Pioneer-Groundbreaker

It's amazing how many people would die for their 2nd Ammendment rights, but throw the 4th out the window.
Click to expand...

What's even more amazing is how folks forget the term "probable cause" in the 4th amendment when they indict an entire program based on it's CAPABILITIES not what it has ACTUALLY DONE.

There is nothing here signifying that anyone actually did anything other than build a capability that could be used to gather data. What evidence is there that they specifically collected personal data on someone they weren't allowed to?

Or are we now indicting people based purely on what they MIGHT do with a capability...such as if they own a gun the MIGHT murder someone???
 
If this type of eavesdropping is going on, it's wrong. If it was going on 50 years ago, it's still wrong. We need accountability from .Gov, not from one political figure. When we go down the path of looking for that "one guilty party", we inevitably lose. This cannot be about Bush or Clinton bashing...it must be about the Bill of Rights or we're all just wasting oxygen.
Click to expand...

Agreed, when it's eavedropping. But too many people think they can make public statements and have some interest in protecting them. It's like the people who believe their 4th Amendment rights are violated when it's suggested the gov't might monitor these forums.

I guess I just want to get to the details of this program before I get outraged. I don't believe complaints anymore, having written too many answers to flat out lies contained therein.
 
There is nothing here signifying that anyone actually did anything other than build a capability that could be used to gather data. What evidence is there that they specifically collected personal data on someone they weren't allowed to?

Or are we now indicting people based purely on what they MIGHT do with a capability...such as if they own a gun the MIGHT murder someone???
Click to expand...
.Gov should not be above the standards it sets for its citizens.

Case in Point...try this on for size:
Build yourself a Clandestine Meth Lab, complete with all components and precursors except those which are currently listed as illegal. Think all you've done is "to "build a capability"? Think again....send an anonymous tip to the local DEA office.

Let us know how it plays out for you. I think you'll find it falls under "Conspiracy to ....". ;)

Similarly, the comparison to firearms ownership is specious. Firearms have more uses than the commission of crimes. A program by which all internet and telephonic traffic is routed, recorded and analyzed has only one purpose: eavesdropping. So, there is no issue regarding the motives. And that deserves review by open courts and disdain by Free Men.
Rich
 
Case in Point...try this on for size:
Build yourself a Clandestine Meth Lab, complete with all components and precursors except those which are currently listed as illegal. Think all you've done is "to "build a capability"? Think again....send an anonymous tip to the local DEA office.

Let us know how it plays out for you. I think you'll find it falls under "Conspiracy to ....".
Click to expand...

True..but to my knowledge there is no "conspiracy to deprive someone of right to privacy" law that I know of.

A program by which all internet and telephonic traffic is routed, recorded and analyzed has only one purpose: eavesdropping..
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. That data, referred to as "call detail", has been collected by telecommunications carriers for years and is the basis for all billing, development and circuit allocation projects. This program does nothing but mine the same call detail information into a comprehensive database for data analysis purposes.

For example, to determine trends regarding what CO's (Central Offices used for switching) in the US may have a greater call frequency to known terrorist locations overseas and when those trends seem to spike in relation to terrorist activities. I don't see that as depriving anyone of their rights to privacy, but it does provide a pretty effective investigative tool.

Having spent nine years of my life working with NSA I can tell you that there is nowhere near the manpower available to work on individual intercept and analysis on a widespread basis. Generally there has to be a significant trend established first in order to task that kind of specialized time and resource.
 
Don,
"In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping."
Click to expand...
And thanks to the FISA act such programs as this "Pioneer" project became (deep breath) ILLEGAL!!
Looking for proof that "This type of data collecting was going on in all of the previous administrations". Prove or retract.

Where is your proof that it is anything other than a counter-terrorism intel collection tool.
Click to expand...
Proof? Like I said, I'm not inclined to speculate and I'm not saying what the goals of the program were. That's why I want to know.
I will say that the likelihood of this program being intended for counter-terrorism are on the order of 1:diddly^squat given the timing.

Do you subscribe then that there is no terrorism threat in America? I don't like being spyed on anymore than the next guy, but I also realize that I like having bombs set off in U.S. cities is something I like less.
Click to expand...

I really wish you'd knock off the false-choice fallacies. You're saying that the only choice we have is either
a) wholesale government scrutiny of every bit of data flowing within our country with no oversight and no warrants and no legal basis
or
b) terrorists bombing our cities.

I submit that this is a laughably ignorant statement.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that I think the end justifies the means and there is always someone skirting around legal issues. This country was founded on skirting the legal system through loopholes, etc. Everytime a new law is passed there is someone who finds a way around it and some folks will just flat out break it. It's a fact of life. Did the administration break the law? Not according to them and their lawyers. They feel they have a loophole they exploited.
Click to expand...

........You know what? All of the questions above, nevermind. I don't wish to discuss this topic with anyone who would even attempt to justify our Federal government breaking it's own laws.
 
There is nothing here signifying that anyone actually did anything other than build a capability that could be used to gather data.
Click to expand...

So if the gov builds us all happy camps but doesn't put us in them that's OK?
If they put up surveilance cameras in your house that's ok? (as long as they don't turn them on, right?)
if they say we can only own flintlocks, that would be OK, cause we could still own flintlock firearms and the bill of rights doesn't specificaly say we can have our choice. Oh, wait, "shall not be violated".

And I don't care who started doing it. I care about who's still doing it.
 
And thanks to the FISA act such programs as this "Pioneer" project became (deep breath) ILLEGAL!!
Click to expand...

It's illegal if the focus of their search is personal data i.e. social security numbers.
Looking for proof that "This type of data collecting was going on in all of the previous administrations". Prove or retract.
Click to expand...

According to your own rules you've laid out in previous threads, it's up to you to disprove it. I made the claim, can you disprove it?

Proof? Like I said, I'm not inclined to speculate and I'm not saying what the goals of the program were. That's why I want to know.
I will say that the likelihood of this program being intended for counter-terrorism are on the order of 1:diddly^squat given the timing.
Click to expand...

Speculation on your part. Once again using your rules of debate. I made the claim, you disprove it.
I really wish you'd knock off the false-choice fallacies. You're saying that the only choice we have is either
a) wholesale government scrutiny of every bit of data flowing within our country with no oversight and no warrants and no legal basis
or
b) terrorists bombing our cities.

I submit that this is a laughably ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

I had tried to keep it impersonal, however since you must.........
As I see it, your statements thus far have been of the tinfoil hat wearing ignorant variety.
.......You know what? All of the questions above, nevermind. I don't wish to discuss this topic with anyone who would even attempt to justify our Federal government breaking it's own laws.
Click to expand...

No, like many with a weak minded consperacy theory gene, you don't want to discuss it with someone who has a differing opinion. There is a difference between illegal and bad idea, and as the facts have been presented this may have been a bad idea, but it wasn't illegal.
 
So if the gov builds us all happy camps but doesn't put us in them that's OK?
If they put up surveilance cameras in your house that's ok? (as long as they don't turn them on, right?)
if they say we can only own flintlocks, that would be OK, cause we could still own flintlock firearms and the bill of rights doesn't specificaly say we can have our choice. Oh, wait, "shall not be violated".
Click to expand...

So if you look like you might be the kind of individual to rob a bank (i.e. own a car, a ski mask, and gun or two) that should be enough to indict and imprison you?

The fact is we have a due process in this country and it's based on evidence of a crime that HAS BEEN committed, not one that could potentially be committed. You can be paranoid all you want, but the moment your paranoia gets in the way of another person's (even the President) right to due process, you need to move to some place like Korea or China where they DO have the right to imprison you based solely on suspicious behaviors.

DunedinDragon,

Quote:
there is no "conspiracy to deprive someone of right to privacy" law that I know of.


Rest assured there is.
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested in either the statute or the case law that your alluding to. Sorry if I don't just take your word for it.....

Conspiracy laws generally take the form of having to prove there was criminal intent as the purpose. The only "criminal" intent I see in this case is formed out of paranoia about what they COULD potentially do with such information.

It might do you good to review the legal definitions regarding conspiracies here to see if there if evidence of such in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29
 
Once upon a time, not too long ago in America, The People looked at Government action and asked "Is this Government Action Constitutionally acceptable?" They reacted by lobbying their elected officials accordingly. Sometimes they marched; sometimes they engaged in open civil disobedience.

Today, too many ask "Is this Government Action outright illegal?" And as that question can never be answered straight away, they move on to something else.

I like the old way much better....back when ATF and FBI were restricted legally AND practically from collecting lists of firearms purchases because it wasn't Constitutionally acceptable; back when you could walk down the street, minding your own business without fear of a demand for your Identity Papers; back when you could debate commonly known issues of National Security without being labeled a traitor.

OTOH, things are much simpler now; no individual reponsibility to think and conclude. All we need do today, is wait for the Government to tell us if the Governmental Actions were legal or illegal. Jefferson would be proud indeed that he risked everything for this. :rolleyes:
Rich
 
So if you look like you might be the kind of individual to rob a bank (i.e. own a car, a ski mask, and gun or two) that should be enough to indict and imprison you?
Click to expand...

The Gov is standing outside the bank wearing a ski mask in July. What they're doing is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and untrustworthy.

Reminds me of a 6 year old debating the letter and the spirit of the law. (you said I couldn't throw rocks not dirt clods)
 
DunedinDragon,
I was afraid you were gonna ask that :(
Now I gotta look it up again. (groan)
It's all part of the telecommunications act of 34 (I think 34) and FISA.
Let me find it again and I'll post it.
 
 
Update

I dug this info up from NSA's website.

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00029.cfm

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00018.cfm

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00072.html

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00034.cfm

Project Groundbreaker had been ongoing for a number of years, but project groundbreaker wasn't the same as Project Pioneer Groundbreaker.
Project Groundbreaker was a program to outsource their IT infrastructure and was in the works since '98. Project Pioneer Groundbreaker was the program to construct a datamining facility. Hayden alludes to this during his 9/11 testimony.


Another part of our strategy for nearly three years has been a shift to a greater reliance on American industry. We have been moving along this path steadily and we have the metrics to show it. As you know, in project GROUNDBREAKER we have already outsourced a significant portion of our information technology so that we can concentrate on mission. We have partnered with academia for our systems engineering. I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). Three weeks ago we awarded a contract for nearly $300 million to a private firm to develop TRAILBLAZER, our effort to revolutionize how we produce SIGINT in a digital age. And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets.
Click to expand...



Hayden specifically names who are members of the "eagle alliance" (the conglomerate subcontracting project Groundbreaker); AT&T ain't on the list. AT&T is "another corporate giant".
This project to "jointly develop a system to mine data" was project Pioneer Groundbreaker, which began 11 days after Bush took office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top