Slashdot Log In
U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases
Journal written by anaesthetica (596507) and posted by
timothy
on Sat Jun 24, 2006 08:19 AM
from the bank-secrecy-is-a-good-idea-all-year-'round dept.
from the bank-secrecy-is-a-good-idea-all-year-'round dept.
The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.
The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just that if it had not happened then the US public wouldn't have been so tolerant of their own sons and daughters dieing in countries like Afganistan and Iraq while trying to secure the rest of the worlds oil reserves.
In Afganistan they wanted to build a pipeline that the taliban never would have agreed to. In Iraq, well the largest oil field in the world speaks for itself.
Just look at what was happening to US defense expenditure before 911. It was going down as the majority of the population realised that there was no big bad communist Russia to fight anymore so there was no need for aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.
Now we have terrorists, an enemy who can never go bust like Russia did. And if you kill a terrorist, 10 more just spring up their place. It is a war the US can never win. Which obviously suits the people who make from money from war by selling defense equipment to the US govt.
The NSA and CIA let planes crash into the twin towers and that conveniently empty (for redecoration apparantly) wing of the pentagon. They did this as they knew it would result in massive increase in their budgets.
And before you dismiss this as a troll, just think what you might ignore if you were looking at redundancy from somewhere you had worked for 20 years. From a career you enjoyed, possibly with no other hope of employment in the same field. After all, who hires people with a 20 year gap on their CV which they are not allowed to discuss for reasons of national security.
If all I had to do to protect it was look the other way briefly, I might just do it if I had a wife and 3 kids to support.
But herein lies the problem, the people on the other side are more desperate the we are. Most of Iraq has a much lower standard of living than the US, the population is on the edge of starvation, disease is rife and on top of that the country is a war zone where you might just catch a stray bullet or bit of shrapnel and die. Now on top of that only thing your country has of value to trade with (oil) is in the hands of foriegn companies (the only ones with the expertise to extract it) who are allied with the foriegn invaders. Try putting yourself in this position and think of how determined you might be to throw those foriegn invaders out.
But my final point is more disturbing than all of this. We now NEED the CIA and NSA. We need them to stop some super pissed of terrorist obtaining a nuclear device from Pakistan (Definately have nukes unlike Iran) or Iran (Maybe have nukes but definately dont like us) and blowing us up with it. All they have to do is smuggle the nuke onto a plane bound for the US from some third world country.
Re: Wow (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.
If you actually look at the 9/11 attacks as well as to other similar situations, you'll find that the only terrorists you are going to catch at the border are those trying to flee the country afterward, and even that is extremely unlikely. You'd also see that those who planned and executed the attacks were not illegal foreigners. Hence, similar to the situation you pointed out yourself, such actions would have virtually zero effect on terrorism.
All the screaming and arguing about illegal immigrants is really yet another way to divert attention away from what is really happening.
Corporate advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?
We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:5, Informative)
It already happend. Echelon was used to get Boeing an advatage over Airbus.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sislock.htm [converge.org.nz]
http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Con
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/07/irp-000724-ec
http://tinyurl.com/zuxan [tinyurl.com] (google link)
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.
I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:
What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?
Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.
No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.
Secretly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway...
Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.
Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?
In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Informative)
Show me the article that verifies this claim. The interview I heard yesterday with Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levy mentioned nothing of the sort. This program, like a startling number of Bush's post 9/11 "anti terrorist" intelligence initiatives, has NO court oversight. Levy described a situation in which SWIFT agents and "an outside auditing firm" could monitor database searches in real time and could halt the search if they felt it was suspect or needed further justification from the government. That's it. If your name is on a list of suspected terrorist / collaborators, correctly or incorrectly, the the White House has given itself the privledge of sifting through your financial data. And your phone calls. And god knows what else we don't know about. And it all happens without the courts being aware.
Who puts a stop to programs like this if it's being abused? The "gang of 8" senators that had been informed about the domestic wiretapping program have admitted that the reports they get about that program don't go into any great detail. Are we just supposed to trust the Bush White House to say, "Gee, we've sepped over the line here, please shut us down?" These are the same people that selectively chose intellegence reports that supported their desire to invade Iraq. Once they got their, they retroactively changes their justifications for being there and then capped it all by saying "Well, is it a bad thing that Sahdam is gone? Would you prefer he be in power?"
This is a democracy with explicit checks and ballances between the three branches of government setup to prevent precisely what is occuring. Why should we trust him to be the final arbitar of what programs are legal and which would be overstepping his bounds within the law when he and his team have shown such a knack for the creative justification of every questionable looking program they've enacted that has come to light?
echo $FREEDOM (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be greatly appreciated by the Billions of us that don't live there if you Americans would do something about your current government.
America increasingly represents the antithesis of 'freedom' and personal liberty especially for those in other countries. They are innovators in the strategic reduction of civil rights, at home and elsewhere. Freedom is not a brand, it's a right and you don't have to be American to have it FFS.
Cheney's response (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cheney's response (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"
It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"
Color me unsurprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.
NPR Interview (Score:5, Informative)
When asked what layers of security were in place to prevent misuse, the reply was that in order to perform a search, the analyst had to show that the individual or group being queried had been identified as having a potential terrorism link. That request had to be vetted by a supervisor, then by a representative from SWIFT. Then, when the query is performed, if no evidence is found, then the information is discarded at the analyst's level. A government auditing team reviews the information that is gleaned and a third party auditing team (from Booz Allen) audits the government.
The undersecretary said that they did remove an analyst earlier this year for abusing the system. The auditing system caught him.
The undersecretary also said that about 10% of the searches performed provided evidence of links to terrorist organizations. That, he said, was a very high rate compared to other intelligence methods.
For me, personally, if that's the way that the government is using the SWIFT database, I don't have a problem with it. If the queries are targeted, as opposed to a broad sweep, it strikes me as a legitimate use of an intelligence asset.
Interestingly enough, the general attitude of the security and privacy experts that ATC interviewed was fairly positive about the program.
-h-
Re:A message from the right (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.
Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad.
Can we go back to blaming communism?
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:5, Informative)
After identifying a suspect, Levey said, "you can do a search, and you can determine whom he sent money to, and who sent money to him."
"The way the SWIFT data works, you would have all kinds of concrete information -- addresses, phone numbers, real names, account numbers, a lot of stuff we can really work with, the kind of actionable information that government officials can really follow up on," Levey said.
Doesn't sound like purely institution-related data. And this from the "undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence," whatever the hell that is.
Re:Not used to track individuals (Score:5, Informative)
Re: And the worst is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?
Re:quick success (Score:5, Informative)
Um, don't you mean the pre-Gulf War shells that were found in 2003, reported on in 2004, and waved around last week in a poor attempt to justify the war in an election year? Just sayin'...
Re:quick success (Score:5, Informative)
Just a wild suggestion... Maybe he actually destroyed them?
He didn't want a war because he knew he'd end up dead.. as will hopefully soon happen. Actually destroying these weapons, which he had no realistic prospect of using without instant obliteration now he was no longer a US ally against Iran, would certainly have been in his best interests.
But I do not dispute his desire and willingness to make and use them.. nor his future intention to do so either! Just his practical ability.
PS: The '500' mustard and sarin shells (disclosed in 1999 [un.org], only wight ring prats call it recent, although the real figure is more like 650+) should be set against 50,000+ which the UN accepts were destroyed..
Re:quick success (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me down all you want. It's still true.
-Eric
Not taking it sitting down (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.
"C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"
And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.
They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.
So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.