4 ms·

The difference between this circumstance and the civil rights circumstance is that there is no party that is strictly better off with the NSA limited. African

The difference between this circumstance and the civil rights circumstance is that there is no party that is strictly better off with the NSA limited. African americans are strictly better off when having the right to vote as opposed to not having the right to vote. Same argument applies for women. The terrorist threat argument cannot be ignored, and it's plausible to believe that many threats against american assets are hatched in the US and communicated in the US. Likewise, the privacy argument cannot be ignored. So in this case, we have a classic tradeoff. To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA?

a3n 13y ago
> To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA? That assumes the NSA is keeping me alive. I'm not convinced. Also, it's supposed to be the FBI that investigates domestic security and crimes. And whoever's doing it, it's supposed to be specific, not everyone. One might ask, are you better off watched, or Constitutionally free?
- walshemj 13y ago
  But J Edgar Hoover and the FBI in the past did all the sort of things your worried about the NSA doing but unless Snowden is keeping something really juicy back are not? So you would trust a proven bad actor against one where there is no evidence as yet ?
  - a3n 13y ago
    No, I assume they're dirty too. I'm just pointing out they aren't where they're supposed to be.
giardini 13y ago
" it's plausible to believe that many threats against american assets are hatched in the US and communicated in the US." Where's the beef? There is none. If the NSA does not justify it's existence in an open forum then we must dismantle it. And it is not enough to prove that the NSA intercepted an operation; it must be proven that, in the absence of the NSA, the same interception would not have occurred and that consequently something significantly evil would have occurred. There are plenty of other federal, state and local agencies that collect information in a legal and constitutionally-mandated manner and they have proven very effective. "To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA?" Nonsensical scare-mongering.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > If the NSA does not justify it's existence in an open forum then we must dismantle it. Wow. Please justify your existence or face dismantlement.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanTheManPR 13y ago
    If a government agency cannot justify it's existence, then why NOT dismantle it?
kabdib 13y ago
That's a false choice. There are many other options. - NSA with real teeth in the provisions for "don't spy on US citizens", or lying about same. - NSA with effective, non-crony oversight. - NSA with less influence over cryptographic research (maybe we need to split out crypto into an arm of the government that isn't involve in intelligence activities. NIST might be a good choice). - NSA absolutely forbidden to "back door" US designed hardware and software. There are lots of choices other than "You can have the NSA we have today, or you can be roadkill." (It's also unclear that the "OMG terrorist" argument is valid -- like "think of the children," I'm pretty sick of unexamined arguments that appear to be rooted in creating fear).
nthj 13y ago
> are you better off dead or with the NSA? The more things change, the more things stay the same: ”Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
kazagistar 13y ago
I'll just leave this here... http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3005 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3005
acabal 13y ago
That's a false dichotomy. If the NSA disappeared tomorrow we would not all be dead thanks to terrorists or whatever. Instead, the question is one of acceptable risk. The concept of risk is something the American public has seemed to have completely forgotten about. The (anecdotally) general attitude that has evolved in America is one of pigeonholing things into black and white, of "zero tolerance" and "any risk is unacceptable", rather than one of rationally weighing the pros and cons of a complex, grey situation. One doesn't have to look very far back in history to see the massively life-crushing power a surveillance state can wield. Just look back 30 or 40 years--that might easily be in your own lifetime--to see the millions of lives worsened or even ended thanks to surveillance-based societies. America obviously isn't at that stage yet, but as Binney said, we're at the point where all it would take is to turn a key and we'd be there overnight. Compare that to the risk of what the NSA is purportedly protecting us against. Between 2007-2011 your chances of dying in a terrorist attack were 1 in 20 million [1]. Meanwhile the chance of dying in a car accident is 1 in 19,000; of drowning in a bathtub 1 in 800,000; of dying by getting hit by lighting 1 in 5.5 million. [2] How can we justify constructing a turnkey surveillance state to "protect" us against the risk of terrorism, while simultaneously not justifying constructing a global weather-control system to end the risk of lightning strikes? Or a nationwide ban on bathtubs to end the risk of bathtub drownings? Or shutting down all the freeways to end the risk of car accidents? We're all going to die somehow, and setting foot outside of your house carries a risk that a ladder might fall on your head, or that you'll slip in a puddle and break your neck. And yet we're totally OK with constructing the largest surveillance apparatus human history has ever seen to "protect" us against a 1 in 20 million chance that some lunatic will set off a bomb somewhere. How did our ability to assess and, most importantly, accept the reality of everyday risk go so completely bonkers? [1] http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/ http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-t... [2] http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terroris...
OvidNaso 13y ago
*To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA? To put some perspective on terrorism. A 9/11 size event would have to occur every 6 weeks to approach the causality rate from automobile accidents.
csandreasen 13y ago
The NSA will never be able to prevent a terrorist attack hatched and communicated entirely within the US since they're a foreign intelligence agency - by statute their focus is on foreign threats and they're not allowed to collect against people inside the United States. That's why, for example, congress called the FBI Director to question regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, not the NSA Director[1]. The NSA would only be able to help with terrorist attacks against the US planned by international terrorist groups or terrorist attacks purely directed overseas. That's not to say that US targeting of foreign terrorist threats doesn't have a purpose. We have lots of diplomats, soldiers, etc. serving overseas, not to mention aiding foreign partners. I think the terrorism card has been played a bit too much by the administration. Yes, there is a threat, but it's much more of a threat to embassy staff and military overseas than ordinary Americans. I think it's used as justification because it's easier for Americans to see terrorists as threatening after the 9/11 attacks. It's harder for the average American to feel threatened by foreign spies and state-sponsored hackers, or see the value in spying on foreign government officials. The parties who stand to benefit from cutting back NSA spying are the people who are targeted by it. Most of the articles that come out just show how the NSA is conducting their collection and then pass on assumptions that they must be targeting everyone. The NYT article we're discussing today actually goes into some detail on who they're targeting. Any tradeoff discussion needs to focus what they're actually doing and whether or not the US would be better without it. The problem of who they could be targeting can be dealt with using proper oversight and legal frameworks - we have an armed police force but don't live in fear of random officers breaking into our homes and gunning down our families. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/fbi-prevent-boston-bombing-marthon-attack_n_3691819.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/fbi-prevent-boston-...

a3n 13y ago

> To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA? That assumes the NSA is keeping me alive. I'm not convinced. Also, it's supposed to be the FBI that investigates domestic security and crimes. And whoever's doing it, it's supposed to be specific, not everyone. One might ask, are you better off watched, or Constitutionally free?

walshemj 13y ago
But J Edgar Hoover and the FBI in the past did all the sort of things your worried about the NSA doing but unless Snowden is keeping something really juicy back are not? So you would trust a proven bad actor against one where there is no evidence as yet ?
- a3n 13y ago
  No, I assume they're dirty too. I'm just pointing out they aren't where they're supposed to be.

giardini 13y ago

" it's plausible to believe that many threats against american assets are hatched in the US and communicated in the US." Where's the beef? There is none. If the NSA does not justify it's existence in an open forum then we must dismantle it. And it is not enough to prove that the NSA intercepted an operation; it must be proven that, in the absence of the NSA, the same interception would not have occurred and that consequently something significantly evil would have occurred. There are plenty of other federal, state and local agencies that collect information in a legal and constitutionally-mandated manner and they have proven very effective. "To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA?" Nonsensical scare-mongering.

saraid216 13y ago
> If the NSA does not justify it's existence in an open forum then we must dismantle it. Wow. Please justify your existence or face dismantlement.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- DanTheManPR 13y ago
  If a government agency cannot justify it's existence, then why NOT dismantle it?

kabdib 13y ago

That's a false choice. There are many other options. - NSA with real teeth in the provisions for "don't spy on US citizens", or lying about same. - NSA with effective, non-crony oversight. - NSA with less influence over cryptographic research (maybe we need to split out crypto into an arm of the government that isn't involve in intelligence activities. NIST might be a good choice). - NSA absolutely forbidden to "back door" US designed hardware and software. There are lots of choices other than "You can have the NSA we have today, or you can be roadkill." (It's also unclear that the "OMG terrorist" argument is valid -- like "think of the children," I'm pretty sick of unexamined arguments that appear to be rooted in creating fear).

nthj 13y ago

> are you better off dead or with the NSA? The more things change, the more things stay the same: ”Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

kazagistar 13y ago

I'll just leave this here... http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3005 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3005

acabal 13y ago

That's a false dichotomy. If the NSA disappeared tomorrow we would not all be dead thanks to terrorists or whatever. Instead, the question is one of acceptable risk. The concept of risk is something the American public has seemed to have completely forgotten about. The (anecdotally) general attitude that has evolved in America is one of pigeonholing things into black and white, of "zero tolerance" and "any risk is unacceptable", rather than one of rationally weighing the pros and cons of a complex, grey situation. One doesn't have to look very far back in history to see the massively life-crushing power a surveillance state can wield. Just look back 30 or 40 years--that might easily be in your own lifetime--to see the millions of lives worsened or even ended thanks to surveillance-based societies. America obviously isn't at that stage yet, but as Binney said, we're at the point where all it would take is to turn a key and we'd be there overnight. Compare that to the risk of what the NSA is purportedly protecting us against. Between 2007-2011 your chances of dying in a terrorist attack were 1 in 20 million [1]. Meanwhile the chance of dying in a car accident is 1 in 19,000; of drowning in a bathtub 1 in 800,000; of dying by getting hit by lighting 1 in 5.5 million. [2] How can we justify constructing a turnkey surveillance state to "protect" us against the risk of terrorism, while simultaneously not justifying constructing a global weather-control system to end the risk of lightning strikes? Or a nationwide ban on bathtubs to end the risk of bathtub drownings? Or shutting down all the freeways to end the risk of car accidents? We're all going to die somehow, and setting foot outside of your house carries a risk that a ladder might fall on your head, or that you'll slip in a puddle and break your neck. And yet we're totally OK with constructing the largest surveillance apparatus human history has ever seen to "protect" us against a 1 in 20 million chance that some lunatic will set off a bomb somewhere. How did our ability to assess and, most importantly, accept the reality of everyday risk go so completely bonkers? [1] http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/ http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-t... [2] http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terroris...

OvidNaso 13y ago

*To put it differently: are you better off dead or with the NSA? To put some perspective on terrorism. A 9/11 size event would have to occur every 6 weeks to approach the causality rate from automobile accidents.

csandreasen 13y ago

The NSA will never be able to prevent a terrorist attack hatched and communicated entirely within the US since they're a foreign intelligence agency - by statute their focus is on foreign threats and they're not allowed to collect against people inside the United States. That's why, for example, congress called the FBI Director to question regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, not the NSA Director[1]. The NSA would only be able to help with terrorist attacks against the US planned by international terrorist groups or terrorist attacks purely directed overseas. That's not to say that US targeting of foreign terrorist threats doesn't have a purpose. We have lots of diplomats, soldiers, etc. serving overseas, not to mention aiding foreign partners. I think the terrorism card has been played a bit too much by the administration. Yes, there is a threat, but it's much more of a threat to embassy staff and military overseas than ordinary Americans. I think it's used as justification because it's easier for Americans to see terrorists as threatening after the 9/11 attacks. It's harder for the average American to feel threatened by foreign spies and state-sponsored hackers, or see the value in spying on foreign government officials. The parties who stand to benefit from cutting back NSA spying are the people who are targeted by it. Most of the articles that come out just show how the NSA is conducting their collection and then pass on assumptions that they must be targeting everyone. The NYT article we're discussing today actually goes into some detail on who they're targeting. Any tradeoff discussion needs to focus what they're actually doing and whether or not the US would be better without it. The problem of who they could be targeting can be dealt with using proper oversight and legal frameworks - we have an armed police force but don't live in fear of random officers breaking into our homes and gunning down our families. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/fbi-prevent-boston-bombing-marthon-attack_n_3691819.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/fbi-prevent-boston-...