3 ms·

Select bias. You don't know what they did stop.

by rmc 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago
I'm sure they have plenty of proof ready to share with the public, to prove that the system is worth it, even though it's unconstitutional, but apparently no one cares about that and about American values anymore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm4dHdaApo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm4dHdaApo
- rmc 13y ago
  Or to explain that and how they stopped a threat might reveal how much they know, who their informers are, what type of codes they can break, and hence make it hard to stop the next one. If you tell Bad Guys™ (a) that and (b) how you stopped a previous attack, then the next set of Bad Guy™ will know not to make those mistakes.
coldtea 13y ago
I don't think so. Any BS success they would advertise to high heavens.
D9u 13y ago
"They" knew that the "Ft Hood shooter" had been in contact with extremists, yet we all know what the end result there was. 13 dead 30 + wounded
- sirclueless 13y ago
  This is extremely counterproductive. You aren't going to get anywhere simultaneously bemoaning the damage caused by extremist acts and the excesses of the NSA. When you point out the failures of the NSA to stop specific instances of terrorism, it only suggests that they need more resources and legal surveillance. The reasons for wanting the NSA surveillance to stop have to be that the innumerable injustices suffered by citizens under a surveillance state would be worse than the occasional extremist attack that would be preventable under such surveillance.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    No, that's not what he is saying at all. With the maddening amount of resources ($80 billion for fuck's sake) spent on surveillance of both foreign and domestic communications, incidents where the agencies have the resources and intelligence to stop attacks but don't/can't shows that no amount of money spent or rights lost will give us absolute safety.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yeah, it's weird what our existing civil liberties are able to prevent out intelligence agencies from doing. If it were the Stasi, Gestapo, or NKVD that noticed an Army major communicating with a Resistance element for any reason you'd have been able to count the remainder of that major's life in hours. FBI, on the other hand, went "Meh, not enough evidence to start an investigation". So be careful about the conclusion you draw from that. All you've really said is that we currently have handcuffs too tight on the NSA and FBI.
alan_cx 13y ago
Which is the same nasty logic as if you have nothing to hide routine.
venomsnake 13y ago
Well ... the day after Osama was killed it was all in the news and all positive. If they stopped something on similar scale they would not have reasons to hide it.

Select bias. You don't know what they did stop.

by rmc 13y ago

Select bias. You don't know what they did stop.

mtgx 13y ago

I'm sure they have plenty of proof ready to share with the public, to prove that the system is worth it, even though it's unconstitutional, but apparently no one cares about that and about American values anymore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm4dHdaApo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etm4dHdaApo

rmc 13y ago
Or to explain that and how they stopped a threat might reveal how much they know, who their informers are, what type of codes they can break, and hence make it hard to stop the next one. If you tell Bad Guys™ (a) that and (b) how you stopped a previous attack, then the next set of Bad Guy™ will know not to make those mistakes.

coldtea 13y ago

I don't think so. Any BS success they would advertise to high heavens.

D9u 13y ago

"They" knew that the "Ft Hood shooter" had been in contact with extremists, yet we all know what the end result there was. 13 dead 30 + wounded

sirclueless 13y ago
This is extremely counterproductive. You aren't going to get anywhere simultaneously bemoaning the damage caused by extremist acts and the excesses of the NSA. When you point out the failures of the NSA to stop specific instances of terrorism, it only suggests that they need more resources and legal surveillance. The reasons for wanting the NSA surveillance to stop have to be that the innumerable injustices suffered by citizens under a surveillance state would be worse than the occasional extremist attack that would be preventable under such surveillance.
- akiselev 13y ago
  No, that's not what he is saying at all. With the maddening amount of resources ($80 billion for fuck's sake) spent on surveillance of both foreign and domestic communications, incidents where the agencies have the resources and intelligence to stop attacks but don't/can't shows that no amount of money spent or rights lost will give us absolute safety.
mpyne 13y ago
Yeah, it's weird what our existing civil liberties are able to prevent out intelligence agencies from doing. If it were the Stasi, Gestapo, or NKVD that noticed an Army major communicating with a Resistance element for any reason you'd have been able to count the remainder of that major's life in hours. FBI, on the other hand, went "Meh, not enough evidence to start an investigation". So be careful about the conclusion you draw from that. All you've really said is that we currently have handcuffs too tight on the NSA and FBI.

alan_cx 13y ago

Which is the same nasty logic as if you have nothing to hide routine.

venomsnake 13y ago

Well ... the day after Osama was killed it was all in the news and all positive. If they stopped something on similar scale they would not have reasons to hide it.