![]() | Total Information Awareness Protect America Act Links Thicken |
I want to start out this article by pointing out an error in my earlier writing about the links between the new Protect America Act and lawsuits brought to expose the National Security Agency’s resurrection of the Total Information Awareness program. I had reported that the Protect America Act gave exclusive power to execute and scrutinize electronic surveillance operations to just two people within the federal government: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and National Director of Intelligence John Negroponte. What I got wrong is that John Negroponte left the position of National Director of Intelligence earlier this year, and was replaced by a man named John Michael McConnell. So, it’s actually Alberto Gonzales and John Michael McConnell who have the sole power now to operate and scrutinize electronic surveillance. No one else, not the judicial branch and not Congress, has the power under the Protect America Act to stop them.
From what I’m reading about John Michael McConnell, I’m actually more worried about the Total Information Awareness link to the Protect America Act than if John Negroponte were still Director of National Intelligence. You see, back in the first part of this decade, John Michael McConnell worked as a Vice President at a company called Booz Allen Hamilton. In that position, he got 63 million dollars in government contracts for Booz Allen Hamilton for work on the Total Information Awareness projects.
Specifically, the Total Information Awareness work that John Michael McConnell got for Booz Allen Hamilton was for data mining. Data mining is the process through which small bits of information are gathered and then put together in order to build more meaningful profiles of people. Considered separately, the bits of information are not powerful. Put together, however, all the tiny pieces of information assembled through a data mining program like the one McConnell led for Total Information Awareness can track people’s activities in great detail.
Now, as Director of National Intelligence, John Michael McConnell is one of only two people in the entire federal government who are entrusted with approval and oversight of electronic surveillance dragnets that sweep up huge amounts of information about what law-abiding Americans are doing on the Internet, with their cell phones, and with their land line telephones.
The Protect America Act gives the one of the prime architects of the early Total Information Awareness program to spy on Americans the power to put the program into action, and to make it untouchable by Congress, the courts, or anybody else.
The only other person who has any oversight of the spy program legalized by the Protect America Act is Alberto Gonzales, who has been caught using his position for partisan political gain, committing perjury, and withholding information from Congress.
The two people in the Bush Administration who are least worthy of trust have just been handed tremendous power to spy against our private online activities. What’s more, many Democrats in the House and Senate actually voted in favor of this unprecedented expansion of power.
Some people, like Democratic Party insider Stuart Rothenberg, say that it doesn’t really matter, and that Democratic voters will just get over it and learn to love Big Brother.
Please, don’t let Stuart Rothenberg speak for you. Do the research. Pay attention to the details about the Protect America Act. Then, hold your members of Congress accountable. Dog them. Let them know that you won’t stop speaking out until the Protect America Act is repealed, and the Total Information Awareness program is permanently shut down.





Contact Us





Vote for a fascist dictator and what do you expect? Well, democracy was nice while it lasted. Even if the Act is repealed, the “genie’s already out of the bottle.” Our whining about it won’t change anything. These goons are without conscience or morals and they don’t play fair or nice.
Comment by Tom — 8/12/2007 @ 5:54 pm
“Data mining is the process through which small bits of information are gathered and then put together in order to build more meaningful profiles of people.”
I must object to this definition. Data mining is a statistical modeling process, which operates on an existing set of data. Privacy issues tend to arise from the actual data gathering, not from statistical analysis. Last: strictly speaking, of course, this data does not need to be about people at all. Scientific data mining, for instance, might produce predictive models of animal activity in various environments.
Comment by Will Dwinnell — 8/12/2007 @ 9:08 pm
The first people to be spied on will be Democrats seeking election.
Some say the Democrats have already been spied on and Bush has proof they are having sex with goats. That would explain the vote, wouldn’t it.
Comment by Iroquois — 8/12/2007 @ 11:50 pm
Oh come on Will, do you really think this data is about polar bears or wolves?
Iroquois, the Democrats (or the Republican-lites now) have signed off on all of Bushes policies including spying on us and letting Alberto Gonzales off the hook. The government has become a joke with Bush as “leader” and our new Democratically controlled Congress (both with the lowest ratings since 1973 according to Gallup polls). We’re the targets off all this Big Brother activity, not the Congress or our fascist in chief. So stay in line and don’t forget to vote!
Comment by Tom — 8/13/2007 @ 8:01 am
Will, here’s where you’re wrong in this particular case. There is no “existing set of data” before it’s brought together through the gathering of data.
A set of data is not a set until it’s integrated. The integration of this data requires violating privacy agreements, federal law (before the Protect America Act), and the Constitution (still).
The creation of the data set, and then the evaluation of it through statistical means BOTH violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/13/2007 @ 9:10 am
No, Tom, that’s not what I wrote. My points were: 1. Data mining is used for more than analysis of people’s behavior, and 2. Privacy is threaten much more by illicit data gathering, than it is by data mining (statistical modeling).
Comment by Will Dwinnell — 8/13/2007 @ 12:10 pm
Peregrin Wood: Government has perfectly legal access to a wide variety of data already (and has for many years), such as income tax filings, automobile ownership records, financial disclosures, etc. I submit that government has every right and indeed an obligation to analyze any data which is legitimately gathered. I submit that if a society wishes to protect personal privacy and civil liberties, then it is the gathering and sharing of data among government agencies which should be controlled and monitored.
Comment by Will Dwinnell — 8/13/2007 @ 12:15 pm