Home » Cyber » You can run... » NSA Sweep “Waste of Time,” Analyst Says

NSA Sweep “Waste of Time,” Analyst Says

by david_axe on May 11, 2006

It’d be one thing if the NSA’s massive sweep of our phone records was actually helping catch terrorists. But what if it’s not working at all? A leading practitioner of the kind of analysis the NSA is supposedly performing in this surveillance program says that “it’s a waste of time, a waste of resources. And it lets the real terrorists run free.“
Re-reading the USA Today piece, one paragraph jumped out:

This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it’s been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for ‘social network analysis,’ the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.

So I called Valdis Krebs, who’s considered by many to be the leading authority on social network analysis — the art and science of finding the important connections in a seemingly-impenetrable mass of data. His analysis of the social network surrounding the 9/11 hijackers is a classic in the field.
step_2.gifHere’s what Krebs had to say about the newly-revealed NSA program that aims to track “every call ever made”: “If you’re looking for a needle, making the haystack bigger is counterintuitive. It just doesn’t make sense.“
“Certain people are more suspicious than others,” he adds. They make frequent trips back-and-forth to Afghanistan, for instance. “So you start with them. And you work two steps out. If none of those people are connected, you don’t have a cell. Because if one was there, you’d find some clustering. You don’t have to collect all the data in the world to do that.”

The right thing to do is to look for the best haystack, not the biggest haystack. We knew exactly which haystack to look at in the year 2000 [before the 9/11 attacks]. We just didn’t do it…
The worst part — the thing that’s most disappointing to me — is that this is not the right way to do this. It’s a waste of time, a waste of resources. And it lets the real terrorists run free.

UPDATE 2:30 PM: Shane Harris broke this story, in broad strokes, back in March, Patrick reminds us. Harris also offers a possible explanation for some of the NSA program’s massive size:

To find meaningful patterns in transactional data, analysts need a lot of it. They must set baselines about what constitutes “normal” behavior versus “suspicious” activity. Administration officials have said that the NSA doesn’t intercept the contents of a communication unless officials have a “reasonable” basis to conclude that at least one party is linked to a terrorist organization.
To make any reasonable determination like that, the agency needs hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of call records, preferably as soon as they are created, said a senior person in the defense industry who is familiar with the NSA program and is an expert in the analytical tools used to find patterns and connections. Asked if this means that the NSA program is much broader and less targeted than administration officials have described, the expert replied, “I think that’s correct.”

Harris also fingers a likely program set of research efforts to help the NSA better comb through all this data: “Novel Intelligence from Massive Data,” or NIMD. Its goal is to develop “techniques and tools that assist analysts not only in dealing with massive data, but also in interactively making explicit — and modifying and updating — their current analytic (cognitive) state, which includes not only their hypotheses, but also their knowledge, interests, and biases.“
You’ll be shocked to hear that NIMD’s website has been taken offline. But you can find Goggle caches about the program here, here, here, and here.
UPDATE 5:19 PM: “To me, it’s pretty clear that the people working on this program aren’t as smart as they think they are,” says former Air Force counter-terrorist specialist John Robb. “Some top level thinking indicates that this will quickly become a rat hole for federal funds (due to wasted effort) and a major source of infringement of personal freedom.” John gives a bunch of reasons why. Here’s just one:

It will generate oodles of false positives. Al Qaeda is now in a phase where most domestic attacks will be generated by people not currently connected to the movement (like we saw in the London bombings). This means that in many respects they will look like you and me until they act. The large volume of false positives generated will not only be hugely inefficient, it will be a major infringement on US liberties. For example, a false positive will likely get you automatically added to a no-fly list, your boss may be visited (which will cause you to lose your job), etc.

UPDATE 6:23 PM: And now, the rebuttal. I just got off the phone with a source who has extensive experience in these matters. And he disagrees, strongly, with Krebs and Robb.
Really, the source said, there are two approaches to whittling down massive amounts of information: limiting what you search from the beginning — or taking absolutely everything in, and sifting through it afterwards. In his experience, the source said, the approach of using “brute force… not optimally, not smartly” on the front end, and “cleaning [the data] up later” worked the best. Often times, other people don’t know what you’re searching for (or they don’t have the same super-slick data-mining algorithms you’ve got). Better just to get it all.
In everything from speech analysis to sensor fusion, he argued, when you’ve got a weak signal masked by a lot of noise, “more data seems to be the answer… More data is what’s going to allow you to get to ground truth.“
Of course, there’s a price to pay with this approach: a ton of false alarms. Several stages of filtering should fix that, he argued. Besides, “it’s not like you call the FBI every time you get a hit.“
Think of it as the Google approach. Wouldn’t you rather have everything available on the search engine, and then do queries yourself?
UPDATE 05/12/06 8:52 AM: The rebuttal gets rebutted.
“I find it almost impossible to believe that the NSA has a system good enough to beat human int[elligence], selective tapping, and the kind of progressive extension that Krebs cites,” an MIT professor says, who also passes along this handy graphic.
kevinBacon.jpg

You need to have a good understanding of the “classifiers” and functions appropriate for your data set — developing the knowledge and techniques around finding those classifiers has taken [computer] vision [research] 30 years to get where it is (able to drive a car through a pre-set path in a desert, recognize one face out of a thousand with good rejection but many, many false positives)… Meaning fine, but not great… We have almost no idea how complex this issue is, but it’s probably similar.
One thing about your “extensive experience” source is that he doesn’t really specify what kind of search he was doing. People doing data mining may be looking in many different ways. For instance, if you have six million examples of successful stock price changes and six million examples of unsuccessful ones, you might look for other variables (past performance, location, etc.) that signal a difference — any difference. Large data sets are definitely helpful for this. Getting machine learning to discover a specific thing — like a familial bond based on telephone calls — may or may not work at all. If all you have is frequency, there may be a half dozen other types of relationships that lead to numerous calls. There may never be a way of discerning relationship based on a single modality of communication. That’s why most of the people I know are using millions of other sensors, like GPS, accelerometers, recording the voice, reading heart rate, etc. Then they may be able to say with moderate certainty that they can tell something from phone calls. The NSA can’t do that with what USA Today says they’re collecting.

UPDATE 05/12/06 11:48 AM: Click here to see if you can spot the difference between an Al-Qaeda cluster, and on from a Fortune 500 firm.

Share |

{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob Owens May 11, 2006 at 2:39 pm

You’re guilty of making an assumption, it seems.
According to the USA Today article, this tracks tens of millions not hundreds of millions of calls. This does indeed, in your parlance, indicate a “smaller haystack.”
Perhaps this program is designed for more specificity, as was called for, and the writer at USA Today was trying to make it look worse to push a specific agenda?

Reply

Sarge May 11, 2006 at 2:52 pm

A specific agenda like performing a check on executive power?
After all, that IS one of the jobs of the press in a free democracy.

Reply

Byron Skinner May 11, 2006 at 3:25 pm

Good Morning Folks,
I would agree that this activity is a waste of time. First off it’s no secret that the U.S. N.S.A. has ears and is tuned in. I would assume that that would be included in “Terrorism for Dummy’s” on page one.
Any information gathered by the N.S.A. should be considered in one of two catagories. First it’s what the “Terrorists” want us to hear, or think we hear or it is some want-a-be who is trying to get into the game.
The N.S.A. pulls the wool over the American publics eyes the way the spooks always have. We can’t tell what we do because the bad guys will find out what we know so thus there is no way for public oversight and accountability of these activities. Of course the “Terrorists” are fully aware of the N.S.A’s. presence and what they have tapped the pay phone of every 7/11 in the world, has any one gotten a call from bin Ladin lately?
The “Terrorists” learned long ago to communicate with each other, they do it the old fashion way, write in on a rock, turn rock over, U.S. will never find. As for the N.S.A. it’s just another Federal Bureaucracy with terf, budget and jobs to protect.
Some of this money could be better spent on more “Rock Hounds” and fewer listeners.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

Mike Burleson May 11, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Actually, 60 Minutes broke the story back in February, of 2000!
See here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic

Reply

JerryP May 11, 2006 at 4:48 pm

The posting software here apparently removes HTML, so the link to AT&T that I intended to provide in the last message was removed. Here is a description of the AT&T software: http://www.research.att.com/viewProject.cfm?prjID=101

Reply

Harry Toor May 11, 2006 at 4:50 pm

I must say that this story was broken way back when about 10 or (a lot) more years ago, even before the NSA was revealed as an agency.
It was called Echelon, and anybody who called it Echelon was grouped into the UFO crazy nut group.
And if you think Echelon was a conspiracy theory that collected data from all around the world, I would ask you don’t you think that’s what the NSA does? With it’s operation centers literally all around the World?
Let’s not be naive about this stuff, it’s been happeneing since the begining. The USA Today, isn’t breaking news, it’s making it.

Reply

Bob Jones May 11, 2006 at 5:09 pm

It seems there are lots of assumptions here, as well as misreading.
According to the USA Today article, this program tracks “tens of millions of Americans,” not “tens of millions of calls.” In a linked Q&A, the reporter wrote “The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls,” which fits with the quote in the story that the NSA’s goal “‘is to create a database of every call ever made’ within the nation’s borders.”
This is a bigger haystack, indeed!

Reply

DS May 11, 2006 at 5:25 pm

I strongly disagree that this is a useless program. I think it is not only a smart idea, but I think that it demonstrates the perseverance that is present to track down potential terrorists and stop them before they act.
The cellular network is a perfect system to mine for patterns of this sort. You start with international calls, follow the connections to the States, look for patterns, then determine identities if patterns are found. Even though false identities can be used to obtain cellular provider accounts, surveillance can easily be initiated via GPRS location. Once identities are established you can cross-reference them with airline records and start developing intelligence.
To be honest, it doesn’t matter to me if this program is active. What matters to me is whether there is enough oversight available to prevent abuse. If these operations are so secretive that courts cannot investigate related cases, there is no proper oversight. What would prevent an administration from ‘inadvertadely’ collecting information on an upcoming Presidential candidate?
Big problems in Little USA.

Reply

DS May 11, 2006 at 5:28 pm

Oh, and I also remember the Echelon network being an underground rumor back in the 80′s. Australia was a big partner with us, and so was the UK. Menwith Hill in the UK was supposed to be an original Echelon station.
:)

Reply

Dwain Avance May 11, 2006 at 5:48 pm

“You’ll be shocked to hear that NIMD’s website has been taken offline. But you can find Goggle caches about the program here, here, here, and here.”
I find it interesting that we can still read about a program (directly from the source) that basically collected every phone call ever made because someone has a program that tries to cache every web page ever made.
While many owners of commercial sites believe this is a violation of copy write, the DMCA, yada yada yada, some people also believe Google is an affront to personal freedom. I don’t agree with them, but it is interesting.

Reply

Stephen Samuel May 11, 2006 at 7:49 pm

Is Big Brother OK?
Clearly, the direction that this is going is ‘Big Brother’, where the ‘benevolent’ government knows everything that there is to know about you … but it’s all for your sake .. for the sake of your safety — unless you’re “one of them”. If you’re one of them, then all of your rights are forfeit. If you’re suspected of being one of them, then your rights are forfeit {because there’s no real way of proving yourself innocent of an indefinite crime}.
and remember … If you’re even a friend of a suspect, then it’s possible that you’ll soon become a suspect, yourself.

Reply

pt May 11, 2006 at 10:29 pm

1) However slick the software is at crunching the data, the program is still a screen and screens throw up false positives. Then boots on the ground are employed to track plausible hits. The FBI has already commented that many useless leads (false positives) were investigated, wasting precious manhours of time.
2) How are those wrongly investigated protected from the taint of being investigated?
3) Why would anyone planning an attack use networks widely known to be surveilled?
4) The nostrum that ‘those who have done no wrong have nothing to fear’ needs to apply to all players. If the government has done no wrong with these spy programs, as it constantly claims, why the fierce objection to oversight?

Reply

David May 11, 2006 at 10:38 pm

What an utter waste of time and money. The terrorists arn’t stupid and will use much more secure communications than a phone call, the operations that will be planned against the US, UK and elsewhere will be planned using encypted communication, the guys who are serious, will know exactly what they are doing to get around this sort of snooping. If this amount of money was diverted from Sigint to humint then I reckon that would be far more useful.
Of course I could be wrong and the terrorists are really as dumb as they look.

Reply

Bruce May 11, 2006 at 10:43 pm

Able Danger (look it up) used this technique to detect Atta before 9/11. Too bad no one was smart enough to follow up that “useless” lead.
“The “Terrorists” learned long ago to communicate with each other, they do it the old fashion way, write in on a rock, turn rock over, U.S. will never find.”
Then maybe the program is worth it if it slows down the terrorist communications to techniques that slow. Imagine what would happen if they knew no one was listening! Imagine how quickly they could mount operations!
“The FBI has already commented that many useless leads (false positives) were investigated, wasting precious manhours of time.”
Then they are lazy bastards and should be fired. I assume they are already too busy tracking down Martha Stewart.

Reply

Ronald Brown May 12, 2006 at 2:11 am

All of the assurances that this program only targets terrorists is coming from people with a proven track record for lying. Why should we believe anything they say?

Reply

Jon Swift May 12, 2006 at 3:28 am

Actually it’s not a waste of time at all. The NSA needs all that data to find the ELS codes that will help them predict terrorist incidents.

Reply

John May 12, 2006 at 9:12 am

This data as a means to track al Qaeda is too polluted to make any sense. No one I know who wants to discuss something truly confidential does so over the phone. Why think any terrorist would? Evil is not synonymous with stupid.
This vast database collection — reported to be intended to be EVERYONE in short time — as described by the government site would make sense if you were collecting network information on political enemies. How handy that this veil gives it “top secret” cover and protection, so we can never know what they do with it. LOL
I’ve not seen one iota of rationale as to why we should believe the purpose of the data collection is to find terrorists.
Unlike use for a terrorist search, where almost everyone picked up is useless to the purpose and a waste of finite resources, all data IS useful if it were collected to compile a political-network database … every hit will fall into one of three categories: friend, foe or apolitcal (or good fish, bad fish, throw-back-in-the-pond-and-check-later fish, in a continuing program, and this program may have really started in late 2000).
It can provide just the kind of political database that KKKarl would have loved to have had before the presidential campaign, back when he owned that direct-marketing company, which recent reports indicate he really still owns and is just being operated in a former employee’s name right now.
As they say, follow the money …

Reply

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA May 12, 2006 at 11:27 am

Actually it’s not a waste of time at all. The NSA needs all that data to find the ELS codes that will help them predict terrorist incidents.
Posted by: Jon Swift at May 12, 2006 03:28 AM
—-
Why should we believe you? What makes you an authority? Watching FAUX GNUS and drinking Neocon Kool-aid?
And your comment does nothing to address the fact that the NSA (spy on every American with a phone) program is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Who’s next? Democrats? Liberals? Pro-choice advocates? Gays? Quakers? Oh, sorry, they are already spied upon.
Get the point?
Americans are sick of Bush/Cheney. They are the ones who are causing the terrorism and abridging our freedoms for their own political and personal gains. They must and will be stopped!!!
http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=894

Reply

willymack May 12, 2006 at 12:24 pm

To John: “Evil is not synonomous with stupid”. Oh no? How does that explain the chimp-in-charge, or Reagan, who was described as:”dumb as a stump”?

Reply

JerryP May 12, 2006 at 3:17 pm

A previous poster wrote: “[T]he NSA (spy on every American with a phone) program is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Not according to the Supreme Court. Look at Smith v. Maryland: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735&friend=oyez

Reply

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA May 12, 2006 at 5:23 pm

A previous poster wrote: “[T]he NSA (spy on every American with a phone) program is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Not according to the Supreme Court. Look at Smith v. Maryland: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735&friend=oyez
Posted by: JerryP at May 12, 2006 03:17 PM
——————
That is not the same situation. You just don’t know the law. LOL
What the NSA is doing a violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as FISA. That point is quite clear. The NSA cannot conduct wholesale spying on every phone call in America. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Reply

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA May 12, 2006 at 6:14 pm

Here is a group of CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS who explain exactly why the NSA is violating the law:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650

Reply

JerryP May 12, 2006 at 9:30 pm

With respect to Smith v. Maryland, Kevin Smith wrote: “That is not the same situation. You just don’t know the law. LOL”
Smith v. Maryland says: “The installation and use of a pen register, [...] was not a ‘search,’ and no warrant was required.” If it isn’t clear, again quoting from the case, “A pen register is a mechanical device that records the numbers dialed on a telephone [...] It does not overhear oral communications …”
More generally, “This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties.” In this case, when someone dials a number, the dialer voluntarily turns over the dialing information to a third party, the telephone company. Under Smith v. Maryland, the NSA did not violate the Fourth Amendment in accessing phone company records with the phone company’s permission.
Kevin Smith also wrote: “Here is a group of CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS who explain exactly why the NSA is violating the law:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650
The cited article was written in February. It addresses NSA electronic surveillance, i.e., wiretapping–listening to the contents of telephone communications.
However, we are not discussing NSA wiretapping today. The issue is NSA’s collection of call data (not call contents), such as phone numbers to/from which calls are placed.
The New York Review of Books article does not address this issue. If you do have some relevant cites I’d be glad to see them.

Reply

JerryP May 12, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Correction: Please read “Kevin Schmidt” for “Kevin Smith” in my last post. My apologies.

Reply

wilsonkolb May 13, 2006 at 12:10 pm

Some reactions from a mere civilian:
1. This will be used in the first instance to place every journalist under close surveillance for the purpose of plugging “leaks” of embarrassing information and probably for blackmailing some of them.
2. I respect mathematical approaches but have a healthy skepticism toward them. One consistent issue is these solutions to tend toward the self-referential, whether we call it collinearity or confusing between correlation and causality or data mining or survivor bias or I am sure a whole lot of far more elegant concepts.
3. Strict regimes of any sort frequently never catch those who didn’t care about rules to begin with. I call it the “Good Kid Syndrome.” You know, the hall monitor always gets the good kid the first time he steps out of line. The bad kids walk free. You see it in situations everywhere; this is no different. It wasn’t a lack of information that caused the 9/11 plot to be undetected.
4. Once you’ve designed a “terrorist net,” its application will expand. It will start with journalists, and then expand to pedophiles and child abductors. And then we’ll be off to the races. The end result will be a society with each member monitored 24/7, because the “model” is a beast that will always demand that one more category of data.
Trust me, the day will come when brain scans and DNA results go into it. The security merchants since a very, very seductive song. It is always wrong, but no matter.
5. One other point. You might think that extremely smart people wouldn’t slide down those slopes. Au contraire, I say. In fact, it’s the highly intelligent who are the MOST susceptible to fads and fashions, provided they are intelliectually rigorous at least on the surface.
Why? Because a very intelligent person is forever questioning the probabalistic universe. He aches for a unifying theory, especially one that only he and his peers can truly (think they) grasp.
Two very specific examples: Look at the role of “portfolio insurance” in the 1987 stock crash, and look carefully at the mathematical structure of the Nobek Prize winning “Modern Portfolio Theory.” Embedded in all those elegant equations are some laughably simple fundamental flaws.
So let’s not kid ourselves into think a technocratic elite is going to keep this from happening. Hell, these are the people who gave us the atomic bomb, and on that the jury is definitely still out.

Reply

wilsonkolb May 13, 2006 at 12:14 pm

correction: The security merchants SING a very seductive song …

Reply

Ken May 13, 2006 at 2:12 pm

The NSA sweep just revealed–as likely as not by the administration itself*–is clearly all but useless for preemption purposes, very useful though for after-the-fact retribution purposes (think Plame).
* Why? Since arguably, they’ve calculated they’ll win-out yet again over the press and civil liberties watchdogs. Maybe demolish them altogether–or at least ride the backlash through the mid-term election.

Reply

Laurie Fosner May 15, 2006 at 3:30 pm

I don’t believe the Bush administration is using the information to track down Al Qaeda; they’re trying to figure out where their biggest political threats are and to eliminate them through some seemingly innocuous legislation that we won’t see for what it is and therefore won’t know enough to be afraid of.
It’s not about them spying on us, it’s about them preventing us from spying on them. We’re not the ones doing stuff we shouldn’t–they are. It’s another brilliant plan executed by the men who stole two elections, manipulated intelligence and sent us to war so they would have a constant reason to infringe on our personal freedoms and take our money.
The only area of competence, literally, the ONLY area of competence this administration has demonstrated is in the area of public manipulation of information. They have failed, miserably, at every other task put to them. They have focused all their energy and expertise on controlling what we believe and none of their efforts have gone into addressing actual problems and/or providing effective programs to help the American people be safe and prosperous.
They need to monitor our communications so they can know how the internet hurts/helps them politically. They are looking for patterns.This is not about fighting Al-Qaeda, this is data mining. They are not just looking at phone calls, it’s really emails (like the kind you get from MoveOn.org and Common Cause) that are the focus here, I think.
This is at the heart of what should be the national debate and it’s time we started facing facts: if they get away with the NSA program and we let them slide on the failure to enforce net neutrality, we will lose our democracy. The only thing that keeps us from being a dictatorship now is immediate, uncensored, access to critical information.
When the 2006 mid-term elections create the usual political in-fighting, let’s hope somebody is smart enough to disable the argument about our privacy rights being a rational sacrifice to the fight on terror and start calling it like it is.
This is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights for the purpose of understanding and manipulating OUR information gathering processes, such that we lose our access to free and unfettered information about our own government. That’s what’s at stake here.
And while we’re at it, it’s time to make a distinction between conspiracy theorists (who make stuff up) and people who merely have the ability to recognize a conspiracy when they see one.

Reply

Ivan Carter May 16, 2006 at 11:09 pm

Fascinating conversation. Should be more mainstream than it is. But the media is busy doing, um, what again?
Meanwhile, Bob above makes a fairly irrelevant point, that one is guilty of assumptions because the programs tracks “tens of million,” rather than “hundreds of millions.” The program is designed to track every call, Bob, whatever that number is. And your reference then to the same USA Writer that you rely upon for your “clarification,” is backwards.

Reply

facial May 23, 2008 at 3:46 am

thank you ,nice

Reply

putonghua May 23, 2008 at 3:56 am

thank you

Reply

ankara evden eve nakliyat May 23, 2008 at 5:46 am

thank you

Reply

?? May 23, 2008 at 8:34 pm

?????????????????????????

Reply

???? May 23, 2008 at 8:36 pm

?????????(??????,?????)

Reply

??? May 23, 2008 at 8:38 pm

??? ????????????????????????

Reply

????? May 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm

????????

Reply

???????? May 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm

????????????????????????????

Reply

??????????? May 23, 2008 at 8:46 pm

??????????????????????????????.?

Reply

evden eve ta??mac?l?k May 24, 2008 at 3:22 am

thank you

Reply

evden eve ta??mac?l?k June 5, 2008 at 8:25 am

evden eve ta??mac?l?k

Reply

???? June 11, 2008 at 5:57 am
sfg September 5, 2008 at 2:30 am

You’re guilty of making an assumption, it seems.

Reply

??? October 9, 2008 at 10:06 am
andywu December 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Personally, I have no more objection to the automated examination of my calling records

Reply

FFXI gold April 10, 2009 at 2:41 am

they are like me and tell me anything about them wakfu kamas, I know wakfu gold. one of my friend likes to go to play buy wakfu kamas, I can not stand praising the land and the nature wakfu money , It makes us to be wakfu kama.
My another friend do not like FFXI Gil, She like in home along FFXI gold, she like quiet and Final Fantasy XI gold, she always read books in the library and buy buy FFXI Gil, I will go to library with he cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold.

Reply

hal? y?kama May 25, 2009 at 2:18 am

1) However slick the software is at crunching the data, the program is still a screen and screens throw up false positives. Then boots on the ground are employed to track plausible hits. The FBI has already commented that many useless leads (false positives) were investigated, wasting precious manhours of time.
2) How are those wrongly investigated protected from the taint of being investigated?

Reply

s May 25, 2009 at 6:16 am

Oh, and I also remember the Echelon network being an underground rumor back in the 80′s. Australia was a big partner with us, and so was the UK. Menwith Hill in the UK was supposed to be an original Echelon station.www.surucu-kurslari.com
:)…

Reply

s May 25, 2009 at 6:16 am

Oh, and I also remember the Echelon network being an underground rumor back in the 80′s. Australia was a big partner with us, and so was the UK. Menwith Hill in the UK was supposed to be an original Echelon station.www.surucu-kurslari.com
:)…

Reply

dofus August 11, 2009 at 7:50 am
chien xu August 14, 2009 at 10:41 pm

??? ?????
??? ?????
??
??
??????
??????
???
???
????
???? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
??? ??????
?? ??????
sod
???
???? ???
?? ????? ?????
????
???????
?? ??
?? ??
?? ??
?DVD
?DVD
?? ??
?? ??
???? ??
???? ??

Reply

tuananh August 26, 2009 at 1:50 am

??
????
??
???? ??
????
??????
?? ??????
???
???
????
???? ?????
?
?? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
??? ??????
?? ??????
sod
???
???? ???
?? ????? ?????
????
?? ??
?? ??
?? ??
?DVD
?DVD
?? ??
?? ??
???? ??
???? ??
???? ????
??? ????
??? ????
??? ????

Reply

diencg August 31, 2009 at 2:15 am

????
????
??
????

Reply

diencg September 13, 2009 at 2:23 am

??
????
??
???? ??
????
??????
?? ??????
???
???
????
???? ?????
?
?? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
??? ??????
?? ??????
sod
???
???? ???
?? ????? ?????
????
?? ??
?? ??
?? ??
?DVD
?DVD
?? ??
?? ??
???? ??
???? ??
???? ????
??? ????
??? ????
??? ????

Reply

diencg September 13, 2009 at 2:26 am

??
????
??
???? ??
????
??????
?? ??????
???
???
????
???? ?????
?
?? ??????
?? ??????
?? ??????
??? ??????
?? ??????
sod
???
???? ???
?? ????? ?????
????
?? ??
?? ??
?? ??
?DVD
?DVD
?? ??
?? ??
???? ??
???? ??
???? ????
??? ????
??? ????
??? ????

Reply

mail2 September 19, 2009 at 1:02 am

?????
??????
????
????
???????
????? ????
????? ???
????? ??????
????
????????
????
??
????????
???
?????
????? ??
????? ??
?? ???
??
SPUR
?????
???????
?????
???
??
SEO
?? SEO
SEO ????

Reply

mai2 October 6, 2009 at 8:22 am

?????
??????
????
????
???????
????? ????
????? ???
????? ??????
????
????????
????
??
????????
???
????
?????
????? ??
????? ??
?? ???
??
SPUR
?????
???????
?????
???
??
SEO
?? SEO
SEO ????
??????
MAC
???????
?????
?????
???
???
????????
??????
????

Reply

??? October 26, 2009 at 2:07 am

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Reply

Joel May 29, 2012 at 6:15 am

My business is loonikg for someone that is for real Life is not the volume of breaths you t *** and relationships ake it is the moments that acquire your breath out P CUANDO am drama free instead of interested in especially those with baby momma play. catholic dating

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: