Penguins, Polls and Personal Privacy

OR

Please Don’t Call Me Here

“Penguins on the Equator” blogmaster AK alerted to a poll taken by ABC/Washington Post on Friday [May 12.06]. By virtue of it’s significance, the topic of Domestic Telecommunications Spying in the US probably deserves a blog all it’s own but I don’t have the time or patience to start one. So we took a poll and decided just to re-post from “Penguins” and pretend we invented it.

http://penguinsontheequator.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_penguinsontheequator_archive.html
Saturday, May 13, 2006

Could the latest NSA revelations help Bush?

I don't know if "surprised" is the right word, but I was definitely intrigued by the findings of an ABC/Washington Post poll released yesterday on the news that Bush has been creating a massive database of phone calls made by people in the US:

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

This poll was hastily done (overnight), and, as Mark Blumenthal points out, had a relatively small sample size (504 people) and correspondingly large margin of error (plus or minus 4.5%). Even so, the results are informative. So should Democrats just stop talking about it in the near future? Bush's numbers on terrorism have certainly gone down since January, when the last NSA surveillance scandal occurred, and the Democrats, since the Dubai Ports World dustup, have seen a significant rise in their numbers that has tended to place them on pretty much even footing with Bush and the GOP.

But terrorism still remains Bush's strongest area as far as polling, and as Blumenthal argues, "Bush can only stand to gain if the public's attention shifts from his handling of gas prices, the economy, immigration and Iraq to his administration's efforts to 'investigate terrorism.'" Much as it pains me to have to admit, I think I'm in agreement with that.

UPDATE: A Newsweek poll, asking a different question, gets different results:

Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

UPDATE 2: "Sibling Rivalry: 'Wash Post' and 'Newsweek' Polls Clash on NSA":

They may be owned by the same company, but two polls commissioned by The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine on the important issue of public approval of the National Security Agency's gathering of phone records produced quite different results.
...
So what happened? Most likely views changed that much in one day after more negative media reports (including many from conservative commentators such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) surfaced. The Washington Post survey took place before many Americans had heard about, or thought about, the implications. The Newsweek Poll also reached twice as many Americans.

BBMS Comment

Sunday, May 14, 2006

A.K.;

I'm sure most of your readers have 'cottoned on' to the tendency of the WP, Newsweek and the American Mainstream Corporate Media generally to understate the importance of many of the issues attached to the Bush Administration. Many of us up here north of the 49th are completely baffled by what we see and hear.

Its not that we necessarily feel we are owed an explanation, [if we did, I’m sure most Americans would agree we are likely to be disappointed] but the truth of the matter is, we suffer for want of one. The poll results you cite are a case in point.

A poll conducted by CBS & NYT ‘long about last February asked a similar question. My recollection of the question is: ‘Would you, or would you not, be willing to let the government monitor your phone calls and emails as part of it's campaign against the threat of terrorism against the US?’ The results of that poll indicated that 70% of Americans were opposed to this practice.

Since then, support for, and confidence in, the Presidency has dropped 10 percentage points, AND, trust in the MSM in the US is even lower than trust in the government, according to a London Times Poll taken recently.

So, you see at least part of the reason for our bafflement. Trying to form a coherent picture of Life in America affords about the same kind of challenge you would face if someone took a handful of tiles from 3 or 4 different jigsaw puzzles, tossed them into one box with a picture of a fourth puzzle on the top, and tasked you to put it together. The project sure keeps a body busy; but the results are not satisfying.

The picture that has emerged thus far rather looks like a country with an executive presenting ALL the clinical diagnostic criteria of a "Dry Drunk", a Congress that behaves like an "Enabler", a Senate “Pushing” Lobbyists’ Dope, an Economy that is in the “Tank”, and a media that is in "Denial". The American People come out looking completely narcotized; which, under these circumstances is not surprising.

One take on these results could well be that those polled by WP/Newsweek are just too exasperated to care much any more what the government is doing to them; it almost looks like a ‘white flag’ gesture.

00Buck

AK said...

I agree that the poll results are somewhat confounding. It's important to remember, though, that the Washington Post poll was conducted very soon after the revelations (the same evening the USA Today story was published), and many people may not have had a chance to learn details about the program.

As to the CBS/NYT poll you cite, the only explanation I can think of is that Americans see a distinction between the NSA's data mining and what they would consider "monitor[ing]" their phone calls. Most Americans, I think, would have a very serious problem if the government were actually listening in on, or reading, their communications. At least as USA Today describes the program, that doesn't appear to be occurring (yet).

I also agree it's somewhat perplexing that there remains such a disconnect between Bush's public approval rating and the public's tolerance for counterterrorism measures implemented by his administration. Since 9/11, however, Americans have revealed themselves to be quite risk-averse -- willing to tolerate all sorts of practices that previously they would have vehemently resisted. Quite simply, they're willing to put up with counterterrorism policies that they believe will make them safer -- even if those policies come from a White House that has revealed itself to be unprecedentedly inept.

New poll on NSA domestic data mining

Posted By AK Mon. May 15

USA Today:

A majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed efforts to gather information on the general public.
...
By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY.

BBMS Comment: Later that same day.

AK:

As you have aptly noted today [May 15]; the USA Today/Gallup poll indicates a shift in opinion (again, a sub-standard sample. It should be at least 1000 +) from Fridays ABC/Washington Post poll. But it still indicates the polled public is pretty much equally divided on the issue. The reason this troubles me can be cited with reference [back] to Friday’s poll.

My 'BS-o-meter' started making a racket as soon as I saw/heard the results. I’m sure your sources will confirm the widespread citing of these results over the weekend, and how this tended to dampen criticism of NSA’s monitoring program. I’ve seen this pattern repeated in the US MSM over and over since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. What those poll results ‘seemed’ to indicate is what will stick to the wall for a long time; and it takes a lot more time and effort to clean a spot than it does to make one.

What I haven’t heard are serious challenges to the legitimacy of publishing a poll based on only 500 contacts. That figure doesn’t meet the threshold for ensuring a random sampling with respect to US population demographics. Neither does the brief window of time in which the poll was taken. Taken together, these factors bring into question the purported margin of error of 4.5%.

If the poll had been taken by/published in a small, family-owned newspaper using the same methodology, and had the results been damning of the NSA program, I think the MSM would have treated it very differently, assuming they would have bothered to pick it up at all. It is doubtful it would have been deemed worthy to make the front pages, and, in my opinion, the essay would have been to undermine the credibility of the publication for attributing statistical significance to the results. Based on the WP’s track record of late, I’m pretty sure there would have been accusations of political bias and journalistic irresponsibility.

In short; I am confident the “story” would have been a case for shooting the messenger.

Data Mining versus Monitoring
Why this troubles and baffles me is the apparent disconnect between extant information about the current administration and the logical conclusions a reasonable person would make based on that information.

In the interest of brevity, a partial list of ordinates that inform my understanding include:

1. The dissembling/prevarication of intelligence information vis. Iraq in 2001
2. The dissembling/withholding of information vis. NSA and DoD [domestic] activities
3. The dissembling of Administrations role vis. Katrina
4. The Administration’s disregard for the UN
5. The Administration’s questionable respect for Human Rights vis. POW’s
6. PNAC Initial Report (1997), The Signatories and the Follow up(s)
7. THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY; March 2006
8. The subjugation of the Elected Legislature to the disposition of the Administration (“The Decider”) viz. “SIGNING STATEMENTS”
9. Walker’s GOA TREASURY REPORT for 2005; STRATEGIC PLAN for 2006, PERFORMANCE and ACCOUNTABILITY HILIGHTS
10. John Snow’s Budget Forecasts for 2005 and 2006

Having followed your blog for a couple of months, I am confident you are hip to all these points of reference; I just want to economize on bandwidth by letting you know, so am I. I include #9 and #10 by way of underscoring the manner in which the Administration has dissembled/minimized the significance of these reports; … a practice that appears to be abetted wholesale by the US MSM, and is arguably insidious.

The elemental question that connects these 10 items is; what has this Administration done with information it has gathered? It can be convincingly argued that in each case, the Executive has collectively and severally abused their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution and to faithfully execute their duties and responsibilities.

Especially egregious from the POV of other Sovereign Nations [like Canada] is the conjunction of #6 and #7. Taken together, these articulate a manifesto that canonizes American hegemony as divine right and equates all matters that pertain to US Global influence and economic interests with legitimate National Security Interests. In other words, any interference with American perceived needs, wants or desires is a de facto threat to American National Security. This policy framework is tantamount to dismissing the sovereign rights of all other nations in determining foreign, domestic and economic policies, and it subjugates these rights to the approval of the United States under threat of unilateral pre-emption or interdiction by force.

Had congress been fully informed as to the frailty of the intelligence cited as justification for the Invasion of Iraq, had it been cognizant of the trillions of dollars that shall ultimately attach to the War, if it was aware of the damage to US credibility that was to ensue, it would not have acceded to the War, nor would it have failed to challenge Budget(s) carefully contrived to conceal the real costs through discretionary post hoc diversions.

Similarly, the cloaking of domestic intelligence gathering in National Security language has prejudiced Legislative oversight and effectively sequestered Congressional committees from peer, Judicial, and voter view. NSA, DoD, DHS, DEA, CIA and FBI now all have access to personal and heretofore private information on citizens of the US, which information is now being legally “classified” and therefore not subject to challenge or appeal; rendered inaccessible even through the Freedom of Information Act.

The abstraction of the Executive from Constitutional (Judicial) purview on the basis of Privilege deriving from National Security and rendering new legislation into palimpsests upon which to ‘forge’ Presidential “Signing Statements”, substantively alters the contract that has existed since 1876 between the American public and it’s elected representatives. Critics are caught in the logical loop of “begging the question” To assert that the executive might be violating the Constitution, ignoring Congress or just plain breaking a variety of civil and criminal laws and codes is moot if the executive can override/overwrite/interpret or void any law on the books as it pertains to them.

Obscuring domestic spying by presuming to scatter a variety of technical definitions in the way doesn’t change the nature of the beast. Terms such as “Monitoring”, “Data Mining”, “Call-Tracking”,"terrorist surveillance program",
etc. seem to indicate some nice distinctions only ‘cognoscenti’ with peculiar savvy sets could be expected to understand. What seems to be ignored is that no matter what the data bases contain, something is intended to be done with it, and someone is going to be in the position to evaluate and render an interpretation of the information and assign levels of risk, now and for years to come.

Anyone accidentally tripping a telephone “monitoring” algorithm in the course of high school or university study, or someone using the internet as a tool of satisfying intellectual curiosity will produce a ‘daemon alert’, or a red flag, or a blip of some sort. And a file will be automatically created. From then on, every accidental blip will accumulate in that file and personal names, addresses, SINs, DL #s, “Known Associates”, etc., will be attached to it.

By’n bye, that student, or even an old girlfriend (known associate) from his email address book long ago, might apply for a position requiring a basic security check or even a security clearance for university grant money, defense contract or government job. Since everything about the ‘intelligence’ is “Classified”, the applicant would have no way of redressing a rejection of a security clearance. All anyone would know was that at one point a file was started and maintained; indicating suspicion of something relating to “National Security”. The ease with which this protocol could be used to impair the careers of individuals politically unsympathetic to a Party or to government in general is patently Orwellian.

The swiftness with which this Administration was able to contractually compromise AT&T, Bell South and Verizon by entrapment into abdicating their responsibility to protect their customers under Section 222 of the Communications Act is a good indication of just how Orwellian this issue is. I use the word, “entrapment” advisedly. First; the government contracted to pay them for the information; then, leveraged the offer with threats they would be liable to reprisal by violating “National Security” if they demurred. FISA was not invited to opine upon the matter, presumably ‘trumped’ by the USA Patriot Act. FISA wasn't fast enough to be patriotic, evidently.

An assessment of the legitimacy of domestic intelligence gathering as a counter-terrorist tool must be predicated on the assumption that a threat to American vested interests has been identified and that people living within it’s borders are implicated. Reflecting upon this Administration’s performance; it’s reliability in gathering, interpreting and deploying intelligence, the poll results suggest the ‘civvies’ abide in a somewhat serendipitous state of mind as to what, and who is assumed to present the greatest threat.

The ABC/WP poll, by virtue of timing and content, seemed like an attempt to predispose America to feel there was nothing alarming about the announcement of the extent of domestic spying by muting the bell before ringing it.

Putin has been up to similar shenanigans and Cheney unabashedly called him on it last week. If another democracy, say France, had been perpetrating the same Constitutional infringements and misdemeanors as [this Admin has practiced in] the US, I am confident the American Press and The White House would be all over it like pink on a pig, and opinions would not reflect ambivalence.

What’s it going to take; d’ya think?

Roderick Whitney Stillwell
The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer