Banking Data: A Mea Culpa
BYRON CALAME

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opini ... ref=slogin

I've been very critical of the New York Times in the past, but I'm glad to see they will admit when they were wrong. Also, I hope that they come around to seeing the benefits of such a program and the harm that can be caused by revealing the details of it on the front page. Good for the New York Times.

It doesn't matter. The damage has already been done. Next week, I'm sure some member of this forum, will be out blabbing about how illegal this very program is and how it violates your rights. Bush is the devil.

Well, I'm glad they stood up and admitted they were wrong. It's articles like the that one (the original Bank Data front-pager) that leads people to think some sort of Orwellian government is in place. A guy at work told me that he gets paranoid now every time he buys something with his credit card...that "big brother" is watching his every move.

If terrorists didn't already know we were eavsdropping on them then they are morons. Second, the NYT is not issuing a mea culpa, this specific columnist is. He is entitled to his own opinion, I don't agree with him. Again, he is not the editor of the NYT and his opinion does not reflect that of the Editorial board. Here is his bio, I have no clue what a public editor is :http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/calame-bio.html. I applaud the NYT, and other papers (including the WSJ), in bringing this program out of the shadows. This administration is slowly but surely trying to wrestle power away from the Legislative branch and this is the biggest problem I have with this program. And I am not the only one, see Arlen Spector's comments regarding this. If the President had gone to Congress and asked for this I would envision no problems that this program would pass in both Houses. But seeing how this adminsitration doesn't really seem to care about separation of powers they just thought they could go ahead and do whatever they wanted. Thank christ that some Congressmen still have spines and stood up for the Constitution and the power of Congress when news of this program leaked.

Wait, first you say that the terrorists are morons if they didn't know about this, and then you applaud the newspapers for bringing this program "out of the shadows." How can it be a secret if everyone (including the terrorists) knew about it?

Also, the President did brief Congress on this program. To say otherwise is distorting the truth. You might benefit in knowing that Jack Murtha, of all people, had called the New York Times and asked them to NOT run the story. Keep in mind it was Murtha who blew the whistle on the Haditha incident. Do you think he would keep this under wraps if he thought it was illegal?

What amazes me about this whole thing is that the Democrats are running on the basis that the Bush Administration has not fully implemented the 9/11 Commmissions recommendations and they would see to it if they gain control of Congress. Well guess what - one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations was tracking finances.

This thread was so close to drifting off into the sunset with nothing but LittleWing and LeninFlux jerking each other off.

which is slightly better than the constant rim jobs you and bush haters all give each other in other threads

1. It is no secret that we track terrorist finances. The problem I have is that they completely sidestepped the Constitution in creating this program. The adminsitration did not consult Congress on this nor ask them to even create a bill.

2. The President briefed select members of the Intelligence Commitee, so to say he briefed the entire Congress on this program is wrong. And I could really give two shits what John Murtha thinks about the story. This isn't a Republican or Democraticic issue it's a Constituitional issue. Congress for the past five years has abandoned there oversight role as outlined in the Constitution and this article woke Congress up that they have been a doormat for this administration.

3. Democrats are not against tracking terrorist finances. What they want, and also Republicans, is Congressional oversight on this program. And both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for not implementing the 9-11 Commission reccomendations.