4 ms·

Ah, yes. CNN. I noticed that when embassies in Yemen and elsewhere were recently shut down, CNN was careful to repeatedly note in its on-air and online coverage

Ah, yes. CNN. I noticed that when embassies in Yemen and elsewhere were recently shut down, CNN was careful to repeatedly note in its on-air and online coverage that it was thanks to the "intercepted" messages that we were aware of the threat. Ex: [1] In fact, in at least one story, they went so far as to even specifically mention that the "controversial NSA program" was the source--apparently for those too slow to get the hint. Such ridiculously transparent PR. And those brilliant and determined terrorists seem so easily thwarted, don't they? "Aww, rats. Foiled again! I knew I shouldn't have sent that email from my Hotmail account, with the subject 'Evil Terrorist Master Plan'. They closed the embassy. Now what do we do with these suicide belts?" Really, who believes this stuff? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/04/politics/us-embassies-close http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/04/politics/us-embassies-close

nostromo 13y ago
I believe it actually. Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. The real question though is if prevented attacks would have been prevented anyway without this evidence, or in general if the price is worth paying.
- scotth 13y ago
  > Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. What is effective in this case?
- gizmo686 13y ago
  I think effectiveness is open for debate as well. Consider the recent HN submission [1]. Without any information being released, we do not know if there was a credible threat, or if the NSA is simply delusional. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6184984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6184984
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. So, we have instituted this massive security apparatus/surveillance state for groups of people who are largely incompetent, ineffective boobs? But, we don't know that they are incompetent boobs? Any way you slice it, it smells and begs the question: why are we doing this? And, in this particular case, it's a little too convenient that they are taking such public and hyper-publicized action on "threats" that do appear to be easily foiled. Because a.) the plotters allowed themselves to be intercepted even with so much recent publicity around our programs (btw, so much for the number one argument that whistleblowers like Snowden help the enemy) and b.) simply closing a few embassies nullified the threat. And, oh, BTW, let's make sure that our PR machine (read CNN and others) repeatedly mention that we all have the good ol' NSA to thank. Sorry, I just don't see how this goes down easily for anyone. >The real question though is if prevented attacks would have been prevented anyway without this evidence, or in general if the price is worth paying. In this case, I don't believe there was an imminent threat. I think it was propaganda. But, on a broader level, I think your questions are valid for those inclined to believe we should trade freedom/privacy/etc for security (i.e. most Americans). But, surely the answer is in large part a function of whether and how many "effective" threats are really out there vs. just evil people. So, your "real question" is unanswerable at this point on a general level. We don't know who the threats are and, in fact, they are intent on keeping this secret for "security reasons". It is the quintessential bogeyman. We must simply trust that these threats exist and are of a scale that warrant the massive security apparatus/surveillance state that we have erected.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
It might not be pure opportunism, given that guerillas recently ate an entire embassy for lunch and the CIA has been taking a lot of heat for it. Even without the Snowden debacle they would be trigger happy about protecting assets using intel.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Quite possibly. Then again, you can probably find a modicum of truth in just about any situation.

nostromo 13y ago

I believe it actually. Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. The real question though is if prevented attacks would have been prevented anyway without this evidence, or in general if the price is worth paying.

scotth 13y ago
> Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. What is effective in this case?
gizmo686 13y ago
I think effectiveness is open for debate as well. Consider the recent HN submission [1]. Without any information being released, we do not know if there was a credible threat, or if the NSA is simply delusional. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6184984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6184984
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Evil and effective are not mutually exclusive. So, we have instituted this massive security apparatus/surveillance state for groups of people who are largely incompetent, ineffective boobs? But, we don't know that they are incompetent boobs? Any way you slice it, it smells and begs the question: why are we doing this? And, in this particular case, it's a little too convenient that they are taking such public and hyper-publicized action on "threats" that do appear to be easily foiled. Because a.) the plotters allowed themselves to be intercepted even with so much recent publicity around our programs (btw, so much for the number one argument that whistleblowers like Snowden help the enemy) and b.) simply closing a few embassies nullified the threat. And, oh, BTW, let's make sure that our PR machine (read CNN and others) repeatedly mention that we all have the good ol' NSA to thank. Sorry, I just don't see how this goes down easily for anyone. >The real question though is if prevented attacks would have been prevented anyway without this evidence, or in general if the price is worth paying. In this case, I don't believe there was an imminent threat. I think it was propaganda. But, on a broader level, I think your questions are valid for those inclined to believe we should trade freedom/privacy/etc for security (i.e. most Americans). But, surely the answer is in large part a function of whether and how many "effective" threats are really out there vs. just evil people. So, your "real question" is unanswerable at this point on a general level. We don't know who the threats are and, in fact, they are intent on keeping this secret for "security reasons". It is the quintessential bogeyman. We must simply trust that these threats exist and are of a scale that warrant the massive security apparatus/surveillance state that we have erected.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

It might not be pure opportunism, given that guerillas recently ate an entire embassy for lunch and the CIA has been taking a lot of heat for it. Even without the Snowden debacle they would be trigger happy about protecting assets using intel.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Quite possibly. Then again, you can probably find a modicum of truth in just about any situation.