4 ms·

If massive surveillance is so necessary for our safety, why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society they’ve been averting, or criminals caught?

• abakker 2y ago
  I agree with the meaning and the premise of your question, but, pedantically, it is not always a good idea to go out and admit how effective a secret program is. Think about it in the context of national security and foreign policy - e.g. "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share. Maybe more pointed to the discussion here, by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks.
  • autoexec 2y ago
    > "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share...by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks. They can not tell us that they are reading the encrypted communications of other governments but still tell us "We caught Joe Criminal on Wednesday who tried to blow up the moon, and Bill Evilguy on Friday who tried to poison the waterhole, and Amanda Terrorist on Sunday who tried to murder 10,000 kittens". Then they could hold public trials for those terrorists where even if we can't see all of the evidence we still know exactly who they are imprisoning/killing, when and how often. If criminals come to realize that terrorist attacks are likely to get them killed or sent to rot in gitmo because of how successful our spy agencies are, and they decide to hold up liqueur stores instead how is that a bad thing?
    • abakker 2y ago
      well, its been a while, but I remember seeing a study that states with the death penalty actually had higher incidence of violent crime. From that, it was posited that the existence of harsher punishments don't seem to offer much deterrent value because criminals do not expect to be caught. Further, there was discussion that state-sponsored demonstrations of power/punishment play a role in normalizing that behavior in the first place. Personally, I think both categories are likely true, but I couldn't comment on the effect size. One thing that law enforcement stats generally indicate is that a great deal of property crime is uninvestigated and unsolved. Maybe that is fine, but detailing, "we tried our literal best surveillance methods and have not managed to reduce convenience store robberies" gives an edge to those who would like to premeditate. Of course, if they think they won't get caught in the first place, it doesn't matter.
• infamouscow 2y ago
  It's because it's not for your safety, it's for the safety of the established bureaucracy of government. Just look at the number of terrorists that were already on the FBI's watchlist, and whose plots were foiled by random citizens stepping in rather than the FBI. (Hint: it's literally every one.) Even more incendiary, look at the number of school shooters that have been on LEO watchlists, and also failed to do anything to prevent tragedy. The brain dead rebuttal to this is something like civil rights getting in the way. But if civil rights are holding them back, why invade privacy at all if nothing actionable is going to be done.
  • unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >it's for the safety of the established bureaucracy of government. Seems vague. What exactly does this assertion mean? Are you saying that they are collecting this information to blackmail people or something similar? Because I don't see people being defenestrated or otherwise prosecuted for threatening the "bureaucracy". On the contrary, there seems to be an all-out public assault on our government from some quarters. And who, exactly, is the "established bureaucracy" anyway?
• fragmede 2y ago
  The most heartbreaking thing about having broken the enigma code during world war II, is that they had to let people die, knowing they could have saved them, because saving them would have tipped the enemy off that they had broken the code.
  • Jerrrry 2y ago
    It is heartbreaking, but they did not die in vain. This may be the only time this quote has been used un-ironically, in good concious: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make." -Lord Farquad
  • NhanH 2y ago
    I don't quite understand the relation of this comment to the GP's comment, but the world currently is not under world war 3. Any justification for things happening in ww2 is hard to use for current situation
    • autoexec 2y ago
      There's no "world war" exactly, but the US is still overseas killing people and has been doing that every single year for decades. Basically my entire life. I doubt there's been very many years since WWII that the US hasn't been engaged in wars and armed conflicts somewhere on the Earth. We rarely hear about any of it, and if you asked a random person on the street they probably couldn't name any of the countries where people are/have been being killed.
    • fragmede 2y ago
      to spell it out, the FBI can't tell the general public many of the stories where they did good, because that would exposure the methods they used to do good, which would result in them not being able to use those methods anymore, so those stories have to go untold. also I disagree that we're not in world War III. we are, it just hasn't been officially declared yet.
• jawiggins 2y ago
  Obviously the Intelligence community doesn't say exactly how they learned such things, making it difficult to say if they used SIGINT, HUMINT, or something else, but there have been some big displays of their overall effectiveness recently. 1) Clearly the US Intelligence community telegraphed Russia's plans to invade Ukraine well in advance. 2) Recently the US warned of an impending terror attack on a concert in Moscow just before one happened. Most intelligence they collect won't be made public, so only those in the higher echelons of government will know what they regularly learn. But I do think they have demonstrated the ability to predict the future more than a few times with their public statements.
  • ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    The FBI deals with internal matters, and has nothing to do with external conflicts in Ukraine etc.
    • jawiggins 2y ago
      Nation states or terrorists planning attacks on the US mainland (either physically or in cyberspace) are external threats that are investigated by the FBI and have been charged by the DOJ.
• unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society I think this framing is a bit naive. It also implies—without evidence—some malice on the part of LE. The suggestion is that this activity is known to be ineffective for the stated purpose, so continues to be conducted for some other purpose, which by definition would be nefarious. But, there is no proof of this, except that some would like to see more perp walks that reveal sources and methods. And, as much as people sound the alarm, we've seen relatively little-to-no abuse of these epanded powers. Americans are not being prosecuted at-scale, if at all, over information that may have been incidentally captured. The truth is that powers had to be expanded to keep pace with changes in technology, and a changing world in general. Without this our LE wouldn't stand a chance. Now one might argue about degree and balance, but that's not what I generally hear. Instead, it's mostly vague alarmism and mistrust about the very idea of any expanded powers.
  • Voultapher 2y ago
    Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. We have ample evidence that mass surveillance not only has massive issues but also that it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits, at all. http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/ http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-... Want a grim reality check on "what they say vs reality", then go read this https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ... . Particularity interesting is this section: "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:"
    • unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. This is another vague allusion. Consolidate power for whom? How exactly does it do so? What, specifically, is this "power" and how is it used against American citizens? >it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits The article referenced here is from 2014, so not exactly up-to-date. And, in multiple instances, the authors acknowledge that they don't even know whether the programs were used. In still other cases, they acknowledge the programs' use in prosecuting terrorists, but casually cast them aside as a low percentage. OK. But, who wants to sign up for "just a few terror incidents"? >Want a grim reality check Another report from 2014, and additionally has nothing to do with the subject. "Someone in the government did something wrong in this completely unrelated way 10 years ago" is not a valid argument.
• tmaly 2y ago
  Even if the reporting was not public, people in Congress that are suppose to oversee this should see the reports. I have not seen them mention anything.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society they’ve been averting It's been reported but NSA FISA victories aren't exactly the sort of thing that gets upvotes around here. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/Section%20702%20of%20the%20Foreign%20Intelligence%20Surveillance%20Act.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/Section%20702%20of%20the%... > In 2009, for example, Section 702 helped foil an active plot to bomb the New York City subway. > (U) Section 702 has been used to identify ransomware attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure, and multiple attacks have been identified and defended against because of Section 702 collection > (U) Section 702–acquired information related to sanctioned foreign adversaries was used in U.S. government efforts to stop components for weapons of mass destruction from reaching foreign actors. > (U) Section 702 information has identified key economic security risks, including strategic malign investment by foreign actors in certain U.S. companies. > (U) Section 702 collection has helped identify when hostile foreign intelligence services are trying to send their operatives into the United States to recruit spies here in the United States.
  • pseudalopex 2y ago
    Those were claims made by intelligence agency officials. The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress to avoid oversight.[1] The CIA incorrectly attributed victories to torture.[2] The people who made those claims should not be trusted to evaluate correctly and report honestly. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap... [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf#page=12 https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ...
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      Neither of your sources talk about the claims I referenced.
      • pseudalopex 2y ago
        Is the concept of credibility new to you?
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  And in the case of so-called "tech" companies who are not required to obtain warrants, let alone even informed consent, the use of the data collected is even more secretive. The companies will try to claim their usage of collected data is commercially-sensitive information and/or trade secrets to prevent the public (not their competitors) from understanding what the surveillance is used for.