4 ms·

The potential of abuse for guns is pretty damn large, but some would argue that the US was founded on the idea of gun ownership. There's a lot of speculation a

The potential of abuse for guns is pretty damn large, but some would argue that the US was founded on the idea of gun ownership. There's a lot of speculation about what could happen, but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs. The language of the above article seems too adversarial to be effective at getting anything done. If we continue to take this "death to the NSA" stance, we're not going to get anything that we want because, like it or not, the NSA, or someone else doing the same things, is going to have to exist on some level for the remainder of the US's existence as a representative democracy. We need to be talking scope and extent, not existence/abolishment, and this article is a little too polemic to be helpful.

apalmer 13y ago
'There's a lot of speculation about what could happen, but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs.' How can you possibly know this? In fact I would argue as much as we 'know' anything at all related to the NSA program we know that it has lead to interventions. The NSA claims this surveillance has been instrumental to stopping 'dozens' of terrorist plots, which would mean by definition people ARE being snatched off the streets because of the NSA monitoring programs.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it. Ignore and refuse to participate in wild speculation until evidence appears. That's how we have to operate, lest we succumb to every conspiratorial fantasy the Internet can come up with.
  - apalmer 13y ago
    What on earth are you talking about? The whole purpose of the NSA monitoring program is to provide actionable leads to enable intervention by law enforcement. You can think this is 'bad', you can think this is 'good', you can think it is highly effective, you can think it is ineffective... but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. The whole purpose of the program is to snatch terrorists up off the streets, the whole purpose of it being classified is to enable it to function without explicitly giving terrorists a good understanding of our ways and means... how on earth is assuming a program is used for at least what the government claims it is used for a conspiratorial fantasy?
    - diminoten 13y ago
      > but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. Do you have evidence that indicates US citizens are being 'snatched' from the streets of the US without being arrested, tried, or convicted as per the US criminal justice system? You say it's wildly disconnected from reality and that the NSA's entire purpose is to do precisely this, and if that's the case you should be able to easily show me examples which demonstrate the 'snatchings' are a) occurring and b) the norm. If it's not conspiratorial fantasy, then the evidence should be in abundance, right?
      - tekromancr 13y ago
        There is evidence of US citizens being blown off the streets by drones.
        diminoten 13y ago
        Do I just take your word for that?
        wf 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki The relevant parts: In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented. Al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[32][34][35][36] Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[37] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[38] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[39] Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[40][41][42] Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[43] And US officials admitted the killing of the boy was mistake.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    It's hardly wild speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Use of NSA info in the manner described above is scope creep because they aren't terrorists, or foreign.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      What's wrong with this?
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidence. In cases where they are not actually criminals, the illegal search and coverup is indefensible. Here's the article linked from the wikipedia page. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... "A similar set of instructions was included in an IRS manual in 2005 and 2006, Reuters reported." [2] Basically they use "evidence" obtained illegally, tip off the DEA and it seems the IRS. Choice quote[1]: "Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011, described the practice of "parallel construction" as "a fancy word for phonying up the course of the investigation". It was one thing, she said, to create special rules for national security, but creating rules for ordinary crime threatened to undermine the bill of rights, set up as a check against the power of the executive." Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's criminal law reform project[1]: He said that the concealing of information about the source of an investigation was unconstitutional because it did not allow defendants their right to confront and examine the evidence the government has against them. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
  - Sauer_Kraut 13y ago
    "I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it." Of course there is no credible evidence when evidence is known to be actively suppressed. See: 'Intel Laundering.' Also the US boasts that spying resulted in thwarted attempts. Where are those court cases? More importantly, where are the bodies of those involved? Sure is easy to not have credible evidence when all evidence aside from one sided snippets and meaningless statistics is never published. edit: diminoten sure shifts goal posts around a lot. Changing persons to US persons, etc.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      So you're arguing that there is no evidence because the NSA is so good at what they do, they've successfully hidden all operational evidence from the public for their entire time of existence? Is Snowden the first mistake the NSA has ever made, in your eyes, then?
      - Sauer_Kraut 13y ago
        No, no. edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more. I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason. I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lack of full disclosure as to what the US's secret laws are secretly doing, we are forced to parse the headlines and the body count of the population for information on what has happened, where people went. Problem is there is only a handful of incidents revealed to the public. The Boston bombers don't count because even though they fit NSA criteria for observation they apparently had no clue about their actions. The Al-Shabaab money provider was explicitly mentioned, so that is one. Since we know the US kidnaps and tortures people, then makes every attempt to have the guilty escape[1], we don't require further evidence to ask the questions: Where are the bodies, living or dead, of the others involved in domestic cases the NSA said they helped foil? The NSA says the program is for terrorists, the US government is known to rendition their victims away to be tortured under claims of them being terrorists. This has been documented enough to appease you. If the NSA's spying program is not meant to result in the kidnapping and torture of others, what is it for? Bringing people to court? Again, where are those involved in the domestic incidents cited as being foiled by the NSA? Not all in court, that is for sure. [1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_officer_wanted_for_kidnapping_in_italy_ended_up_arrested_in_panama http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_off...
jacquesm 13y ago
The NSA is not in the business of snatching people of the street, and they are also not in the business of revealing which cases where people do get snatched of the street by for instance CIA operatives were snatched because of leads generated by the NSA. You are essentially asking for proof that may or may not exist but that certainly will never come to light. I suspect signals intelligence plays a major role in just about every US operation on foreign soil, if it didn't what justification would there be for the NSA to exist to begin with.
dreamfactory 13y ago
I imagine many would say recent events demonstrate that it shouldn't continue in its current incarnation as it's doing more harm than good to national interests. Like the TSA, it doesn't need to exist, certainly not in its current form. In the UK for example, the equivalent hasn't always existed, (and going by Adam Curtis recently, may as well not have). That didn't prevent them from building an empire and dominating world trade.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I'd like to see what you've read that makes you think the majority of US citizens think the NSA shouldn't continue in its current incarnation. Furthermore, I'd like to see what you've read that shows the TSA doesn't need to exist. Also, what makes you think the UK hasn't had a global intelligence network since its inception?
  - dreamfactory 13y ago
    They call it the second oldest profession but intelligence can take different shapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service_Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service... post-dates the British empire for example. I didn't say anything about the majority US opinion (which is volatile of course), but it's plausible that a sufficiently large number of powerful Americans could call time out for a restructure as they see their international business interests heading rapidly towards the plughole. That could well be taking the shine off being the gatekeepers of the gov info economy for example. As for the TSA, you may disagree but I'm sure Bruce Schneier has more intelligent things to say about it than me - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa...
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe. His arguments amount to, "people would be just as safe without it" but we have no evidence to that argument, as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea. But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?
foobarqux 13y ago
> but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs. They are being assassinated by drones overseas.
- diminoten 13y ago
  The NSA doesn't own any drones. It has no ops.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    It is not material that the actual kill is done by a different part of the government.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      It's of critical importance, actually. One person collects the data, "The man you're looking for is here." and another person decides what to do with that data. "We will kill him." or "We will capture him." or "We will kill him and anyone in the same room or building as him." The NSA doesn't decide what to do, the other part of the government does. It's of absolutely critical importance to remember that when discussing the extent of what the NSA knows and does.
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        People wouldn't be "snatched up off the street" by the NSA either which was the original point of contention.
pradocchia 13y ago
The potential of abuse for guns is pretty damn large, but some would argue that the US was founded on the idea of gun ownership. Yes, and those guns were widely distributed among the general populace. It was this wide distribution that contributed to a democratic society. Whereas, the tools of the NSA are closely held. You and I do not have access to comparable tools, not at all. This creates a power imbalance, and this power imbalance is ripe for abuse.

apalmer 13y ago

'There's a lot of speculation about what could happen, but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs.' How can you possibly know this? In fact I would argue as much as we 'know' anything at all related to the NSA program we know that it has lead to interventions. The NSA claims this surveillance has been instrumental to stopping 'dozens' of terrorist plots, which would mean by definition people ARE being snatched off the streets because of the NSA monitoring programs.

diminoten 13y ago
I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it. Ignore and refuse to participate in wild speculation until evidence appears. That's how we have to operate, lest we succumb to every conspiratorial fantasy the Internet can come up with.
- apalmer 13y ago
  What on earth are you talking about? The whole purpose of the NSA monitoring program is to provide actionable leads to enable intervention by law enforcement. You can think this is 'bad', you can think this is 'good', you can think it is highly effective, you can think it is ineffective... but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. The whole purpose of the program is to snatch terrorists up off the streets, the whole purpose of it being classified is to enable it to function without explicitly giving terrorists a good understanding of our ways and means... how on earth is assuming a program is used for at least what the government claims it is used for a conspiratorial fantasy?
  - diminoten 13y ago
    > but arguing that the NSA program has never lead to anyone being 'snatched up off the streets', is WILDLY disconnected from reality. Do you have evidence that indicates US citizens are being 'snatched' from the streets of the US without being arrested, tried, or convicted as per the US criminal justice system? You say it's wildly disconnected from reality and that the NSA's entire purpose is to do precisely this, and if that's the case you should be able to easily show me examples which demonstrate the 'snatchings' are a) occurring and b) the norm. If it's not conspiratorial fantasy, then the evidence should be in abundance, right?
    - tekromancr 13y ago
      There is evidence of US citizens being blown off the streets by drones.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Do I just take your word for that?
        wf 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki The relevant parts: In April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama placed al-Awlaki on a list of people whom the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.[32][33][34] The "targeted killing" of an American citizen was unprecedented. Al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.[32][34][35][36] Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[26] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him,[37] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[38] before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[39] Two weeks later, al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[40][41][42] Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[43] And US officials admitted the killing of the boy was mistake.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  It's hardly wild speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Use of NSA info in the manner described above is scope creep because they aren't terrorists, or foreign.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    What's wrong with this?
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidence. In cases where they are not actually criminals, the illegal search and coverup is indefensible. Here's the article linked from the wikipedia page. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... "A similar set of instructions was included in an IRS manual in 2005 and 2006, Reuters reported." [2] Basically they use "evidence" obtained illegally, tip off the DEA and it seems the IRS. Choice quote[1]: "Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011, described the practice of "parallel construction" as "a fancy word for phonying up the course of the investigation". It was one thing, she said, to create special rules for national security, but creating rules for ordinary crime threatened to undermine the bill of rights, set up as a check against the power of the executive." Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's criminal law reform project[1]: He said that the concealing of information about the source of an investigation was unconstitutional because it did not allow defendants their right to confront and examine the evidence the government has against them. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
- Sauer_Kraut 13y ago
  "I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it." Of course there is no credible evidence when evidence is known to be actively suppressed. See: 'Intel Laundering.' Also the US boasts that spying resulted in thwarted attempts. Where are those court cases? More importantly, where are the bodies of those involved? Sure is easy to not have credible evidence when all evidence aside from one sided snippets and meaningless statistics is never published. edit: diminoten sure shifts goal posts around a lot. Changing persons to US persons, etc.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    So you're arguing that there is no evidence because the NSA is so good at what they do, they've successfully hidden all operational evidence from the public for their entire time of existence? Is Snowden the first mistake the NSA has ever made, in your eyes, then?
    - Sauer_Kraut 13y ago
      No, no. edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more. I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason. I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lack of full disclosure as to what the US's secret laws are secretly doing, we are forced to parse the headlines and the body count of the population for information on what has happened, where people went. Problem is there is only a handful of incidents revealed to the public. The Boston bombers don't count because even though they fit NSA criteria for observation they apparently had no clue about their actions. The Al-Shabaab money provider was explicitly mentioned, so that is one. Since we know the US kidnaps and tortures people, then makes every attempt to have the guilty escape[1], we don't require further evidence to ask the questions: Where are the bodies, living or dead, of the others involved in domestic cases the NSA said they helped foil? The NSA says the program is for terrorists, the US government is known to rendition their victims away to be tortured under claims of them being terrorists. This has been documented enough to appease you. If the NSA's spying program is not meant to result in the kidnapping and torture of others, what is it for? Bringing people to court? Again, where are those involved in the domestic incidents cited as being foiled by the NSA? Not all in court, that is for sure. [1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_officer_wanted_for_kidnapping_in_italy_ended_up_arrested_in_panama http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/how_a_cia_off...

jacquesm 13y ago

The NSA is not in the business of snatching people of the street, and they are also not in the business of revealing which cases where people do get snatched of the street by for instance CIA operatives were snatched because of leads generated by the NSA. You are essentially asking for proof that may or may not exist but that certainly will never come to light. I suspect signals intelligence plays a major role in just about every US operation on foreign soil, if it didn't what justification would there be for the NSA to exist to begin with.

dreamfactory 13y ago

I imagine many would say recent events demonstrate that it shouldn't continue in its current incarnation as it's doing more harm than good to national interests. Like the TSA, it doesn't need to exist, certainly not in its current form. In the UK for example, the equivalent hasn't always existed, (and going by Adam Curtis recently, may as well not have). That didn't prevent them from building an empire and dominating world trade.

diminoten 13y ago
I'd like to see what you've read that makes you think the majority of US citizens think the NSA shouldn't continue in its current incarnation. Furthermore, I'd like to see what you've read that shows the TSA doesn't need to exist. Also, what makes you think the UK hasn't had a global intelligence network since its inception?
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  They call it the second oldest profession but intelligence can take different shapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service_Bureau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Melville#Secret_Service... post-dates the British empire for example. I didn't say anything about the majority US opinion (which is volatile of course), but it's plausible that a sufficiently large number of powerful Americans could call time out for a restructure as they see their international business interests heading rapidly towards the plughole. That could well be taking the shine off being the gatekeepers of the gov info economy for example. As for the TSA, you may disagree but I'm sure Bruce Schneier has more intelligent things to say about it than me - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa...
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe. His arguments amount to, "people would be just as safe without it" but we have no evidence to that argument, as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea. But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?

foobarqux 13y ago

> but if we look only at what has happened, people aren't being snatched up off the streets because of the NSA's monitoring programs. They are being assassinated by drones overseas.

diminoten 13y ago
The NSA doesn't own any drones. It has no ops.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  It is not material that the actual kill is done by a different part of the government.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    It's of critical importance, actually. One person collects the data, "The man you're looking for is here." and another person decides what to do with that data. "We will kill him." or "We will capture him." or "We will kill him and anyone in the same room or building as him." The NSA doesn't decide what to do, the other part of the government does. It's of absolutely critical importance to remember that when discussing the extent of what the NSA knows and does.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      People wouldn't be "snatched up off the street" by the NSA either which was the original point of contention.

pradocchia 13y ago

The potential of abuse for guns is pretty damn large, but some would argue that the US was founded on the idea of gun ownership. Yes, and those guns were widely distributed among the general populace. It was this wide distribution that contributed to a democratic society. Whereas, the tools of the NSA are closely held. You and I do not have access to comparable tools, not at all. This creates a power imbalance, and this power imbalance is ripe for abuse.