The Effectiveness of Data Collection and Drone Strikes

John Raymond

            It seems that the necessity of drone strikes, and the NSA’s metadata collection program, is questionable at best.  Although both sure produce some results, their actual operational benefit is not clear.  First I will address the drone strikes, and then discuss the metadata surveillance program.

            The data from the New America Foundation seems to indicate that the drone strikes are essentially doing their job.  Civilian casualties number roughly 10% of the total deaths, and the number of militants killed numbers in the thousands.  Based solely on those numbers, the drone strike program is effective at killing militants and minimizing collateral damage.  But  there are a few problems with the conclusion that drone strikes are strategically effective and necessary.  Firstly, there is the obvious debate over the actual numbers.  Muhammad Idrees Ahmad points out inconsistencies in the NAF’s data and asserts that they are uncannily similar to official administration reports.  Additionally, he mentions examples of people believed to have been killed by drone strikes, who later reappear.   Ultimately, I do not think there will ever be an objective number, intelligence gathering methods are not perfect, and even if they were, the reported numbers can still depend on the particular organizations bias.  Secondly, it is unclear if the militants who are killed are even of high strategic value.  That information is likely harder to access, as well as classified.  Maybe they are bomb-makers or upper level commanders, or maybe they are of lesser importance but are simply a target of opportunity.  Furthermore, the fight against terrorism is not something that is won by killing everyone who poses a threat.  Blindly killing terrorists only serves to create more anger and animosity towards the US.  Even if the drone strikes mostly kill high-value targets, and with minimal civilian acts of violent imperialism on the part of the US, or create new hatreds of the US and its allies, are they actually productive?  Part of the issue is the number of people who dislike the US because of its foreign policy and actions around the globe.  Killing is not the solution to that aspect of the problem.

            In regards to the NSA data collection program, even Gen. Keith Alexander admitted that in only two situations did metadata collection prevent terrorist activities that would have otherwise continued.  Is it useful to some degree?  Surely it is, otherwise it would not exist.  However, Bergen and his associates make the argument that most of 50 odd cases cited, could have been accomplished without the use of the collection program.  I think what is most telling is Gen. Alexander’s testimony.  If it were the case that the collection program was absolutely vital to defeating most terrorist plots, he would have said so.  The metadata collection program is a tool in the intelligence toolbox, but the reason for the adamant support of it may be for reasons other than foiling terrorist plots.  Greenwald’s book alludes to presentations and documents, taken from the Snowden files, detailing the NSA’s desire to “collect it all” in order to assert dominance over the global economic and communication network.  It is very possible that the desire for the US to observe and be able to dominate other countries and non-US companies is in part the reason for having such programs in place.  If that is the case, that brings on another set questions: do economic dominance or other non-terrorism objectives justify these programs?  Are those things the United States should even be engaging in at all?  Is it necessary?  Is it morally permissible?   Although important, those questions lead us into a very different area of discussion.

Government Surveillance

The NSA uses their Bulk Collection Program to collect data on citizens and foreigners using telephone metadata. Many will argue that the data is used to protect us against attacks similar to 9/11. However, I believe that the telephone data should be limited because the collecting of telephone data on citizens violates our rights to unreasonable searches. I agree with the fact that measures have to be taken in order for us to protect the nation against enemies of the state. However, the method of collecting data in such a wide range is unconstitutional and should have more limitations. Also, according to studies by New America Foundation we saw that our traditional methods initiated majority of terrorism cases. If this is so then that means we should limit our use of data collection and minimize it to only have it necessary for telephone companies to transfer the data to the government if calls from overseas are made. In each instance, the call from overseas was a major deal breaker in finding whether a person was conducting acts of terrorism. Furthermore, we need to figure out policy wise which agency has the right to call for the data. The data seems to be shared across different federal agencies but none are acting swiftly enough for the use of the data collection to be meaningful. As a result, due to the lack of swiftness and wide range of unconditional data collecting, I find the program to be unconstitutional and goes against citizens rights to unreasonable searches.

Blog 6: Drone Effectiveness

Drone Strike Effectiveness

The theme of this weeks lecture and blogs are about the effectiveness of drones. Drones are a very controvercial topic in the United States and all around the world. People question drone strikes effectiveness based on many different comparisons. Death of civilians vs. militants, cost vs. benefit, moral vs. unmoral. These are all issues and counter issues that my peers as well as the public have with drone strikes. I think that we must do what it takes to stop terrorism and never allow another attack against our homeland at any cost. However, today, I am going to rid myself of these social biases and purely look at the numbers. I will break down the drone strike effectiveness over the course of time in 2 different countries. Furthermore i will dissect these different years in regards to different presidents. Lets start with the country of Pakistan.

Pakistan encountered its first drone strike in 2004 under the Bush Administration . From 2004-2007 the average number of strikes a year was about 2.5 Then in 2008 the number of drone strikes spiked drastically to 36 strikes. When Obama took over in 2009 the number of drone strikes began to rise dramatically, reaching a high peak in 2010 with a whopping 122 drone strikes, essentially a drone strike every 3 days in Pakistan. From there until 2014 the number of strikes has continuously gone done over time. These numbers only show that Obama did a significantly larger amount of strikes then bush did. Well if we look into these numbers we find some interesting information. Bush had a total of 48 strikes and killed about (lets just use the highest of civillian and militant numbers for study purposes) 141 civilians and 350 militants. Those numbers added together equals 491 people who have died under bush 48 strikes. 29% of the people who died under Bushs strikes were civillians. Lets look at Obamas numbers. Over the course of 346 strikes there were 166 civilians killed. (which is only 25 more then Bush and almost 300 more strikes *hint hint*) and 2,607 militants were killed. The division of that math comes out to 6% of civilians killed in 346 attacks which is almost 8 times the drone attacks of Bush.  The proof is in the pudding here. Clearly if you look at this information our drone strikes have become extremely effective, in regards to killing the enemy and sparing the innocent. Obamas administration has taking effectiveness to a whole new level. Obamas administration has issues 8 times the amount of attacks while keeping the number of casualties or civilians roughly at the same number as bush mere 48 strikes did. Not only has he kept the casually number down but sky rocketed the number of militants killed. Even more effective in 2013 and 2014 the number of casualties was almost nonexistent while we still  killed over 300 militants.

In Yemen the numbers are even more clearer. Apart from one drone strike in 2002, the Obama Administration was aiding Yemens forces fight terrorist forces. There were 117 strikes in Yemen most of which took place after 2011 when United states went to help. In these strikes there were about 1082 kills. Out of these 87 civilian (once again highest number) were killed. The number of civilians killed is about 8%.

My conclusion is as follows. The effectiveness of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen has increased significantly. However more proof in Pakistan because of two different administrations and a longer time span. The success rate of drone strikes under Obama totals out to about 92-94% success. By looking at these numbers its pretty effective. There are a lot of things that one could speculate about why this sudden rapid success rate saw such a sharp increase. My best guess is some sort of beak through in technology and training. It could be a rise in the number of strikes but i don't exactly know how or why that would keep the casualty numbers stabile. Im not in the military but i can do the simple math. A  93% success rate at the university of maryland gets you a 3.8 GPA and a great job after college.

Blog Post 6: Government and Corporate Surveillance

When discussing possible reforms and legislation to the current state of government and corporate spying, it must be taken into account that government surveillance is aided by corporate surveillance. Corporate surveillance has brought harm to American citizens because of what private companies have chosen to do with personal user data.

First off, it is indeed troubling how the NSA and other branches of the government have explained the collection of American citizens' personal user data. Greenwald goes into depth on this subject in Chapter 4 where he argues that state spying on U.S citizens under the guise of "national security"  has the undertones of an authoritarian surveillance state and raises serious questions about the treatment of dissidents and other marginal groups.  He also goes on to explain the psychological effects of the 'Panopticon', coming to a rather disturbing conclusion, in that the government does not have to actually watch everyone all the time in order to stifle political dissent and activism. Just the fear of being watched is enough.

But not only is the psychological threat worrisome-there is also a very tangible and physical menace.  It appears that private corporations like Google and Facebook have a documented history of misusing personal user data. Google, by collecting personal user data and giving access to it to shady corporate advertisers has allowed them to target “individuals with the express intent to rip them off, sell them deadly products, and financially impoverish them” (Newman).  Moreover, there is proof which reveals that Google played a significant role in the recent financial housing crisis, whereby ad companies targeted users based on their racial characteristics provided by Google. Newman writes that this “constitutes the most damaging price discrimination inflicting consumer harm in American history" for which Google was the intermediary and as a result made millions of dollars in profits. Newman goes on to say that Google explicitly ignored subpoenas and refused to cooperate with various investigations. Also, other companies, like Uber, show that there is the serious potential for abuse of user data: in a recent interview, Uber vice president Emil Michael hinted, rather bluntly, that he would consider using personal information data in order to blackmail journalists who have said unfavorable things about the company.

            In an era where the Internet has become an integral part of American’s lives, it is not possible to live with the same degree of privacy as we did before. It is also not conducive to a healthy democratic society for citizens to remain in the dark in regards to the actions of the government. Greenwald writes that "while the government, via surveillance, knows more and more about what its citizens are doing, its citizens know less and less about what their government is doing, shielded as it is by the wall of secrecy".  Not only has the government operated behind this shield of secrecy, the same can be said about private corporations, and perhaps to an even larger extent. It is a bit naive to think that true transparency and complete accountability will be ever be reached, but as a democracy it is imperative that the U.S should keep these ideals as a goal. It is crucial that there should be laws which outline the extent of corporate reach and protect citizens from the abuses of their personal user data by private companies and address not only the issue of the collection of private information, but also what is actually being done with this data. 

Blog Post 5

John Raymond

            As the internet continues to grow, both in breadth and detail, it seems that more, not less, of our private information will be farmed by companies, if not the government.  Although the surveillance programs carried out by the NSA are surely debatable, the fact of the matter is that those programs do operate within the confines of the law and are overseen by lawmakers.  Companies like Google, Facebook and the like, have been proven to have operated illegally in collecting user data.  With the more pervasive use of social media and online services, data collection by the companies providing those services is a more imminent breach of privacy than the data collection conducted by the NSA.

            The Huffington Post article describes how Google collected personally data illegally through the Wi-Fi networks of users, and even after they were caught, found ways around their court orders to continue monitoring internet use.  Internet based services are becoming more and more engrained into everyday life.  For instance, if using the money-transfer service Venmo to move more than $300, you have to either connect your Facebook account, or enter information including your birthday and the last four digits of your Social Security Number.  That is just one example of how online profiles are becoming a recognized piece of your online identity.  Unlike the NSA, who collects data to analyze national security threats (and maybe enhance US economic prosperity/dominance according to Greenwald’s book), companies like Google collect data to enhance their profits.  It seems a hypocritical to champion privacy, but also illegally collect the data of your users and then block legal actions to reveal what exactly was collected.

            Greenwald points out that many proponents of NSA data collection demonstrate the same hypocrisy.  However, the debate should not really be over what the NSA is doing, but what they are allowed to do.  As shocking as the data collection revelation is, it was not illegal, the laws the policies operate under (the Patriot Act, at least in part) are not secret.  The collection of metadata definitely merits debate, and I think Greenwald makes a very telling point when describing how protestors demanded Dianne Feinstein post her metadata for the public to see, if such information is not a breach of privacy.  The good news is, the NSA operates under a democratic government in which most legal proceedings are of public record, whether people or the media choose to pay attention to those records is another matter.  Currently, we live in an era where the United States exists in relative social calm compared to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.  Periods like those, with strong social and political dissent, will be the true test of surveillance programs and law enforcement.  That is when the definitions of “terrorist” or “security threat” can be bent to silence dissenters.  If the NSA are the “watchers”, then who is watching the watchers of the watchers?  The NSA has enough oversight that as an entity on a large scale, it won’t be able to act illegally, but what is preventing those who oversee the NSA from using it to act questionably?  It seems the best solution is for the public to inform themselves as much as possible, so they can make educated decisions on these policies, and which representatives support their views.  Ultimately, there will never be complete transparency regarding government actions, but that does not make the drive for more transparency wrong.

Blog Post 5

The Fourth Amendment Shell Game

The article that I will discussing for this week's blog post is The Fourth Amendment Shell Game written by Julian Sanchez of slate.com. The article discusses the new NSA reform proposed and enacted by president Obama. The NSA basically has an all access pass to all user data from all "electronic communication" from all types of services from telephone companies to social media platforms. In 1979, there was a court case Maryland vs. Smith in which the ruling was in favor of Maryland (the government) by taking records from a phone company claiming that using a public company means you are waiving your rights of privacy. The government has been using this ruling since the 70's to collect information on users from phone companies without the necessity of a higher standard for a warrant. Furthermore, as the technology changes, phone companies are using flat rate plans instead of individually billing clients which means the companies are collecting less information on its users on a call by call basis. The government now is mandating companies to collect this information which is a massive amount on the user, including location among other things in addition to the calls. I see a major problem with this on several different levels.

To start, I think it is extremely unlawful that companies that promise privacy are being surpassed by the United States government. When we sign up for a cell phone, a website, or even an app in the terms and conditions we are given a special right to privacy. Another problem i see with this massive gathering of personal information of massive amounts of people. In our day and age more and more people and companies are being hacked. Personal information, financial information, and other information is being stolen and used unlawfully. When the government is forcing the government to keep massive amounts of data it is potentially putting the public at risk. Another point that i would like to make is that in this day and age the government is essentially taking away your 4th amendment right if you want to survive or be of relevance to society. It seems almost impossible to be a functioning adult in the working world with out a cell phone or internet. It is almost impossible to go to school and be successful and studious without a lap top, cell phone or the use of the internet. (Look at the university of maryland, students can't even take this class without a lap top or internet). But the government is requiring internet providers and cell phone companies to give up all the information about our usage. It seems unfair and against the united states constitution.

Blog Post 5

Cyber crime is growing at a steady rate. Many companies are taking action by encrypting information such as phone calls so it would be harder for attackers to cypher the information. The use of encryption of our data limits data breaches. However, the United States wants companies to make it easier for agencies like the NSA to track individuals who are looked to be a threat to our national security. In this blog I will discuss how this will put companies and citizens at a more higher risk of data breach and how it violates our Fourth Amendment right. I will be the first to say that I agree that our government should play a major role in handling of threats of national security. However, the call for seizing our information is against our Fourth Amendment right to probable cause. The amendment violation can be a hard case to say is unconstitutional since most of the data collection happens secretly and is approved by secret courts. Also, they do not need probable cause if they receive information from a third party like internet companies. However, a lot of the data collected is domestic and as citizens of this great country we should not have our private information compromised especially since we are under an impression that our information is held private. The lack of communication to citizens of how their information is shared is a bit of concern. Most individuals are not aware of their information being collected and even if they are, they do not know to what extent. Also, on the technical side the making of information more available for government agencies can play a threat to cyber security for companies and citizens. Cyber threats are growing by the day and making data more accessible leaves an opening for black hats(evil cyber hackers) to retrieve our data.