The attack in San Bernardino wasn't under anyone's radar. The NSA admitted they use keywords to find potential violence within the USA or other countries, like Germany.
The keywords don't work. Does anyone believe a Master's Degree educated woman from Pakistan could not figure out how to circumvent the NSA's surveillance?
The meta data collection issue is over, the American government has to go through the private telecom industry. It should require a court order. There is a dedicated judge in the USA simply waiting to hear the case for the need for a search warrant. There is no need for anything else.
Meta data has proven to be a failure. When an attack occurs it is too late to look for information to prevent it.
I guarantee if someone was to go through any meta data the NSA or any other agency has there would be information regarding the attacks in France and in San Bernardino. Guaranteed. But, the ability of sincerely dedicated bad guys and bad girls will circumvent any detection.
The question is not that there is data that could have prevented it. That is not the issue. The issue is could it have been prevented through meta data, but, no one is finding it. What good is a surveillance program if it doesn't work?
It is not worth the money dedicated to a meta data surveillance program. Make an investment of something that works like additional FBI agents, or better yet SBI agents or grants to local police forces to develop their own surveillance or more ATF. There are better methods that can be funded if the American people weren't throwing their money away with a program that is anti-American?
The killers in California got military style weapons from a neighbor. No one asked what they were going to be used for? The couple just liked shooting guns for sport? Those guns should not have even been in California. There is a lot more to be done to prevent those guns from being in the USA, including an international small arms agreement. How did those guns get into the borders of California? There is a lot here that meta data won't solve.
Osama bin Laden lived near a military academy in Abbottabad, Pakistan. He lived there and conducted his work, OFFLINE. Why? Then ask. Why invest in a program with proven failure.
Boston. One of the terror brothers weren't stopped even after Russia told the USA FBI there was reasons to be concerned about the eldest brother. We know through experience CLOSE family members are aware and involved in the event that kills Americans. But, even with all that information it didn't stop the Boston bombing. What would have stopped it is a strong surveillance program locally. Police on the street/in cruisers will have REAL data on a daily basis, heck, on a shift to shift basis. If a Boston City Investigation unit (BCI) or MBI (Massachusetts Bureau of Investigation) had reasons to 'watch' a couple of brothers as potentially carrying out mass killings there would have been information enough to end it. And surveillance is more than simply watching, it is investigating background and who the contacts of those most dangerous have.
Trip wires that would elevate concern is the willingness of an employer to share records that indicate a person was receiving notifications about their performance at work. Voluntary. Any employer that did not follow that path had increased their liability to ridiculously high levels. If an employer didn't consent to a path that would better insure a safe work place is guaranteed to be sued in large amounts by the cost of the settlement; as in the California case; 30 plus people involved, some dead, some injured, some permanently maimed. Would employees want such personal warnings provided to a police investigative unit? No, but, ask San Bernardino if such an intervention would have been prevented if there was an investigator asking questions.
A better way to deal with it is to require employers to send people to an independent and standardized program for counseling. Most employers already have this in their benefit program. BUT, these recommendations are not reported to an investigative unit. Let the police make a house call.
There are programs proving to be very successful in addiction cases where police have responded and saved the lives of people. The survivor of an overdose then, when they feel like it, make visits to the police department. The people involved find it very helpful to change their addiction behavior and the police find it rewarding to have saved lives. The police become a friend and not someone to avoid.
Could have the killers in California found a connection out of their isolation that bred violence if the police had an open and friendly relationship with them? It doesn't have to be punitive. An investigator's first contact could be covert and might be at the Mosque as a traveler to the area. There are many ways of engaging troubled Americans and the police force needs to be part of it with enough information to make a difference.
We have to do this differently. There are measures in this country that have a proven track record to work and they are interactive and have communication with members of our society most troubled.
Talking to police can change a person's value system and choices if they are valued as a human being worth talking to.
Killing, including suicide, rarely happens without pre-determined thought. We are intervening too late.
Large cities such as New York and Boston have law enforcement that does what the federal agencies do not. Let those cities hold seminars with the federal government providing the funding. Those seminars can be in person or online or through the telephone. There is every reason to participate. The FBI should have a person within that conference as well. CLOSE THE LOOP.
What works and what doesn't for the BEST VALUE our tax dollars can buy is what we are looking for.
The keywords don't work. Does anyone believe a Master's Degree educated woman from Pakistan could not figure out how to circumvent the NSA's surveillance?
The meta data collection issue is over, the American government has to go through the private telecom industry. It should require a court order. There is a dedicated judge in the USA simply waiting to hear the case for the need for a search warrant. There is no need for anything else.
Meta data has proven to be a failure. When an attack occurs it is too late to look for information to prevent it.
I guarantee if someone was to go through any meta data the NSA or any other agency has there would be information regarding the attacks in France and in San Bernardino. Guaranteed. But, the ability of sincerely dedicated bad guys and bad girls will circumvent any detection.
The question is not that there is data that could have prevented it. That is not the issue. The issue is could it have been prevented through meta data, but, no one is finding it. What good is a surveillance program if it doesn't work?
There are killings everyday in the USA, why aren't they prevented? Don't measure success of meta data by one event; measure it by the fact there are premature dead people by violence in the USA daily.
The killers in California got military style weapons from a neighbor. No one asked what they were going to be used for? The couple just liked shooting guns for sport? Those guns should not have even been in California. There is a lot more to be done to prevent those guns from being in the USA, including an international small arms agreement. How did those guns get into the borders of California? There is a lot here that meta data won't solve.
Osama bin Laden lived near a military academy in Abbottabad, Pakistan. He lived there and conducted his work, OFFLINE. Why? Then ask. Why invest in a program with proven failure.
Boston. One of the terror brothers weren't stopped even after Russia told the USA FBI there was reasons to be concerned about the eldest brother. We know through experience CLOSE family members are aware and involved in the event that kills Americans. But, even with all that information it didn't stop the Boston bombing. What would have stopped it is a strong surveillance program locally. Police on the street/in cruisers will have REAL data on a daily basis, heck, on a shift to shift basis. If a Boston City Investigation unit (BCI) or MBI (Massachusetts Bureau of Investigation) had reasons to 'watch' a couple of brothers as potentially carrying out mass killings there would have been information enough to end it. And surveillance is more than simply watching, it is investigating background and who the contacts of those most dangerous have.
Trip wires that would elevate concern is the willingness of an employer to share records that indicate a person was receiving notifications about their performance at work. Voluntary. Any employer that did not follow that path had increased their liability to ridiculously high levels. If an employer didn't consent to a path that would better insure a safe work place is guaranteed to be sued in large amounts by the cost of the settlement; as in the California case; 30 plus people involved, some dead, some injured, some permanently maimed. Would employees want such personal warnings provided to a police investigative unit? No, but, ask San Bernardino if such an intervention would have been prevented if there was an investigator asking questions.
A better way to deal with it is to require employers to send people to an independent and standardized program for counseling. Most employers already have this in their benefit program. BUT, these recommendations are not reported to an investigative unit. Let the police make a house call.
There are programs proving to be very successful in addiction cases where police have responded and saved the lives of people. The survivor of an overdose then, when they feel like it, make visits to the police department. The people involved find it very helpful to change their addiction behavior and the police find it rewarding to have saved lives. The police become a friend and not someone to avoid.
Could have the killers in California found a connection out of their isolation that bred violence if the police had an open and friendly relationship with them? It doesn't have to be punitive. An investigator's first contact could be covert and might be at the Mosque as a traveler to the area. There are many ways of engaging troubled Americans and the police force needs to be part of it with enough information to make a difference.
We have to do this differently. There are measures in this country that have a proven track record to work and they are interactive and have communication with members of our society most troubled.
Talking to police can change a person's value system and choices if they are valued as a human being worth talking to.
Killing, including suicide, rarely happens without pre-determined thought. We are intervening too late.
Large cities such as New York and Boston have law enforcement that does what the federal agencies do not. Let those cities hold seminars with the federal government providing the funding. Those seminars can be in person or online or through the telephone. There is every reason to participate. The FBI should have a person within that conference as well. CLOSE THE LOOP.
What works and what doesn't for the BEST VALUE our tax dollars can buy is what we are looking for.
