3 ms·

We are currently paying the costs (both monetary and otherwise) for the apparatus you describe, but looking at the last decade, the benefits appear to be absent

We are currently paying the costs (both monetary and otherwise) for the apparatus you describe, but looking at the last decade, the benefits appear to be absent. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that an organization like the NSA just isn't worth having?

drusepth 9y ago
By nature of the secrecy required by how the NSA operates, many of the benefits would likewise not be made public (to avoid sharing unnecessary information on how they operate), so I'm not entirely sure it's fair for any of us out of the know to weigh the benefits versus the costs in this way. Our elected members privy to the actual costs and the actual benefits should be the ones making the decision on whether the NSA is worth having or not.
bradyd 9y ago
In fact organizations like the CIA and NSA are more of a threat to the American people than the people they are supposedly protecting us from.
- williamdclt 9y ago
  Not necessarily disagreeing but: facts? numbers? source?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I suspect it's like inoculation: some people die from inoculations, but on the whole the herd gains valuable protection. The TLA may be terrible for particular individuals, or small groups with a shared characteristic, but politicians should nonetheless advocate for them to protect the "way of life of citizens". It's a "do you keep a guard dog that you know might maul a child" type of question.
willstrafach 9y ago
Your comment shows why some more open-ness would be great for everyone. Working in secret means nobody will know of the genuine successes, only the allegedly problematic aspects which leak out. It might not be simple, but I am sure that it would be possible to remove classified details from certain “wins” (whether counterterror, counterproliferation, or other) and let the public know what their tax dollars are going toward.
- civility 9y ago
  Why are they "genuine successes", but only "alleged problems"? I think you're giving them credit for alleged successes and ignoring the genuine problems.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    I used this phrase: > allegedly problematic aspects which leak out Due to the problematic aspects being judged solely by the journalists publishing the leak. For example, the business records collection on Verizon metadata was something The Guardian saw as problematic and worth exposing, and I agree on it being problematic, so I was glad to see it fixed in 2015 (They now must ask the ISP for information in a more targeted manner instead of getting it all and self-regulating targets). On the other hand, Spiegel alleged that TAO and CNE-related activities are problematic. I disagree with that and did not see any point in those releases. Hopefully that makes more sense, I did not mean to imply anything with my phrasing.
SEJeff 9y ago
You could change NSA to CIA and your comment would still be just as invalid. We aren't supposed to know much of the work they do. We know that ultimately their data helps law enforcement agencies do their jobs, and helps the DoD / Executive branch make more informed decisions about our adversaries. It is infinitely difficult to quantify the value provided by the NSA's international surveillance apparatus.

drusepth 9y ago

By nature of the secrecy required by how the NSA operates, many of the benefits would likewise not be made public (to avoid sharing unnecessary information on how they operate), so I'm not entirely sure it's fair for any of us out of the know to weigh the benefits versus the costs in this way. Our elected members privy to the actual costs and the actual benefits should be the ones making the decision on whether the NSA is worth having or not.

bradyd 9y ago

In fact organizations like the CIA and NSA are more of a threat to the American people than the people they are supposedly protecting us from.

williamdclt 9y ago
Not necessarily disagreeing but: facts? numbers? source?
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I suspect it's like inoculation: some people die from inoculations, but on the whole the herd gains valuable protection. The TLA may be terrible for particular individuals, or small groups with a shared characteristic, but politicians should nonetheless advocate for them to protect the "way of life of citizens". It's a "do you keep a guard dog that you know might maul a child" type of question.

willstrafach 9y ago

Your comment shows why some more open-ness would be great for everyone. Working in secret means nobody will know of the genuine successes, only the allegedly problematic aspects which leak out. It might not be simple, but I am sure that it would be possible to remove classified details from certain “wins” (whether counterterror, counterproliferation, or other) and let the public know what their tax dollars are going toward.

civility 9y ago
Why are they "genuine successes", but only "alleged problems"? I think you're giving them credit for alleged successes and ignoring the genuine problems.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  I used this phrase: > allegedly problematic aspects which leak out Due to the problematic aspects being judged solely by the journalists publishing the leak. For example, the business records collection on Verizon metadata was something The Guardian saw as problematic and worth exposing, and I agree on it being problematic, so I was glad to see it fixed in 2015 (They now must ask the ISP for information in a more targeted manner instead of getting it all and self-regulating targets). On the other hand, Spiegel alleged that TAO and CNE-related activities are problematic. I disagree with that and did not see any point in those releases. Hopefully that makes more sense, I did not mean to imply anything with my phrasing.

SEJeff 9y ago

You could change NSA to CIA and your comment would still be just as invalid. We aren't supposed to know much of the work they do. We know that ultimately their data helps law enforcement agencies do their jobs, and helps the DoD / Executive branch make more informed decisions about our adversaries. It is infinitely difficult to quantify the value provided by the NSA's international surveillance apparatus.