4 ms·

The author is focusing on the wrong issue. He is mostly concerned with whether or not the surveillance is effective. If effectiveness were the only considerati

The author is focusing on the wrong issue. He is mostly concerned with whether or not the surveillance is effective. If effectiveness were the only consideration, he would have a weak argument. Even if most terrorists are smart enough to avoid Gmail, Skype and cellular networks, it might still make sense to eavesdrop in these places. After all, smart criminals sometimes get caught because they make dumb mistakes. For example, my understanding is that Sabu (a member of Anonymous) was caught because he forgot to use Tor in one instance when he logged into a social network. But we can argue all day about whether or not PRISM is effective. I think the author would have a stronger argument if he focused on the fact that the program is unconstitutional, regardless of how well it works.

corin_ 13y ago
Why limit your argument to one or the other? Some people will think PRISM is effective, others may not. Some people may think the privacy issues are important, others may not. But surely they balance each other out - if the NSA cannot catch any terrorists, then it doesn't matter if the privacy issues are not important, PRISM is clearly a waste of money, case over. And presumably somewhere along the line it could go the other way - if 50% of letters contain anthrax, would you not be happy sacrificing some privacy to let the NSA to screen them for you? Or a wider example, what if there was evidence that without PRISM, terrorists would be killing 1000s of Americans on a weekly basis - would we all be so against it still?
- hawkharris 13y ago
  You're welcome to make any argument about PRISM. But if your goal is to discredit the program and ensure others like it won't be established, the legal argument is stronger and more direct: Government programs can't violate constitutional rights, regardless of their efficacy. Period. Why dance around your opponent when you know where to place a powerful right-hook?
  - corin_ 13y ago
    Clearly the right-hook hasn't knocked them out yet - which is perhaps why even the strongest boxers supplement their fist power with at least a little foot movement.
lotu 13y ago
Also, if terrorists really do avoid Gmail, Skype and cell phones because of surveillance than the surveillance has a definitive effect of making the terrorists less effective because they are using inferior communication.

corin_ 13y ago

Why limit your argument to one or the other? Some people will think PRISM is effective, others may not. Some people may think the privacy issues are important, others may not. But surely they balance each other out - if the NSA cannot catch any terrorists, then it doesn't matter if the privacy issues are not important, PRISM is clearly a waste of money, case over. And presumably somewhere along the line it could go the other way - if 50% of letters contain anthrax, would you not be happy sacrificing some privacy to let the NSA to screen them for you? Or a wider example, what if there was evidence that without PRISM, terrorists would be killing 1000s of Americans on a weekly basis - would we all be so against it still?

hawkharris 13y ago
You're welcome to make any argument about PRISM. But if your goal is to discredit the program and ensure others like it won't be established, the legal argument is stronger and more direct: Government programs can't violate constitutional rights, regardless of their efficacy. Period. Why dance around your opponent when you know where to place a powerful right-hook?
- corin_ 13y ago
  Clearly the right-hook hasn't knocked them out yet - which is perhaps why even the strongest boxers supplement their fist power with at least a little foot movement.

lotu 13y ago

Also, if terrorists really do avoid Gmail, Skype and cell phones because of surveillance than the surveillance has a definitive effect of making the terrorists less effective because they are using inferior communication.