Senate Why do we complain about the NSA

Thanks Obama!

 

Just a couple of things. The majority of that could be done without my phone records, if you know what I mean. Most of those things could continue without the government actively breaking the law and violating civil rights. I know KW was advocating for a more drastic cutback than I was and he's the one you were responding to, but I just want to clarify that, in my opinion, it is still possible and even desirable for there to be significant amounts of resources of both time and money expended on these kind of behind the scenes efforts to frustrate terrorist organizations.

And I'm going to call BS on this. Essentially we were doing very, very little of what we're doing now in this country prior to 9/11. And the terrorists managed to only partially pull off one attack when we were basically doing nothing to stop them. And even given the piss poor state of intelligence in the time leading up to 9/11, the plot almost didn't come off at all. And when it did, they managed to hit only three of their four targets, simply due to civilian action. A bunch of civilians essentially destroyed a quarter of the terrorist's plans. It's actually really hard to plan and implement a terrorist attack. In all honesty, the 9/11 hijackers couldn't have had an easier time of it and they still nearly failed completely and ultimately failed quite substantially. The death toll of terror attacks in our home countries is never going to rise to a substantial number of the population. I mean, yes, 9/11 was a tragedy and one of the worst examples of human venality and cruelty in recent memory. But they killed less than 4,000 people. Yes, 4,000 people is a lot. That's a lot of devastated families. But twice as many people die every year from texting while driving. Annually, 400,000 people are injured seriously enough to be hospitalized by falling out of bed. Terrorism is way less of a deal than most people think it is. But it's the in the best interests of a lot of people to keep us afraid of terrorism. The government, for one. The media, for another. And terrorists, of course. Strange bedfellows, right? But they have that one thing in common: they all want us to be scared of terrorism.

 

Very well said, Stephen. Just about everything else that would be a far better use of funds in terms of saving lives would require some amount of looking at ourselves in some way. No need to do that when it involves outsiders-- just point at them and let the money follow.

 

1

Wait since when did this become 9/11 conspiracies. I thought you could be better then that.

 

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about a 9/11 conspiracy. Oh, are you talking about my government-media-terrorists triangle? No, there was no conspiracy on 9/11? It was a bunch of terrorists. That's all. I'm not a truther or what not. Those people are crazy.

What I'm saying is that after the fact, the government finds it in their interest for us to be afraid of terrorism because that allows them to spend more and more on defense; and it's in the media's interest to keep us whipped up in a paranoid state because that drives their entire business model. Nobody is conspiring with anybody; it's just that interests align.

 

Um, ok so I'm not going to so into specifics because by law I can't. Suffice to say I've seen "files" or "dossiers" on key people of interest. The idea that they would have a file they could call up on Rogue or Knightwriter is laughable at best. Ha. See? I laughed.

You are, in the grand scheme of things, thoroughly boring people. I don't mean that you bore me, but you are not persons of interest in areas like terrorism. People trafficking. Weapons trafficking.

I'm sorry you have only ever seen the high-tech, mildly paranoid intelligence films like Bourne or Enemy of the State and believe that nonsense is real. But it isn't. The reason they do this, and don't advertise it until self-aggrandising narcissists who should get cancer and die leak it all, is precisely opposed to Rogue's notion that "they want us afraid so we can fuel the military industrial complex." Sure thing, Mr Biafra. It's supposed to be kept secret because the socio-economic ramifications of a major attacks on infrastructure and cities are significant.

I'm not sure what's worse - that you took Matt Damon's vanity films where he tried to impose liberal ideals on the superspy idea and point to the evils!!1! of gubernment and believed it; or that you're incapable of considering the ripples a single stone can cause globally.

 

I know it's still not going to sink in, but your phone records will never be looked at by a human being.

Taking business phones into account, there must be at least half a billion phone accounts of some sort in the States. Probably closer to a billion.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. Algorithms churn through the data relating to those hundreds of millions of accounts to flag the few thousand that have connections that are of interest.

As for the death toll, there are hundreds of British citizens demonstrating their willingness to kill on behalf of IS in Syria right now. Forgetting the thousands here who support their efforts, losing track of them would seem foolish, particularly given their call for attacks on British soil.

 

Continued strawmanning.

This is the most naive thing I've ever heard you say.

Dude, why are you so obsessed with the Bourne movies? I haven't even seen all of them and of the ones I've seen, they mostly sucked. They aren't touchstones of my personal philosophy. They seem to have impacted your worldview way more than they have mine.

They're only going to be dissected by numerous computer programs and then stored for eternity, easily accessible to anyone who's interested for the rest of my natural life.

Well, you have to decide what level of risk you're willing to tolerate versus the level of illegality you're willing to tolerate in your government (I don't know the legalities of what's going on in your government; the US government very clearly broke the law, but if yours hasn't, then the issue is less complicated in your situation). Frankly, I can tell you with 99.9% certainty that you are not going to be killed in a terrorist attack. I'm as close to certain as I can be without being absolutely certain and I'm only giving you that 0.01% because the universe is a hell of a place, you know, and practically anything is possible in extremis. And if the government oversight decreased by . . . let's say 15%, I am going to posit that your risk does not go up by a hair's breadth. I'm going to guess that 15% would cover the majority of the illegalities here in the US; most of the US intelligence apparatus could probably continue unabated.

But what do you think about oversight/monitoring/intelligence? Could it stand to be backed down at all? Do you think you'd still be safe if they backed down 5%? 10%? Or are we at the level we need to be? Or should it be increased? I'm curious. And where does your government stand on the legal side of things? Are they still in a safe zone or have they broken the law?

 

Until the NSA hires all unemployed people to look at all the records they have collected then you are fine. You can rest easy.

 

How is it strawmanning, Rogue? I have a file on record with ASIO... because I held a TSPV clearance. That's all. Otherwise, apart from possible periodic checks because that's how they roll, I seriously doubt I'm on anyone's radar. You've seen a lot of fiction, obviously, because your perception of what happens in reality vs what happens in reality are separated by a wide gulf. I just... I don't know what else to say; even the most accessible book, See No Evil by Bob Baer (aka the guy Syriana was based on) would dispel these silly notions you have.

 

Raspberry is my favorite.

 

I really don't know what to say to this except to ask whether you have no concept of number or whether you're massively narcissistic?

There's more chance of me being killed in a terrorist attack than of an NSA analyst looking at your phone records. Someone from your phone company looking at your phone records is far more likely than either. But still pretty unlikely. Seriously, if I got hold of your phone records and linked to them on this site, I bet fewer than 5 people would even click on the link and that none would give more than a cursory glance.

Also, I don't know where you've picked up the idea that my argument is driven by fear of being killed. I've lived through decades of IRA bombings as well as this more recent caper with no such fear.

A handful of intelligence analysts having access to interrogate communication records helps keep a lid on IS. This costs some money but it saves lives here and in Syria and Iraq. We already have one of the best road safety records in the world and a comprehensive public health service so, y'know, what the hell. There isn't really a downside.

If we were to scrap the whole thing and leave IS to grow and cut people's heads off in our streets, we'd see a huge surge in anti-islamist far right group membership and activity, leading to greater recruitment to IS... all making Britain an unnecessarily miserable place to live.

 

Plus we both live directly under a security service regime, i.e. services whose job it is to spy on domestic threats. We're used to the concept and less moved by it; it seems the Cousins aren't.

 

Well, the fact that you keep bringing up the threat of beheadings in Britain may have something to do with that. Viz:

and

Tends to make one think that you fear Woolwich-style "beheadings in the streets" as a serious concern within the UK. Even if your position isn't based on fear, I feel you're portraying IS as a boogeyman that could strike anywhere, at any time, in the same way that Americans after 9/11 were seriously afraid that terrorists could attack them in the suburbs of Nowheresville (population 20,000), Cornhole State, USA. Please forgive the admittedly uncharitable comparison, but that is the impression I get.

Note: I'm not arguing that IS isn't a threat on some level (they are) or that they don't deserve surveillance (they do).

 

Sorry, remind me again how many Americans are actively supporting IS?

 

The simple fact that public beheading plots have been thwarted shows there is a risk. It's not alarmist it's a simple statement of fact. Had MI5 not intervened, members of the public would have been beheaded.

I'm not a moron who believes that in a country of 70 million people there is any likelihood of me having my head sliced off. Nor am I a deranged narcissist who believes I would be targetted. You need to look elsewhere in this thread for that kind of idiocy.

I simply enjoy living in a moderate, liberal country. Because of this, I prefer that our secret service be able to keep track of those who are actively seeking to use violent means to change this, be they islamic extremists or right wing anti islamists.

 

It's strawmanning because I have said repeatedly that I am aware there isn't a file on me. And you keep bringing up the notion that I believe there's a file on me as laughable in order to make my opinion appear more ridiculous than it is.

I don't understand how anyone could conflate the massive government oversight you're advocating with either moderation or liberalism. Here in America, it's the most right-wing individuals defending the things you're arguing for.

I guess we're finished. We're talking past each other or something. I mean, the truth is that the government acted illegally. They broke the law. That's the facts of the situation. And I don't think the government should break the laws it created and punishes us for breaking. That doesn't seem to bother you guys as long as it's being done for reasons of security. And I don't trust the government to be honest or to have my best interests in mind; it seems like you guys trust them in both of those areas. So we just disagree fundamentally.

 

New story in USA Today, er, today about bulk metadata collection by the DEA for calls between the US and certain foreign countries, starting in 1992. This is separate from the NSA's various programs, though this DEA initiative was referenced in some of the leaked NSA docs and related news coverage, as early as 2013.

The article implies there was little oversight of this program, as the DEA was using their subpoena power to obtain these bulk records without judicial review. The phone companies simply didn't challenge their authority, so it never went to the courts. The DEA itself took measures to prevent the program from being revealed during a trial, e.g. laundering the information as "tips".

The program was supposedly ended in 2013 after the Snowden leaks, with the DEA now sending more targeted subpoenas.

 

With the news that last year's cyberattack on the White House was probably done by the Russians and other news that the NSA puts in and maintains backdoors in American computers, does it bother anyone that instead of strengthening America against cyberattacks, the NSA is actually weakening American computers in its quest to get as much metadata on its own citizens as possible? Cyberwarfare is going to become more present in the future and it seems we're starting our arms race going backwards.