More surveillance isn’t always the answer
With so much data at its disposal, the US still seemed to be unaware that Mullah Omar was deceased all this while
The writer has a Master’s degree in conflict-resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com
Thanks to Edward Snowden, two years ago, the world began to discover substantial details of the surveillance tactics implemented by the US. The scope of its data collection and storage of personal information rivals some of the most imaginative fiction and has validated people once shunned as paranoid conspiracy theorists. Yet, this all-knowing nation was apparently clueless about the fact that one of their most sought-after targets had been dead for more than two years.
The US can store the data of millions of people when investigating one suspected terrorist. In addition to phone records, the National Security Agency’s XKeyscore programme collects virtually everything a person does on the internet. The emails of suspects, their searches and websites visited are all stored and searchable. The application of their monitoring was allowed to use three ‘hops’. This three-hop policy allowed the spy agency to collect and monitor communications of people far removed from direct communication with the suspect.
With so much data and tools at its disposal, the US appeared to be unaware that Mullah Omar was deceased all this while. Mullah Omar was on America’s most wanted list for almost 15 years. Pentagon official Rear Admiral Kirby had been claiming that he was still considered a threat early in 2015. With access to all this information, aided by aircraft and satellite surveillance, why was the US caught flat-footed in the midst of negotiations with the Afghan Taliban? Meanwhile, the Afghan Taliban are busy taking over Afghanistan and are wreaking record-breaking casualties on the Afghan security forces. As predicted, Afghan policemen are surrendering in hordes after the withdrawal of US forces, and allowing the Taliban to make crucial gains across Afghanistan.
Some may claim that the US knew all along that Mullah Omar was deceased, yet they played along with the myth of his survival in order to improve the chances of successful negotiations with the fractured organisation. Recent events introduce doubt that the US has any such restraint. Is it capable of not touting the death of one of its most sought-after terror suspects? Judging by the press conference and fanfare around the death of Osama Bin Laden, this seems unlikely.
Among the other possibilities is that the US has limited its effectiveness by collecting too much data. Surveillance agencies have limited manpower and actually use private consultants for much of the work. Snowden was working for one such private security company when he was able to flee with a treasure trove of classified information. Sucking up information on millions of people loosely tied to a suspect creates a ‘needle in the haystack’ situation and increases the workload involved in finding anything actionable.
Another possibility is that the communication methods used by Mullah Omar and his contacts may be immune to US mass data collection. Such a scenario would be seriously damaging for proponents of current spying techniques. If the Afghan Taliban manage to limit their correspondence to direct contact and hand-written letters, then the ‘national security’ justification for such broad surveillance as the US indulges in, would be questioned more than ever. The perception within the US is already that the government is sitting on a pile of citizen’s personal information. Whatever the reasons for the oversight over Mullah Omar’s death, serious questions should be raised about intrusive surveillance techniques and whether there is sufficient justification for continuance of such programmes.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 10th, 2015.
The US can store the data of millions of people when investigating one suspected terrorist. In addition to phone records, the National Security Agency’s XKeyscore programme collects virtually everything a person does on the internet. The emails of suspects, their searches and websites visited are all stored and searchable. The application of their monitoring was allowed to use three ‘hops’. This three-hop policy allowed the spy agency to collect and monitor communications of people far removed from direct communication with the suspect.
With so much data and tools at its disposal, the US appeared to be unaware that Mullah Omar was deceased all this while. Mullah Omar was on America’s most wanted list for almost 15 years. Pentagon official Rear Admiral Kirby had been claiming that he was still considered a threat early in 2015. With access to all this information, aided by aircraft and satellite surveillance, why was the US caught flat-footed in the midst of negotiations with the Afghan Taliban? Meanwhile, the Afghan Taliban are busy taking over Afghanistan and are wreaking record-breaking casualties on the Afghan security forces. As predicted, Afghan policemen are surrendering in hordes after the withdrawal of US forces, and allowing the Taliban to make crucial gains across Afghanistan.
Some may claim that the US knew all along that Mullah Omar was deceased, yet they played along with the myth of his survival in order to improve the chances of successful negotiations with the fractured organisation. Recent events introduce doubt that the US has any such restraint. Is it capable of not touting the death of one of its most sought-after terror suspects? Judging by the press conference and fanfare around the death of Osama Bin Laden, this seems unlikely.
Among the other possibilities is that the US has limited its effectiveness by collecting too much data. Surveillance agencies have limited manpower and actually use private consultants for much of the work. Snowden was working for one such private security company when he was able to flee with a treasure trove of classified information. Sucking up information on millions of people loosely tied to a suspect creates a ‘needle in the haystack’ situation and increases the workload involved in finding anything actionable.
Another possibility is that the communication methods used by Mullah Omar and his contacts may be immune to US mass data collection. Such a scenario would be seriously damaging for proponents of current spying techniques. If the Afghan Taliban manage to limit their correspondence to direct contact and hand-written letters, then the ‘national security’ justification for such broad surveillance as the US indulges in, would be questioned more than ever. The perception within the US is already that the government is sitting on a pile of citizen’s personal information. Whatever the reasons for the oversight over Mullah Omar’s death, serious questions should be raised about intrusive surveillance techniques and whether there is sufficient justification for continuance of such programmes.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 10th, 2015.