5 ms·

If the "terrorists" are following this whole story, wouldn't now be a prime time for another attack? This could have the effect of validating the NSA's activit

If the "terrorists" are following this whole story, wouldn't now be a prime time for another attack? This could have the effect of validating the NSA's activities in many Americans' eyes ("see, the NSA is unable to its job without invading our privacy") and we would see a whole new round of new laws capitalizing on Americans' fears of terrorists (which means their terrorism succeeded).

visakanv 13y ago
True. Which might suggest that "the terrorists" aren't nearly the perfect, rational villains we paint them out to be.
jessedhillon 13y ago
Assumption #1 in your comment: NSA activities have not and are unable to stop arbitrary terror attacks at all. Assumption #2: That successful attacks in this scenario would lead (reasonable or otherwise) people to demand less surveillance. Assumption #3: Terrorists want to the NSA programs ended, which would not make sense if #1 is true. So I'm not sure why this would be a good strategy for anyone.
- visakanv 13y ago
  I think you misinterpreted the comment. It's arguing that now would be the optimal time for terrorists to strike, validating the NSA.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    And strengthening the NSA would directly cause the further fall of the USA. The cheapest way to to attack the USA as an institution is to attack the USA in way the gives the most radical factions power in the short term.
    - d0ugie 13y ago
      Farther, not further, when referring to distance, even if that distance is figurative.
      - sitkack 13y ago
        Wether or knot I take you're advice, it is a suite tip.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    I guess I'd be wondering how the NSA failed to prevent the attack, with all these NSA revelations coming out every few days. I already wonder why I'm still getting illegal telemarketers' calls, why the drug cartels still operate, why so much evil in this world continues with the omniscient NSA. j/k I don't really wonder...
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      Yeah, I had the same thought about "Rachel from Card Servives" robo-calls. Apparently those go through more-or-less illegally obtained cut-outs, but the NSA is in a unique position to go after those Card Services jerks. Then I thought, hey, it's just like bus transit: the rich folks don't ride buses, so that kind of utility gets no money. The NSA, uh, people, don't get robo-calls, so they don't see the problem.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    I don't disagree that that is how it would be portrayed by the media and viewed by the public. But a thinking man would argue otherwise, since it would mean that a terrorist attacked just when the NSA had the most amount of information available ever. A terrorist attack right now would show that dragnet surveillance on top of being Orwellian is also ineffective. When you're looking for more needles, collecting more hay without extremely powerful tools for hay processing is insanity.
- acgourley 13y ago
  I think you have #3 wrong - parent is saying terrorists want NSA programs expanded.
  - davepage 13y ago
    OP is saying NSA wants "terrorist" programs expanded.
- woah 13y ago
  In your post: Assumption #1: What is good for terrorists is bad for the NSA. I think you will find that terrorist's successes have a very beneficial effect on the power and budget of the NSA. Look at what 9/11 did for them.
pavanred 13y ago
Or perhaps time for a compelling "wag the dog" attack!
snowwrestler 13y ago
The NSA makes the lives of terrorists much harder than it would be otherwise. Terrorists undoubtedly welcome Snowden's revelations--both for revealing tactics, and for creating the possibility that the NSA will be constrained by public outrage. That doesn't imply that what Snowden did was wrong, though. We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.
- pnathan 13y ago
  > We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data. This is something really important: it's not out-of-the-box obviously wrong (talk to people who aren't into civil liberties for this perspective) that our communications are monitored. But it is very important that, as US citizens, we have an understanding and a grasp of what is done and what could be done in our name, and that we regulate its activities based upon our choices, not that of shadowy figures telling us we don't have the capacity to understand. As a representative democracy, we have the right to be informed and to select representatives & leaders who take policies that we can agree (up to majority) on.
  - jgg 13y ago
    I disagree entirely. The genius behind the the US Constitution was its acceptance of the idea that power, no matter how just, will eventually corrupt, which is why our freedoms were supposed to be rather absolute. I think there are almost no sane reasons to infringe on a basic human right in general: the burden of proof should be on the government to do it selectively, and even then it should be treated with great scepticism. Further, we have almost no power as a representative "democracy": the public can't recall a representative at all, for example, and it is only done by an internal chamber discussion (it has happened very few times in the history of the US). Thus, we're really not supposed to "vote away" basic, sane axioms in the first place. The point of the US was to have those rights held firmly in place, and for its citizenry to use their right to bear arms to protect themselves against a government that tried to take them away. It's indicative of the US's culture at this point that stating this position (which is easily backed up by many of the founding fathers' writing) brands you as a "libertarian wingnut" or "on the fringe." Am I advocating violent revolt now? No, because most would not actually know what to revolt against (and probably don't perceive the corporate/government power structure in place in the US). Then again, any attempt to do the aforementioned has failed in this country. A great example are the Alien and Sedition acts, which were passed conveniently around the time of the French Revolution.
Houshalter 13y ago
That isn't the goal of any terrorist organization as far as I know. And terrorists aren't that rational or effective to begin with.
morganherlocker 13y ago
While the whole "if we do X then the terrorists win" phrase might be largely accurate, I kind of doubt that it is planned that way.
diminoten 13y ago
What makes you think the NSA has stopped doing its job?

visakanv 13y ago

True. Which might suggest that "the terrorists" aren't nearly the perfect, rational villains we paint them out to be.

jessedhillon 13y ago

Assumption #1 in your comment: NSA activities have not and are unable to stop arbitrary terror attacks at all. Assumption #2: That successful attacks in this scenario would lead (reasonable or otherwise) people to demand less surveillance. Assumption #3: Terrorists want to the NSA programs ended, which would not make sense if #1 is true. So I'm not sure why this would be a good strategy for anyone.

visakanv 13y ago
I think you misinterpreted the comment. It's arguing that now would be the optimal time for terrorists to strike, validating the NSA.
- sitkack 13y ago
  And strengthening the NSA would directly cause the further fall of the USA. The cheapest way to to attack the USA as an institution is to attack the USA in way the gives the most radical factions power in the short term.
  - d0ugie 13y ago
    Farther, not further, when referring to distance, even if that distance is figurative.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Wether or knot I take you're advice, it is a suite tip.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I guess I'd be wondering how the NSA failed to prevent the attack, with all these NSA revelations coming out every few days. I already wonder why I'm still getting illegal telemarketers' calls, why the drug cartels still operate, why so much evil in this world continues with the omniscient NSA. j/k I don't really wonder...
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    Yeah, I had the same thought about "Rachel from Card Servives" robo-calls. Apparently those go through more-or-less illegally obtained cut-outs, but the NSA is in a unique position to go after those Card Services jerks. Then I thought, hey, it's just like bus transit: the rich folks don't ride buses, so that kind of utility gets no money. The NSA, uh, people, don't get robo-calls, so they don't see the problem.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I don't disagree that that is how it would be portrayed by the media and viewed by the public. But a thinking man would argue otherwise, since it would mean that a terrorist attacked just when the NSA had the most amount of information available ever. A terrorist attack right now would show that dragnet surveillance on top of being Orwellian is also ineffective. When you're looking for more needles, collecting more hay without extremely powerful tools for hay processing is insanity.
acgourley 13y ago
I think you have #3 wrong - parent is saying terrorists want NSA programs expanded.
- davepage 13y ago
  OP is saying NSA wants "terrorist" programs expanded.
woah 13y ago
In your post: Assumption #1: What is good for terrorists is bad for the NSA. I think you will find that terrorist's successes have a very beneficial effect on the power and budget of the NSA. Look at what 9/11 did for them.

pavanred 13y ago

Or perhaps time for a compelling "wag the dog" attack!

snowwrestler 13y ago

The NSA makes the lives of terrorists much harder than it would be otherwise. Terrorists undoubtedly welcome Snowden's revelations--both for revealing tactics, and for creating the possibility that the NSA will be constrained by public outrage. That doesn't imply that what Snowden did was wrong, though. We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.

pnathan 13y ago
> We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data. This is something really important: it's not out-of-the-box obviously wrong (talk to people who aren't into civil liberties for this perspective) that our communications are monitored. But it is very important that, as US citizens, we have an understanding and a grasp of what is done and what could be done in our name, and that we regulate its activities based upon our choices, not that of shadowy figures telling us we don't have the capacity to understand. As a representative democracy, we have the right to be informed and to select representatives & leaders who take policies that we can agree (up to majority) on.
- jgg 13y ago
  I disagree entirely. The genius behind the the US Constitution was its acceptance of the idea that power, no matter how just, will eventually corrupt, which is why our freedoms were supposed to be rather absolute. I think there are almost no sane reasons to infringe on a basic human right in general: the burden of proof should be on the government to do it selectively, and even then it should be treated with great scepticism. Further, we have almost no power as a representative "democracy": the public can't recall a representative at all, for example, and it is only done by an internal chamber discussion (it has happened very few times in the history of the US). Thus, we're really not supposed to "vote away" basic, sane axioms in the first place. The point of the US was to have those rights held firmly in place, and for its citizenry to use their right to bear arms to protect themselves against a government that tried to take them away. It's indicative of the US's culture at this point that stating this position (which is easily backed up by many of the founding fathers' writing) brands you as a "libertarian wingnut" or "on the fringe." Am I advocating violent revolt now? No, because most would not actually know what to revolt against (and probably don't perceive the corporate/government power structure in place in the US). Then again, any attempt to do the aforementioned has failed in this country. A great example are the Alien and Sedition acts, which were passed conveniently around the time of the French Revolution.

Houshalter 13y ago

That isn't the goal of any terrorist organization as far as I know. And terrorists aren't that rational or effective to begin with.

morganherlocker 13y ago

While the whole "if we do X then the terrorists win" phrase might be largely accurate, I kind of doubt that it is planned that way.

diminoten 13y ago

What makes you think the NSA has stopped doing its job?