More revelations about the scope of the NSA wiretaps come out in the December 24 edition of
The New York Times. The basic technology that may be of most interest are the switches that control and route internet and phone traffic. From the article:
The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the N.S.A.'s surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.
"There was a lot of discussion about the switches" in conversations with the court, a Justice Department official said, referring to the gateways through which much of the communications traffic flows. "You're talking about access to such a vast amount of communications, and the question was, How do you minimize something that's on a switch that's carrying such large volumes of traffic? The court was very, very concerned about that."Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.
The problem with the Presidents statement is that all of the information must be monitored, and most likely recorded. At any future date, the decision can be made to go back through this repository of data, looking for data that meets different criteria.
Of lesser concern, is the observation that we may also be violating international laws and treaties. Our allies as well as our enemies may well be concerned to what uses we are putting all of the information that we are gathering. While competition is natural, it may be that we have created such an uneven playing field that other nations may decide that drastic action is needed to give them some leverage in dealing with the United States.
Underlying all of this is the question: "Who watches the watchers?" President Bush has shown extreme reluctance to share any knowledge of the activities of the Executive Branch with any of the other branches of our government. This naturally raises the suspicion that the concerns for the legalities of what is being tracked are easily swept under the rug as 'irrelevant' in his mad crusade to make the United States safe from any other possible threat, real or imagined.
And at the very bottom of the dungheap. What is to keep him from using this data to spy on legitimate opponents, people who represent a challenge to his authority in the United States?