The arguments made for the plan (and NYT's reporting of it) seem extraordinarily stupid. Nowhere in this article does anyone question the initial premise of "mo

The arguments made for the plan (and NYT's reporting of it) seem extraordinarily stupid. Nowhere in this article does anyone question the initial premise of "monitor everything or nothing". What exactly is the need to monitor the entire freaking internet for malware? Why can't they just deploy their security, whatever that is, on high-value targets like, say, the government networks, power plants etc? (I'll be generous and assume their software is for protection against things like stuxnet... why would these networks need to be connected to the internet in the first place?) The argument of all-or-nothing seems like complete nonsense, to say the least. > Senior agency officials concede that much of the technology needed to filter malicious software, known as malware, by searching incoming messages for signs of programs designed to steal data, or attack banks or energy firms, is strikingly similar to the technology the N.S.A. already uses for surveillance. The mind boggles.