. But after 12 years of continuous practice, they can’t cite even a single case. We should be thankful that here, at least, government has done its job and done it well.
Were Epstein and Pilon unaware of these abuses? They appear to be more than “a single case.” Will Roger and Richard issue a retraction?