The PenOpticon

The recent New York Times story on the SWIFT program — a secret collaboration between a financial industry co-operative known as Swift, the CIA and the Treasury department — misses an important point. The issue is not simply that the U.S. government is sifting through the financial records of its own citizens. In fact, one could argue that government oversight of major financial transactions within and across its borders is a good thing. The real problem is that Swift, an exclusive private sector co-operative, owns and operates its own global financial data-mining system (even if it is merely a byproduct of the group’s other financial services). But now that the Times has let the cat is out of the giant money bag, some Swift executives have qualms about collaborating with U.S. agents and are insisting on stricter access to their data. Their solution, as reported in the Times, is to place Swift representatives alongside intelligence officials while they search through mountains of financial data. These representatives could then “block any searches considered inappropriate”. Really? And who watches over Swift during the rest of the year, when the CIA is not parked in front of their terminals?

Now consider the level of surveillance experienced by the majority of citizens (a group that will never transfer money to offshore bank accounts): When I walk down any urban street a camera may be watching. When I put gas in my car, get cash from an ATM, buy junk food from the local convenience store or walk into any mall or big box store, the cameras are rolling. If, as a law-abiding citizen, I am to be subjected to the probing eyes of a thousand surveillance cameras, then I want real-time data-mining and forensic-accounting reports on all national and international money transfers. Why the hell not? If someone is laundering money through an offshore Andorran bank or transferring copious amounts of cash to Saudi Arabia, I wanna know about it. I would love to be able to browse a web site to learn the intimate details of Conrad Black’s financial dealings. Or Kenneth Lay’s. Or Dick Cheney’s.

Although some groups are opposed to all forms of surveillance, it seems the cameras are here to stay. More serious is the fact that every American citizen already endures widespread surveillance of personal data through private companies such as Acxiom Corporation that correlate data from a variety of government and financial sources. So, if data surveillance can’t be abolished because “9/11 changed everything”, then let’s up the ante and shine as much light as possible on all large national and international financial transactions. This little light ‘o mine — I’m gonna let it shine. This little light ‘o mine…

[update] - Yesterday Canadian media reacted to Privacy International’s decision to take legal action against SWIFT for disclosing global bank transaction records to the CIA.  SWIFT has done plenty of good work over the years in bringing attention to surveillance issues and other global threats to democracy such as policy laundering.  I don’t particularly like surveillance, but arguing that people should be able to hide large sums of money all over the world is to argue for a right that can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. If we must live in a surveillant culture, then let us distribute the cameras, the microphones and the data-mining systems equally among the wealthy, the middle class and the poor.

President Bush looked out his window this morning and saw that a large elm tree had fallen over a laneway at the White House. Assuming he then tuned into CNN, his eyebrows must have knitted together — knitted into a large brain-clamping singularity. Think George, think! There is sporadic flooding in the Washington, D.C area today and the forecast calls for five more days of precipitation. The Justice Department building and IRS headquarters had to be closed and the Washington Metro service was disrupted because of water in the tunnels. It all sounds like an echo of Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Forty Signs of Rain”, a great read that sets a major flood in D.C. against a backdrop of climate change politics and the strained relations between science and government. It’s worth noting that Robinson’s book was written before Katrina. Even Frank Luntz, the guy with the crazy memos has apparently seen the light about climate change. Perhaps Bush will also have an epiphany when he sees thousands of Washingtonians canoeing around the National Mall.

Michelle Malkin is clearly impressed with the ability to drop a 500 LB bomb on 6 people in a house. Over at MichelleMalkin.Com she writes:

Yeah, baby.
F-16s + Beastie Boys = Crazy Delicious.
You can share/embed Allah’s Sabotage video at YouTube!

Yes, someone has actually put this bombing to music. I’m still wondering about the unidentified woman and child who were killed along with al-Zarqawi and al-Rahman. I still think the world is a slightly better place without al-Zarqawi in it, but I’m not ready to dance in the street because of a little American-style death from above. Even W looked pretty grim in announcing the success of yesterday’s mission. Perhaps he was briefed more fully on the actual collateral damage caused by this surgical strike.

Update… CNN has posted a transcript of Caldwell’s press briefing from Friday June 9:

QUESTION: The report yesterday that a child was killed in that, are you saying that that’s not the case right now?

CALDWELL: I’m saying I’m not certain at the moment. Because the initial report that I was provided in fact said there was a child, and then when I went through the after-action review today — again, as with any military operation, you get the first reports in. They’re fairly accurate, but they’re never complete. And then you give follow-on work to establish exactly what the factual facts are.

And the report today says it was six people, three males and three females; no children.

Obviously, it would have been better to capture this guy alive than to kill 6 people. Let’s hope Caldwell’s “report” is telling the truth.

Update…  Maybe Caldwell’s “report” should be reprimanded.  The Times of London reports that:

“Al-Zarqawi’s second wife Israa, in her late teens, and their 18-month-old baby, Abdul Rahman, died in the strike, Jordanian officials told The Times.Israa was the daughter of Yassin Jarrad, a Palestinian Islamic militant, who is blamed for the killing in 2004 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, the Iraqi Shia leader.”

Looks like General Caldwell was wrong — a child was killed in the strike along with his mother. But Michelle was eerily pophetic when she began her post with “Yeah, baby”.  As I said before — the world is a better place without al-Zarqawi, but gloating over his death while covering up/ignoring the death of a young woman and infant is unseemly.  Since all of this was accomplished with Jordanian intellegence and cell phone monitoring, it seems likely that that U.S. forces knew exactly who would be in the house along with Al-Zarqawi.

So long Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, it’s been unreal. And if everything, we’ve been told is true — or even half — good riddance. But when those American F-16’s screamed over Zarqawi’s “safe house” and dropped their bombs, they also killed, according to CNN, “a woman and a child”. Inquiring minds would like to know who these people were. And did American intelligence sources know they would be there? And if they did, who signed the final order to allow the deliberate murder of a child? Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell told CNN he “knew” they could strike that target “without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel”. How young – or old — does one have to be classified as collateral damage?

Update… CNN has posted a transcript of Caldwell’s press briefing from Friday June 9:

QUESTION: The report yesterday that a child was killed in that, are you saying that that’s not the case right now?

CALDWELL: I’m saying I’m not certain at the moment. Because the initial report that I was provided in fact said there was a child, and then when I went through the after-action review today — again, as with any military operation, you get the first reports in. They’re fairly accurate, but they’re never complete. And then you give follow-on work to establish exactly what the factual facts are.

And the report today says it was six people, three males and three females; no children.

Obviously, it would have been better to capture this guy alive, than to kill 6 people. Let’s hope Caldwell’s “report” is telling the truth.

Lotta problems in this old world, eh? Terrorists in Toronto. IEDs in Iraq. Taliban insurgents. Global warming. Deforestation. Desertification. Where will it end? And where to begin? Of course! Let’s solve the “problem” of same sex marriage. In Bush’s address today he regurgitated the party line which blames activist judges for thwarting the will of the people by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The man seems Hell-bent on defining a fundamental human relationship through a constitutional amendment.

I dunno what God wanted me to do, so I sure wouldn’t presume to tell other consenting adults who they can or can not marry. Straight? Yup. Gay? Nope. Lesbian? Nope. Transgendered? Hmmm. What are they supposed to do, George? Two-spirited? If you insist on some sort of Biblical foundation, I do know that people who have read that stuff (more thoroughly than I ever will) have identified three sames-sex relationships between its covers. Others have pointed out that at least eight distinct forms of marriage occur in the Old and New Testaments. It’s a wild and crazy world George — not unlike the animal world, where same-sex relationships abound.

Anyhow, this issue is smeared all over the entire infearmation highway — and there is no escape, so you may as well enjoy it. You might relax a little with a look at the Politics TV Report on GOP sexual hypocrisy. Those guys are right on: Bush just wants y’all to stare into his googly eyes and get all mesmerized over same-sex marriage so you’ll forget about those pesky problems mentioned in paragraph one. And guess which North American Prime Minister wants to re-open the same debate in the Fall of 2006?

As George Clooney cooly remarks in O Brother Where Art Thou: “We’re in a tight spot now boys. We’re in a tight spot now”. Health care crisis. Rogue nuclear states. Darfur. Pharmaceuticals and hormone disrupters in the water…