4 ms·

Well, doubting that leaks of information won't have a negative impact on our security is pretty obtuse also. I'm not afraid, but I also wouldn't be surprised if

Well, doubting that leaks of information won't have a negative impact on our security is pretty obtuse also. I'm not afraid, but I also wouldn't be surprised if we have a greater number of terrorist attacks in the coming years. It's in their interest to complain for multiple reasons.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
Most terrorist attacks in the US are by US citizens, such as bombing of abortion clinics and the like. I doubt that the Snowden leaks are likely to change their frequency that much, especially when compared to other factors.
- dhimes 13y ago
  I hate to state the obvious rebuttal, but: maybe the programs were working? Maybe that's why Obama didn't cut them. Maybe he decided he couldn't be the guy to pull the plug and have $avg_fatalities people die every year. Maybe. On the other hand, you would think he would say so if that were the case.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    That is not the question. The question is a what price.
  - jonknee 13y ago
    I'm sure he was told that if he ended the programs it would cost lives, but it's not like we had lot of terrorist deaths before the government threw out the 4th amendment without telling anyone. There were attacks before and after, there will be more in the future as well. Most terrorist attacks get stopped because they actually aren't very sophisticated (see the shoe or underwear bombers), not because the NSA has everyone's email.
    - dhimes 13y ago
      Most terrorist attacks get stopped because they actually aren't very sophisticated Perhaps you are right, but some are stopped because of intelligence. It could be that the bad guys are getting more sophisticated, even though there are still lower-probability lone-wolf types out there.
    - KMag 13y ago
      Just a side note: the Boston bombers and the Times Square bombers are much better examples. The shoe bomb plot was actually very sophisticated, planned and built by something like terrorism's version of Q. Luckily, they sent more of a Johnny English than a James Bond.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    It's a no-win perception issue for Obama. If even a few Americans die in a terror attack, his administration looks weak (look at how badly Fox has gone after him on Benghazi). If he does "whatever is necessary", he looks like a warmonger with no respect for the Constitution. But people die in all sorts of preventable ways. Dropping the national speed limit would save hundreds or thousands of lives. So would nutritional subsidies for kids, or all other sorts of things we could spend our political capital on. But those things do not have the same broad support as anti-terrorism measures, because the public is not willing to pay the cost, even though more lives are at stake. You could say our fear of The Other comes from Bush's fear-mongering, or the shock of 9/11, or a genuine clash of civilizations, or just human nature. But whatever the origin, that irrational fear is the real root of our disproportionate reaction to the theatrical murder called "terrorism". Our culture has been conditioned to be afraid by reflex, and it has to end. The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
    - dhimes 13y ago
      This is probably completely naïve of me, but I would think that if he just came out and honestly said, "I couldn't be the guy to pull the plug once I saw how effective the programs are," then that would be a brilliant way to start the national conversation. Not only about spying, but Gitmo- which he has been very slow about closing.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        He basically said as much, though less directly, and without specifics: http://youtu.be/m8F99BT8QAA?t=6m0s http://youtu.be/m8F99BT8QAA?t=6m0s It's also telling how clumsily he's stumbling over his words. Whether Obama fears speaking freely for political reasons, security reasons, or just plain deception is something I can't answer. (And obviously, much of what he's saying is demonstrably false, or at least misleading. But it also wouldn't surprise me for the NSA to be misinforming the President.)
    - warmwaffles 13y ago
      > Dropping the national speed limit would save hundreds or thousands of lives. Fine I'll bite. Where is this evidence?
  - ajays 13y ago
    It's not the programs that prevented attacks; it's this magic stone that I have and pray to. It keeps "terrorists and other groups" at bay. But now, since I've divulged its existence, it may not be as effective.
onebaddude 13y ago
>I also wouldn't be surprised if we have a greater number of terrorist attacks in the coming years Greater than what? The last 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 100 years?
downandout 13y ago
Snowden merely confirmed a widely held suspicion that the feds are recording and analyzing most modern communications. The notion that terrorists didn't already assume this and use encryption online and burner cell phones is dubious to me. If anything, Snowden may have stopped some would-be terrorists by showing them just how many ways there are for them to get caught.
- BWStearns 13y ago
  There's also another layer to this: The terrorists that actually exist are not 10 feet tall and not all geniuses. If I told some of my non-technologically oriented friends how to encrypt and anonymize their communications, they couldn't do it. If I went one step further and configured their computers and explained to them how to use it, they would probably still leak information by misusing it. Are the terrorists changing their tactics? Probably. Is it going to do them any good? Unlikely.
rbanffy 13y ago
It's not like the collection of vast amounts of information on everyone everywhere had a positive impact on the US citizens security either... The shining example that pops up is the Boston marathon bombing. If the NSA, with its vast dragnet couldn't catch two amateurs, does anyone really think it would catch someone who actually knows how to pull of a bombing?
WayneDB 13y ago
Nothing new was even revealed though! There were articles in major publications over 5 years ago about the NSA putting boxes on mirror ports at Internet backbone sites. That's when we started hearing about the CEO of Qwest.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

Most terrorist attacks in the US are by US citizens, such as bombing of abortion clinics and the like. I doubt that the Snowden leaks are likely to change their frequency that much, especially when compared to other factors.

dhimes 13y ago
I hate to state the obvious rebuttal, but: maybe the programs were working? Maybe that's why Obama didn't cut them. Maybe he decided he couldn't be the guy to pull the plug and have $avg_fatalities people die every year. Maybe. On the other hand, you would think he would say so if that were the case.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  That is not the question. The question is a what price.
- jonknee 13y ago
  I'm sure he was told that if he ended the programs it would cost lives, but it's not like we had lot of terrorist deaths before the government threw out the 4th amendment without telling anyone. There were attacks before and after, there will be more in the future as well. Most terrorist attacks get stopped because they actually aren't very sophisticated (see the shoe or underwear bombers), not because the NSA has everyone's email.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    Most terrorist attacks get stopped because they actually aren't very sophisticated Perhaps you are right, but some are stopped because of intelligence. It could be that the bad guys are getting more sophisticated, even though there are still lower-probability lone-wolf types out there.
  - KMag 13y ago
    Just a side note: the Boston bombers and the Times Square bombers are much better examples. The shoe bomb plot was actually very sophisticated, planned and built by something like terrorism's version of Q. Luckily, they sent more of a Johnny English than a James Bond.
- lukifer 13y ago
  It's a no-win perception issue for Obama. If even a few Americans die in a terror attack, his administration looks weak (look at how badly Fox has gone after him on Benghazi). If he does "whatever is necessary", he looks like a warmonger with no respect for the Constitution. But people die in all sorts of preventable ways. Dropping the national speed limit would save hundreds or thousands of lives. So would nutritional subsidies for kids, or all other sorts of things we could spend our political capital on. But those things do not have the same broad support as anti-terrorism measures, because the public is not willing to pay the cost, even though more lives are at stake. You could say our fear of The Other comes from Bush's fear-mongering, or the shock of 9/11, or a genuine clash of civilizations, or just human nature. But whatever the origin, that irrational fear is the real root of our disproportionate reaction to the theatrical murder called "terrorism". Our culture has been conditioned to be afraid by reflex, and it has to end. The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    This is probably completely naïve of me, but I would think that if he just came out and honestly said, "I couldn't be the guy to pull the plug once I saw how effective the programs are," then that would be a brilliant way to start the national conversation. Not only about spying, but Gitmo- which he has been very slow about closing.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      He basically said as much, though less directly, and without specifics: http://youtu.be/m8F99BT8QAA?t=6m0s http://youtu.be/m8F99BT8QAA?t=6m0s It's also telling how clumsily he's stumbling over his words. Whether Obama fears speaking freely for political reasons, security reasons, or just plain deception is something I can't answer. (And obviously, much of what he's saying is demonstrably false, or at least misleading. But it also wouldn't surprise me for the NSA to be misinforming the President.)
  - warmwaffles 13y ago
    > Dropping the national speed limit would save hundreds or thousands of lives. Fine I'll bite. Where is this evidence?
- ajays 13y ago
  It's not the programs that prevented attacks; it's this magic stone that I have and pray to. It keeps "terrorists and other groups" at bay. But now, since I've divulged its existence, it may not be as effective.

onebaddude 13y ago

>I also wouldn't be surprised if we have a greater number of terrorist attacks in the coming years Greater than what? The last 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 100 years?

downandout 13y ago

Snowden merely confirmed a widely held suspicion that the feds are recording and analyzing most modern communications. The notion that terrorists didn't already assume this and use encryption online and burner cell phones is dubious to me. If anything, Snowden may have stopped some would-be terrorists by showing them just how many ways there are for them to get caught.

BWStearns 13y ago
There's also another layer to this: The terrorists that actually exist are not 10 feet tall and not all geniuses. If I told some of my non-technologically oriented friends how to encrypt and anonymize their communications, they couldn't do it. If I went one step further and configured their computers and explained to them how to use it, they would probably still leak information by misusing it. Are the terrorists changing their tactics? Probably. Is it going to do them any good? Unlikely.

rbanffy 13y ago

It's not like the collection of vast amounts of information on everyone everywhere had a positive impact on the US citizens security either... The shining example that pops up is the Boston marathon bombing. If the NSA, with its vast dragnet couldn't catch two amateurs, does anyone really think it would catch someone who actually knows how to pull of a bombing?

WayneDB 13y ago

Nothing new was even revealed though! There were articles in major publications over 5 years ago about the NSA putting boxes on mirror ports at Internet backbone sites. That's when we started hearing about the CEO of Qwest.