Sorry, veteran status only immunizes Democrats and those even further to the Left from criticism. OTOH, they don't seem to feel that on-veterans should be criticized either, see Clinton, William J. (who was a moderately effective CinC despite his complete and deliberate lack of anything resembling a military background).
Also, any veteran on the Right is fair game, unless they vote with the Left often enough.
I must admit that I don't understand your tricky American politics. Was there some recent news about a liberal veteran supplying weapons to the Iranians?
This "immunization from cricitism" spin is laughable. Was John Kerry immunized from being savaged by the Swifties? Was he not "fair game"? And Coulter's example is the most insane of all - she maintains the 9/11 widows are above criticism while in the same breath saying they enjoyed their husbands' deaths.
Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.
Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.
And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.
Wince, that's an odd posting from Powerline. From reports of the looting of munitions centers during the invasion, and the report that the Baathists cached arms all over the counrty before the invasion, I'm not sure why the insurgency would need to "buy" munitions or mortars and the like. Similarily, it's not like they need money for training, there were many veterans in the country who would be able to use this stuff or train others to do the same.
I think there are lots of reasons to track financial transactions (and such systems are not new ... I've worked extensievley in the software end of the financial world and I know what's going on), but catching insurgents in Iraq? That's just silliness.
You might assume a U.S. Army lieutenant knows what he is talking about. You might assume I know what I'm talking about. Or you could check Strategy Page. All armies run on their stomachs, including terrorist armies, and that means money.
There is someone being silly here. It isn't Lt. Cotton and it isn't me.
BTW, this is actually a recurring theme on Strategy Page. It is in play in Columbia, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Soldiers have to eat. Their families have to eat. There are bribes to pay. And not all the weaponry can be stolen or found. For one thing, if not properly maintained, this stuff doesn't always go boom.
You might assume a U.S. Army lieutenant knows what he is talking about.
I would assume that he knew if he were talking about if financial software systems were his area of expertise, or if he had inside information about how the insurgency's finances worked. Does he?
Or you could check Strategy Page.
As I said, there are reasons to track financial transactions, and software has been doing so for at least the last fifteen years (this isn't classified info, by the way). Tracking organizations like al Qaeda is certainly one of those reasons. But as most of the attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq have targetted Iraqis and not US forces, and as al Qaeda attacks are estimated to only account for some 10% of incidents in Iraq, I don't think that any fincial monitoring is going to do much good against the insurgency.
This kind of monitoring is going to find patterns of money laundering and the like on a large scale. It isn't going to find much stuff in Iraq, which I don't believe has much in the way of external funding.
What I've heard is that the Wall Street Journal merely repeated the story after the NYT and the LAT broke it. This could be wrong, and if so all three papers deserve equal scorn / jail time.
And, by the way, I think that almost anyone who has anything to do with money knows how the monitoring systems work. Revealing the news in the media isn't going to make much difference, any more than announcing that they can track cell phone locations of terrorists and insurgents. It's common knowledge.
When I hear an actual stringer for Time saying this, then I'll think it's a problem. Chris Allbritton was one, and he didn't seem to have many serious complaints. And as Time Magazine is, as all media is, basically entertainment, I can't think why they'd kill a story because it made the US troops look good. That would sell well.
And don't give me that liberal bias stuff. Time magazine is one of the more conservative rags out there.
That terrorists need to eat and feed their families? Okay. But recall that there are an enormous number of kidnappings occurring in Iraq right now, which is likely funding a chunk of the insurgency. There is very little chance of that kind of stuff being picked up by financial transaction monitoring.
Sure. No one has claimed that every dollar terrorists spend in Iraq is funneled through SWIFT. But some dollars are, and the NYT, LAT and maybe even the WSJ were irresponsible - if not criminal - to report as they did.
++- Time is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination..I am going to change this sentece on you:
I can't think why they'd kill a story because it made the US troops look good. That would sell well.
One would think it would sell well. If we want to see positive news or heartwarming stories coming out of Iraq, we need to hunt through the internet to get the info..Yes every once in a great while..we see positive stories, but the worse the story, the better the sales..and many of the bad stories are not based on truth...
“...all three papers deserve equal scorn / jail time.”
Oh bullsh*t. Do you even realize what a bunch of bleating, propaganda catapulting sheep (including free Monty Python visual) you sound like when you start to parrot (plus mixed animal metaphor) TMW the moment it plays any hysterical tune?
So the diabolical jihadists, who are such a threat that they require a new imperial presidency and the diminution of the Bill of Rights and modern protections against government domestic spying (which were strengthened during the Cold War), never figured out we were using every means to track their international banking habits (the few they had left)?
The press, including the Wall Street Journal, are doing their job – exposing the Cheney Administration’s overreach and arrogance toward the public. They sure aren’t going to be bluffed into backing down now with Bush in Carter territory and Cheney and the Republican Congress south of that in Nixon land, and the public (the lucid ones) coming fully aware of how they’ve been snaked.
That’s what you hate. Good. Don’t be the last one off the ship.
Lt. Tom Cotton's letter did not claim that all funding came through SWIFT, either.
He did say that releasing this information directly endangered the lives of US troops. I say, not so much. And I doubt it did any harm at all, to tell the truth. I can't see those who do finance terrorism picking up the NYT and saying "My heavens, the bastards are monitoring our financial transactions. Ahmed! Quick, cancel the ATM card!"
They already know, and likely take the usual precautions. They would have been out of business years ago if they didn't.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.
Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
I just wish the NYT would start protecting my rights. I have the right to vote for elected officials who will protect my essential liberties via intelligence programs. I have the right to have these elected officials to take responsible steps to create intelligence programs which have been designed to protect our rights while still protecting our essential liberties from those who would strip them away. These programs were created by agencies funded and empowered by many majority votes of Congress and Presidential signatures over the years and subject to judicial review. To work best these programs require secrecy. I have the right, under the rule of law, for that secrecy to be maintained. That rule of law is an essential liberty.
But for some reason that essential liberty has been cast away to protect the illusion of safety. The program in question did not threathen my privacy, or any other Americans. Exposing it, and defying the rule of law was done, not to enhance anyone's actual security or even to enhance anyone's actual liberty, but instead in the service of a bizarre fiction.
How strange. Why are we casting aside the rule of law and the Constitution? So the NYT can stash another Pulitzer?
++- Of course they know that there is monitoring but they didn't know details and names of institutions, obviously we want them caught before they take that next precautionary step..This monitoring is not just being used for terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan either. It is my understanding that it is global, and has been effective in putting a dent into many terrorist organizations.
I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't see them running stories on the playbook of the NYPD or LAPD...
Wince: Why are we casting aside the rule of law and the Constitution?
If you think that the NYT has broken the law, here is the FBI tip web site: https://tips.fbi.gov/
Pam: Of course they know that there is monitoring but they didn't know details and names of institutions, obviously we want them caught before they take that next precautionary step.
As someone involved quite heavily in the financial software world, let me assure you that every finanicail institution everywhere has the capability of tracking all your information, and that anyone involved in financing terrorism at a high level not only knows about the capabilities of the systems, they probably have people on the payroll who have worked intimately with such systems and know what to do to avoid detection.
No, I'm not suggesting that such surviellance not take place, it's a valuable tool. But at the same time, I don't think that they are surprised by anything the NYT publishes.
Seriously people. Unless you're in banking, you have absolutely no idea how much of your personal financial data is reported to the government, especially in the US. I'd assume that global data mining of this information is massive. And, like the guy above says, it's all defeated by a guy with a backpack and a motorcycle.
...and it seems that this kind of financial transaction tracking has been common knowledge for a while. From an interview in 2001 with Treasury Department's Undersecretary for Enforcement, Jimmy Gurule:
MARGARET WARNER: Now, are you able to track that? Are you actually able to track money from the Holy Land Foundation to Hamas, to actually these families, or are you saying the Holy Land Foundation, let's just take that example directly supports these families?
JIMMY GURULE: We're able to track money from donors to bank accounts, from bank accounts to the Holy Land Foundation back to the Holy Land Foundation to schools that support terrorist activities.
We do this through the use of the Bank Secrecy Act, the database that is administered by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is an agency within the Treasury Department.
We are able to do this through the Foreign Asset Tracking Center, which is an agency within the Treasury Department as well, so there are several vehicles, several mechanisms that we use in order to track terrorist assets.
++- Isn't that referencing a domestic shutdown of the finances? It is a great example, but it is my understanding that this was one of several charities that had been shutdown after 9/11..the monies were being funneled through domestic banks iirc. The Treasury is also monitoring NY banks as they know much of the money that is funding terrorism as well as drug money is flowing through New York...
BTW, thanks for the info on the software end of this..
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
It's really hard to follow this banking thing. My head's still gyrating from the thought that Rose wants to support two convicted felons for offices of public trust just for the shits and giggles of watching my head gyrate.
Geez Rosy, D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad was a vet. Let's see if he's willing to sit in congress. Lord knows he's got time to kill waiting for the needle -- and he's got a built in term limit.
I find it very strange that you assume that the terrorists know they are being monitored therefore it is OK to print this story. The logic of that one escapes me completely. You assume they believe something so it is OK for you to definitely tell them that their transactions are being monitored.
If you recall the same thing was said about their use of cell phones. Supposedly the terrorists knew that their cell phones were monitored so it was OK to print the story that said their cell phones were being monitored. Immediately after that the terrorists stopped using cell phones. Way to go, NY Times. I am sure that our soldiers fighting the terrorists are grateful that you printed that story.
Now they are doing it again. Is there no end to the treachery of the LLL in this country and their media lapdogs? How many more of our secrets are they going to print. The latest is the secret briefing of the general in Iraq which the NYT and the LA Times was so happy to print.
I guess it is just business as usual for them. Ever since the Tet Offensive when the media told us it was a defeat and we later find out that it was a victory and the North Vietnamese were ready to give up until our wonderful media screwed the troops again.
As for Time Magazine, if you consider that conservative, which it is by comparison with maybe The Nation or Pravda (but I repeat myself), you are really off your gourd.
As for the stuff you printed about the software, your stuff was all domestic. This program was international and was totally different. Nice try to obfuscate the difference. As one who ran the computer part of the SWIFT processing for a major bank in NYC for 5 years, I am rather familiar with what is involved here. You are missing the whole point of what the program was for, whether that was just to play dumb or be dumb is a different matter.
You are missing the whole point of what the program was for, whether that was just to play dumb or be dumb is a different matter.
If you want to critique what I said, or engage in debate, that is well and good, and I will respond in kind. If you want to tack on a gratuitous insult, then I will have to say fuck you also, and write you off as a dickhead.
Regarding your software experience, what languages were used? What database architecture? Protocols? Gateways?
++ungood is claiming expertise and that the terrorists already know this, so it doesn't matter.
Oddly this in direct contradiction to what all those officials mentioned in the Snow letter said.
Well, ++ungood, you may be an expert on financial, but are you an expert in intelligence programs? And have you observed the specific programs results?
For all we know, some brilliant terrorist financier has, using the additional information in the NYT article, already figured out a way to launder his funds and wire transfer them with impunity - or has just realized that his former brilliant method hasn't been protecting him as well as he would like, and has switched to a courier.
Alternatively, some stupid terrorist financier has just had an Allah preserve us moment...
In short, I believe John Snow and the intelligence experts who said that the article was a bad idea, not ++ungood. Why? If it really didn't matter, they would not have gone through all that effort.
I've been in big organizations. You don't get a Chinese fire drill involving high level people unless the high level people really think it is important. And if you are a low level person, you sure as heck don't create a Chinese fire drill involving high level people unless you think it's important.
ungood is claiming expertise and that the terrorists already know this, so it doesn't matter.
No, what I was saying that those with much banking or financial transaction technical knowledge are likely to know what is being watched. There are already a host of systems analyzing these kinds of transactions already. They're looking for money laundering and fraud.
For all we know, some brilliant terrorist financier has, using the additional information in the NYT article, already figured out a way to launder his funds and wire transfer them with impunity - or has just realized that his former brilliant method hasn't been protecting him as well as he would like, and has switched to a courier.
The technoical information supplied by the NYT article is fairly minimal (that SWIFT is being monitored, I had already assumed that it was), and again, anyone with the technical knowledge of what is being looked for can conceal what they're up to.
I'm not sure how this thread became about the NYT, but that seems to be happening a lot these days. Lots to talk about. :-)
For those on the right who can get past his headline, Glenn Greenwald has a great roundup of links and information about the NYT and related matters:
http://tinyurl.com/jfvhv
Greenwald lays out how the President and the administration have been revealing lots themselves about these programs. Lots of other good stuff too about the founders and our (previous) distrust of absolute power settling in a single branch of government. Thought-provoking stuff, however you come down on the administration or this story in particular.
++- this piqued my curiosty and was hoping you can help me, and please don't take my wording as an insult, as I am just feeling my way through what you are saying here:
and again, anyone with the technical knowledge of what is being looked for can conceal what they're up to.
Obviously you build a system that someone can't penetrate..obviously there are insiders that are making the system semi-use less..isn't it possible that there are multiple systems in place to catch not only the outside terrorist, but also the inside person working with the terrorist? All the while this be a tightly controlled program?
My other thought was that if you think it is penetrable, than what good is the computer program?
Obviously you build a system that someone can't penetrate..obviously there are insiders that are making the system semi-use less..
No, noit quite. What all these systems do is monitor all financial transactions looking for patterns that indicate something might be going on. This can be things like multiple transactions with an odd amount, usually just below some magic number that would result in alarms going off. For example, if five days out of seven somone makes transactions of around $9,800, and there is a rule that says that transactions of $10,000 and over must be reported top the government, that's a sign that someone is up to something. Similarily, and this is a bit hard to grasp, there is a natural order of numbers, and a large number of transactions that fall outside that natural order can be picked up and investigated.
These are just simple examples, but if someone knows what is being looked for, they can tailor their transactions to avoid detection. However, there are some very complicated statistical algorithms that turn up all kinds of interesting stuff, and those are more difficult to avoid.
Here's the thing, though. The NYT article reveals none of the methods used whatsoever. George W. Bush has revealed more about these programs in public speeches than the article in question did. So I think the outrage is misplaced.
Also, any veteran on the Right is fair game, unless they vote with the Left often enough.
How about dealing with the actual issues?
Damn those f*cking liberals.
Wince
I think there are lots of reasons to track financial transactions (and such systems are not new ... I've worked extensievley in the software end of the financial world and I know what's going on), but catching insurgents in Iraq? That's just silliness.
You might assume a U.S. Army lieutenant knows what he is talking about. You might assume I know what I'm talking about. Or you could check Strategy Page. All armies run on their stomachs, including terrorist armies, and that means money.
There is someone being silly here. It isn't Lt. Cotton and it isn't me.
BTW, this is actually a recurring theme on Strategy Page. It is in play in Columbia, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Soldiers have to eat. Their families have to eat. There are bribes to pay. And not all the weaponry can be stolen or found. For one thing, if not properly maintained, this stuff doesn't always go boom.
Yours,
Wince
Oops, I think he meant to write The Wall Street Journal
I would assume that he knew if he were talking about if financial software systems were his area of expertise, or if he had inside information about how the insurgency's finances worked. Does he?
Or you could check Strategy Page.
As I said, there are reasons to track financial transactions, and software has been doing so for at least the last fifteen years (this isn't classified info, by the way). Tracking organizations like al Qaeda is certainly one of those reasons. But as most of the attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq have targetted Iraqis and not US forces, and as al Qaeda attacks are estimated to only account for some 10% of incidents in Iraq, I don't think that any fincial monitoring is going to do much good against the insurgency.
This kind of monitoring is going to find patterns of money laundering and the like on a large scale. It isn't going to find much stuff in Iraq, which I don't believe has much in the way of external funding.
What I've heard is that the Wall Street Journal merely repeated the story after the NYT and the LAT broke it. This could be wrong, and if so all three papers deserve equal scorn / jail time.
Yours,
Wince
You pooh-poohed the story of the Times magazine editor who screwed over his reporter by removing the heroism.
Are you sure this isn't a common problem?
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
When I hear an actual stringer for Time saying this, then I'll think it's a problem. Chris Allbritton was one, and he didn't seem to have many serious complaints. And as Time Magazine is, as all media is, basically entertainment, I can't think why they'd kill a story because it made the US troops look good. That would sell well.
And don't give me that liberal bias stuff. Time magazine is one of the more conservative rags out there.
I'm not sure what the point of that link was, Wince.
Yours,
Wince
That terrorists need to eat and feed their families? Okay. But recall that there are an enormous number of kidnappings occurring in Iraq right now, which is likely funding a chunk of the insurgency. There is very little chance of that kind of stuff being picked up by financial transaction monitoring.
Sure. No one has claimed that every dollar terrorists spend in Iraq is funneled through SWIFT. But some dollars are, and the NYT, LAT and maybe even the WSJ were irresponsible - if not criminal - to report as they did.
Yours,
Wince
One would think it would sell well. If we want to see positive news or heartwarming stories coming out of Iraq, we need to hunt through the internet to get the info..Yes every once in a great while..we see positive stories, but the worse the story, the better the sales..and many of the bad stories are not based on truth...
I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on Lt. Tom Cotton's letter.
Sorry, Time Magazine is and has been for years a conservative magazine.
Oh bullsh*t. Do you even realize what a bunch of bleating, propaganda catapulting sheep (including free Monty Python visual) you sound like when you start to parrot (plus mixed animal metaphor) TMW the moment it plays any hysterical tune?
So the diabolical jihadists, who are such a threat that they require a new imperial presidency and the diminution of the Bill of Rights and modern protections against government domestic spying (which were strengthened during the Cold War), never figured out we were using every means to track their international banking habits (the few they had left)?
Puh-leeze
The press, including the Wall Street Journal, are doing their job – exposing the Cheney Administration’s overreach and arrogance toward the public. They sure aren’t going to be bluffed into backing down now with Bush in Carter territory and Cheney and the Republican Congress south of that in Nixon land, and the public (the lucid ones) coming fully aware of how they’ve been snaked.
That’s what you hate. Good. Don’t be the last one off the ship.
U.S. News and World Report is conservative these days. Time hasn't been conservative for years, although it once was.
Of course, this is all commentary on how blue the sky, how red the sunset.
I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on Lt. Tom Cotton's letter.
I know. Lt. Tom Cotton's letter did not claim that all funding came through SWIFT, either.
Yours,
Wince
Click.
Yours,
Wince
He did say that releasing this information directly endangered the lives of US troops. I say, not so much. And I doubt it did any harm at all, to tell the truth. I can't see those who do finance terrorism picking up the NYT and saying "My heavens, the bastards are monitoring our financial transactions. Ahmed! Quick, cancel the ATM card!"
They already know, and likely take the usual precautions. They would have been out of business years ago if they didn't.
But for some reason that essential liberty has been cast away to protect the illusion of safety. The program in question did not threathen my privacy, or any other Americans. Exposing it, and defying the rule of law was done, not to enhance anyone's actual security or even to enhance anyone's actual liberty, but instead in the service of a bizarre fiction.
How strange. Why are we casting aside the rule of law and the Constitution? So the NYT can stash another Pulitzer?
Yeah, right.
Yours,
Wince
I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't see them running stories on the playbook of the NYPD or LAPD...
I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't see them running stories on the playbook of the NYPD or LAPD...
Ooooooo. Nicely said.
Yours,
Wince
If you think that the NYT has broken the law, here is the FBI tip web site: https://tips.fbi.gov/
Pam: Of course they know that there is monitoring but they didn't know details and names of institutions, obviously we want them caught before they take that next precautionary step.
As someone involved quite heavily in the financial software world, let me assure you that every finanicail institution everywhere has the capability of tracking all your information, and that anyone involved in financing terrorism at a high level not only knows about the capabilities of the systems, they probably have people on the payroll who have worked intimately with such systems and know what to do to avoid detection.
No, I'm not suggesting that such surviellance not take place, it's a valuable tool. But at the same time, I don't think that they are surprised by anything the NYT publishes.
Seriously people. Unless you're in banking, you have absolutely no idea how much of your personal financial data is reported to the government, especially in the US. I'd assume that global data mining of this information is massive. And, like the guy above says, it's all defeated by a guy with a backpack and a motorcycle.
BTW, thanks for the info on the software end of this..
Geez Rosy, D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad was a vet. Let's see if he's willing to sit in congress. Lord knows he's got time to kill waiting for the needle -- and he's got a built in term limit.
If you recall the same thing was said about their use of cell phones. Supposedly the terrorists knew that their cell phones were monitored so it was OK to print the story that said their cell phones were being monitored. Immediately after that the terrorists stopped using cell phones. Way to go, NY Times. I am sure that our soldiers fighting the terrorists are grateful that you printed that story.
Now they are doing it again. Is there no end to the treachery of the LLL in this country and their media lapdogs? How many more of our secrets are they going to print. The latest is the secret briefing of the general in Iraq which the NYT and the LA Times was so happy to print.
I guess it is just business as usual for them. Ever since the Tet Offensive when the media told us it was a defeat and we later find out that it was a victory and the North Vietnamese were ready to give up until our wonderful media screwed the troops again.
As for Time Magazine, if you consider that conservative, which it is by comparison with maybe The Nation or Pravda (but I repeat myself), you are really off your gourd.
As for the stuff you printed about the software, your stuff was all domestic. This program was international and was totally different. Nice try to obfuscate the difference. As one who ran the computer part of the SWIFT processing for a major bank in NYC for 5 years, I am rather familiar with what is involved here. You are missing the whole point of what the program was for, whether that was just to play dumb or be dumb is a different matter.
If you want to critique what I said, or engage in debate, that is well and good, and I will respond in kind. If you want to tack on a gratuitous insult, then I will have to say fuck you also, and write you off as a dickhead.
Regarding your software experience, what languages were used? What database architecture? Protocols? Gateways?
Oddly this in direct contradiction to what all those officials mentioned in the Snow letter said.
Well, ++ungood, you may be an expert on financial, but are you an expert in intelligence programs? And have you observed the specific programs results?
For all we know, some brilliant terrorist financier has, using the additional information in the NYT article, already figured out a way to launder his funds and wire transfer them with impunity - or has just realized that his former brilliant method hasn't been protecting him as well as he would like, and has switched to a courier.
Alternatively, some stupid terrorist financier has just had an Allah preserve us moment...
In short, I believe John Snow and the intelligence experts who said that the article was a bad idea, not ++ungood. Why? If it really didn't matter, they would not have gone through all that effort.
I've been in big organizations. You don't get a Chinese fire drill involving high level people unless the high level people really think it is important. And if you are a low level person, you sure as heck don't create a Chinese fire drill involving high level people unless you think it's important.
Yours,
Wince
No, what I was saying that those with much banking or financial transaction technical knowledge are likely to know what is being watched. There are already a host of systems analyzing these kinds of transactions already. They're looking for money laundering and fraud.
For all we know, some brilliant terrorist financier has, using the additional information in the NYT article, already figured out a way to launder his funds and wire transfer them with impunity - or has just realized that his former brilliant method hasn't been protecting him as well as he would like, and has switched to a courier.
The technoical information supplied by the NYT article is fairly minimal (that SWIFT is being monitored, I had already assumed that it was), and again, anyone with the technical knowledge of what is being looked for can conceal what they're up to.
For those on the right who can get past his headline, Glenn Greenwald has a great roundup of links and information about the NYT and related matters:
http://tinyurl.com/jfvhv
Greenwald lays out how the President and the administration have been revealing lots themselves about these programs. Lots of other good stuff too about the founders and our (previous) distrust of absolute power settling in a single branch of government. Thought-provoking stuff, however you come down on the administration or this story in particular.
Obviously you build a system that someone can't penetrate..obviously there are insiders that are making the system semi-use less..isn't it possible that there are multiple systems in place to catch not only the outside terrorist, but also the inside person working with the terrorist? All the while this be a tightly controlled program?
My other thought was that if you think it is penetrable, than what good is the computer program?
No, noit quite. What all these systems do is monitor all financial transactions looking for patterns that indicate something might be going on. This can be things like multiple transactions with an odd amount, usually just below some magic number that would result in alarms going off. For example, if five days out of seven somone makes transactions of around $9,800, and there is a rule that says that transactions of $10,000 and over must be reported top the government, that's a sign that someone is up to something. Similarily, and this is a bit hard to grasp, there is a natural order of numbers, and a large number of transactions that fall outside that natural order can be picked up and investigated.
These are just simple examples, but if someone knows what is being looked for, they can tailor their transactions to avoid detection. However, there are some very complicated statistical algorithms that turn up all kinds of interesting stuff, and those are more difficult to avoid.
Here's the thing, though. The NYT article reveals none of the methods used whatsoever. George W. Bush has revealed more about these programs in public speeches than the article in question did. So I think the outrage is misplaced.
Well, that was exaggeration, and I take it back. But really, all the NYT article says is that it's being done, and GWB has said the same thing.