Addicted to Information
The recent ruling by the European Parliament not to honor a US request for copies of all European Bank Transactions made a few small waves in the news but seems not to have elicited the conversation that is truly necessary. (Source:)
The US has had access to the requested SWIFT data since 2001 but now that SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial) has moved all of their serves outside the U.S. the access is no longer guaranteed. Of course if SWIFT had not moved their servers the issue would be immaterial. So, why did they move them?
“The existence of the US server allowed American authorities to use American anti-terror laws to access European transaction data. EU law would have barred such access had the servers been on European soil.” (Source)
In other words, because of a server being in the U.S., it was routine for the U.S to inspect the banking transactions of European citizens. So if a Danish mother wired money to her daughter studying in Madrid, Spain this was vitally important for the U.S. Government to know. Why? The argument of course is anti-terrorism efforts, that tracking money movements lead authorities to terrorists. Now please understand, until the server migration, this kind of European money transfer tracking had been going on for more than seven years. However, when trying to find evidence of its effectiveness I got nothing. I have been able to find zero reports of finding terrorists via European money transfers since the monitoring of SWIFT transactions was implemented (in secret of course) in 2001.
[Note: Many financial tracking advocates use the Sauerland Group, a thwarted terror cell in Germany as proof that tracking financials works. However, it is known that NSA surveillance of emails from Germany to Pakistan were what prompted diligent observation (to eventually include financials) which in turn led to a successful raid of the group and the arrest of its members. In short, tracking financials did NOT break or even make this case. (Source)]
In light of the EU parliament decision, the discussion to be had then is not about Europe or the new EU Parliament flexing muscles, but about the U.S. and its seeming addiction to information. Since 2001 U.S. domestic (and international) surveillance has mushroomed, from the warrantless wireless wiretapping programs enacted under the Bush administration, to the NSA installing the NarusInsight supercomputer(s) on the AT&T Internet backbone in San Fancisco (and other cities) enabling the real time monitoring of millions of pieces of internet traffic simultaneously. (Source) These kinds of data collection transcend politics as President Obama on more than one occasion has elected to keep these tools and advocated honoring the revised FISA law granting anonymity and retro-active immunity for telecommunications companies which provided domestic telephone and email/chat logs to the FBI and CIA.
Therefore, the U.S. SWIFT request, that blanket monitoring on Non-U.S bank transactions continue unabated, is merely a request to preserve the status quo; the continued collection of mountains of information on citizens of other countries for little or no gain. There should be an obvious question here: After more than seven years of this domestic and international information gathering, what are the results? Is there any kind of justification for continuing to do it? In the absence of any easily found confirmation, does it even work?
I began contemplating, compiling and writing this article before the tragic and senseless actions of an unstable and cowardly man who intentionally flew his private plane into an IRS building in Texas. (Source). I would much rather have posted it as an abstract thought exercise as was my original intention. However the events in Texas made the abstract concrete. The particulars of Andrew Stack’s professional life are particularly germane because they cover both issues I have raised above; scrutiny of financial records and surveillance of internet traffic.
Andrew Stack, the perpetrator, was well known to the IRS and had his financials scrutinized diligently and repeatedly due to a spotty tax record. In addition Stack not only was the president of a computer software company but he also repeatedly composed his ‘suicide note’ online and posted it eight hours in advance of aerial his attack on the IRS building. (Source) What he posted is not vague or something misleading like a shopping list, it’s a rather specific 5 page screed that states more than once that he will be committing violent suicide in defense of freedom and to help wake people up. He rails against the US government and uses inflammatory and extreme anti-US rhetoric throughout. He even cites the FAA towards the end of the letter, surely a solid hint that his FAA registered plane might be part of his plan. (Source)
Please consider that all relevant information pertaining to Stack was domestic and thus easily available for authorities in advance under current anti-terror laws. The Narus machines are still operating, sorting internet traffic for suspicious or violently anti-US rhetoric (such as Stack’s letter?) and US financial transactions continue to be scrutinized daily and the IRS confirmed that they were well aware of Andrew Stack. Given these, plus emerging details of Stack’s increasingly erratic behavior (causing his wife and child to flee the family home) and his obvious crafting and re-crafting his last words on an internet site then posting it well in advance of his final flight, why was the attack not foiled?
There are undoubtedly as many answers to this question as there are fish in the sea. However the most obvious answer may be the closest to the truth. Information is itself, insufficient, information must be understood. Simply vacuuming up data as the U.S has been and continues to do is ineffective. It has been more than seven years since these sweeping information gathering programs have been enacted. Results are minimal and cases like Andrew Stack clearly demonstrate that these methods are ineffective. Addiction to information is like any addiction, destructive and short-sighted. I recommend the exploration of alternatives.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I think the reason why they track information because Americans feel that they have to be in control. Regardless if the information obtained can be used to prevent disasters; their concern is knowing that somebody is always watching. America has this mindset that they are the “global parental figure”, and you better watch out because if you slip up, somebody will know. Even though the system is regularily put to the test, the excuse is always the same “we saw it coming” yet nothing was done to prevent it.
With a can full of gas and a hand full of matches. And still one found out……right here!
February 26th, 2010 at 1:31 am
I think what is going on is much smaller than might be implied here. The U.S. would like to have it’s ear to the net (as opposed to the street) but the technology to really sort through all the information it gathers and come to a conclusion isn’t yet a reality. Though I hope it never becomes a reality for privacy’s sake, I also understand the arguement for the invasion of privacy by a government for national security reasons. I think at this point, the evesdropping has yet to prove itself useful for anything other than data collection, however the idea that someone is watching, in and of itself, tends to be a deterent. Not that this little victory (if you can call it that) is a direct result of the massive amounts of money poured into this project but it does work on a small scale. Of course that means you have to consider that having people not posting their crazy anti-american sentiments on the net a victory.