6 ms·

The NSA keeps using this "54 terror plots thwarted" rhetoric, but there has never been any information released to back up that claim. From Sen. Patrick Leahy,

by jobu 12y ago

The NSA keeps using this "54 terror plots thwarted" rhetoric, but there has never been any information released to back up that claim. From Sen. Patrick Leahy, after reading the full classified list: “We've heard over and over again the assertion that 54 terrorist plots were thwarted” by the two programs, Leahy told Alexander at the Judiciary Committee hearing this month. “That's plainly wrong, but we still get it in letters to members of Congress, we get it in statements. These weren't all plots and they weren't all thwarted. The American people are getting left with the inaccurate impression of the effectiveness of NSA programs.” (http://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-by-nsa-spreads-despite-lack-of-evidence http://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-...)

burke 12y ago
Further, even assuming that number is correct, how many people do you figure die in the average successful terrorist plot? Let's say 100 as a high average. That means 300,000,000 Americans (and billions of foreigners) are having their rights violated and wallets emptied via taxation every day to save 5400 lives over the course of 14 years. Admittedly, it's 55% more likely than getting struck by lightning, but...
- 0xffff2 12y ago
  According to this[1] list, 100 would be vastly over estimating. Even including 9/11, and disregarding all incidents with no fatalities, the average based on the GTD data is about 12.5. If you are willing to concede that 9/11 was a once-in-ever event that is unlikely to be matched, then the number drops below 2. And that's probably still a vast overstatement of the likely fatalities for any given plot, given that 2103 of the 2381 recorded by the GTD have 0 fatalities. [1] http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=217&count=100 http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatal...
  - boyaka 12y ago
    What is up with those fatality numbers? Kinda weird it's exactly 1382 for both towers.
    - Forbo 12y ago
      My assumption is that they took the total fatalities for the incident, then divided it between the two. So in actuality, the number of fatalities was 2,764, but they divided it between the two sites of attack. That's my assumption though and it could be completely off base.
      - boyaka 12y ago
        Ahh yeah makes sense. Both the summaries have the same number stating the combined total of both towers (2603). Best I can figure is 2603 + 88 (Flight 11) + 59 (Flight 175) + 10 hijackers = 2760
- CHY872 12y ago
  I'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is - largely because there are many costs of terrorism beyond simply loss of life - it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. For example, some estimates of the cost of 9/11 (I think including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan) suggest that each American is out to the tune of $10,000 [0]. If the NSA were able to prevent one 9/11 style event, they'd in one step justify their budget for 300 years (if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, it goes down to 75 years, but in many ways at least Afghanistan was very much caused by 9/11). [0] - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-rec...
  - yesbabyyes 12y ago
    I'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is I'm not saying that wasn't a bad play of words. You may be willing to give up your liberty, but I, and many with me, are not. Terrorists are trolls; dear people of US and the world, please stop feeding them. The same goes for war mongers of all stripes.
  - eyeface 12y ago
    Fair, but there have to be some diminishing returns there. If there had been two 9/11 style events in short succession, would we have gone to twice as many wars?
    - burke 12y ago
      We didn't really go to war because of 9/11. It was a direct result of existing interventionist foreign policy. 9/11 just escalated an ongoing conflict. You're right, though, the impact of each successive event is less.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    > it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. Only if a nation builds a domestic spy program, and intrusive and expensive domestic security apparatus, and starts multi-trillion dollar wars in places that say Graveyard of Empires right on the label. Who would be such idiots?
csandreasen 12y ago
Maybe it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I think most of the attacks against the 54 number are strawmen. Here's the actual figures that were claimed (from [1]): Gen. Keith Alexander said these programs enabled the United States to disrupt 54 "events," 42 of which "involved disrupted plots." Of those 54: 12 involved cases of material support to terrorists; 50 lead to arrests or detentions; 25 occurred in Europe; 11 were in Asia; 5 were in Africa; 13 had a homeland nexus. Forty-one of the terrorist activities did not involve events in the United States, Alexander said. Alexander went on to say that in 53 of the 54 cases, data collected under Section 702 provided the initial tip to "unravel the threat stream." He said that almost half of terrorist reporting comes from Section 702, ... ... and the associated infographic: [2]. Your own link states that the NSA claimed 42 plots and 12 instances of material support. Senator Leahy's quote speaks more to both the media game of telephone than the NSA's claims and the fact that the figures from the Section 215 program (bulk phone metadata) were being conflated with the Section 702 program (PRISM). As a result, this article and a whole slew of other articles try to tie the 54 plots in with the Section 215 program, when right from the beginning General Alexander was stating that the overwhelming majority came from Section 702 collection. Draw what conclusion you may want from those numbers - three commissions have done so over the last year and concluded that PRISM was incredibly valuable[3], but the bulk phone records not so much[4][5] - but, that doesn't say much about the 54 number. [1] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19175466-nsa-chief-says-surveillance-programs-helped-foil-54-plots http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19175466-nsa-chie... [2] http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/802269-untitled0001.html http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/802269-untitled0001... [3] http://www.pclob.gov/Library/702-Report-2.pdf http://www.pclob.gov/Library/702-Report-2.pdf [4] http://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf http://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Rec... [5] http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Final-Report-RG.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Final-...
- spammyusername 12y ago
  Maybe it's nitpicking, maybe not. But you're saying one unconstitutional, immoral, wasteful program has been deemed useful by a corrupt and inept body, and the other hasn't. That's a really great idea I'll consider carefully.
jacquesm 12y ago
That number probably includes the ones where the authorities supplied means and opportunity and the 'terrorists' supplied only stupidity and motive.
SapphireSun 12y ago
So I was reading an article about information Snowden released the other day about how the US is gearing up for cyberwar. It occurred to me that it has to be obvious that NSA is aware aware of its limitations in performing counterterrorism using this needle/haystack approach. While there have been some documented abuses of the system, it's not clear that they have been systematically useful to its operators on a scale large enough to justify the program's spending and civil rights implications. President Obama is a constitutional scholar, but he backs the rhetoric even as he tries to close Guantanamo Bay. I wonder if this concept of total information awareness justified by terrorism is in fact primarily a way to set up information warfare capabilities in a way that is palatable to the public. E.g. PRISM is a way to monitor network traffic globally, very useful in a war. NSA and the executive branch clearly believe they are doing something so righteous that it justifies excessive breaches of civil liberties, lying to congress, and more. While I strongly disagree with them, I am beginning to suspect that these are preparations for some kind of global cyber war. If the preparations are good, the executive branch would be convinced that history would vindicate them, otherwise I'm fairly sure without sufficient justification, historians would see this as a 1984 scenario and punish their legacies harshly.
- sasas 12y ago
  Highly recommend "@War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex" [1] by Shane Harris which goes into fascinating detail on how the "US is gearing up for cyberwar" [1] http://www.amazon.com/War-The-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex-ebook/dp/B00HP6T7V0 http://www.amazon.com/War-The-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex...
- click170 12y ago
  Wouldn't part of preparing for cyber war include shoring up your local defenses? But instead of increasing security requirements or making software vendors somehow liable for bugs they produce, they're still going with lowest common denominator tactics for defense contract procurement. Because of this, I have a hard time seeing this as preparing for cyber war in any way other than aggression tactics. I see little evidence of increased defense focus at home.
  - 12y ago

by jobu 12y ago

burke 12y ago

Further, even assuming that number is correct, how many people do you figure die in the average successful terrorist plot? Let's say 100 as a high average. That means 300,000,000 Americans (and billions of foreigners) are having their rights violated and wallets emptied via taxation every day to save 5400 lives over the course of 14 years. Admittedly, it's 55% more likely than getting struck by lightning, but...

0xffff2 12y ago
According to this[1] list, 100 would be vastly over estimating. Even including 9/11, and disregarding all incidents with no fatalities, the average based on the GTD data is about 12.5. If you are willing to concede that 9/11 was a once-in-ever event that is unlikely to be matched, then the number drops below 2. And that's probably still a vast overstatement of the likely fatalities for any given plot, given that 2103 of the 2381 recorded by the GTD have 0 fatalities. [1] http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=217&count=100 http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatal...
- boyaka 12y ago
  What is up with those fatality numbers? Kinda weird it's exactly 1382 for both towers.
  - Forbo 12y ago
    My assumption is that they took the total fatalities for the incident, then divided it between the two. So in actuality, the number of fatalities was 2,764, but they divided it between the two sites of attack. That's my assumption though and it could be completely off base.
    - boyaka 12y ago
      Ahh yeah makes sense. Both the summaries have the same number stating the combined total of both towers (2603). Best I can figure is 2603 + 88 (Flight 11) + 59 (Flight 175) + 10 hijackers = 2760
CHY872 12y ago
I'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is - largely because there are many costs of terrorism beyond simply loss of life - it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. For example, some estimates of the cost of 9/11 (I think including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan) suggest that each American is out to the tune of $10,000 [0]. If the NSA were able to prevent one 9/11 style event, they'd in one step justify their budget for 300 years (if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, it goes down to 75 years, but in many ways at least Afghanistan was very much caused by 9/11). [0] - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-rec...
- yesbabyyes 12y ago
  I'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is I'm not saying that wasn't a bad play of words. You may be willing to give up your liberty, but I, and many with me, are not. Terrorists are trolls; dear people of US and the world, please stop feeding them. The same goes for war mongers of all stripes.
- eyeface 12y ago
  Fair, but there have to be some diminishing returns there. If there had been two 9/11 style events in short succession, would we have gone to twice as many wars?
  - burke 12y ago
    We didn't really go to war because of 9/11. It was a direct result of existing interventionist foreign policy. 9/11 just escalated an ongoing conflict. You're right, though, the impact of each successive event is less.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. Only if a nation builds a domestic spy program, and intrusive and expensive domestic security apparatus, and starts multi-trillion dollar wars in places that say Graveyard of Empires right on the label. Who would be such idiots?

csandreasen 12y ago

Maybe it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I think most of the attacks against the 54 number are strawmen. Here's the actual figures that were claimed (from [1]): Gen. Keith Alexander said these programs enabled the United States to disrupt 54 "events," 42 of which "involved disrupted plots." Of those 54: 12 involved cases of material support to terrorists; 50 lead to arrests or detentions; 25 occurred in Europe; 11 were in Asia; 5 were in Africa; 13 had a homeland nexus. Forty-one of the terrorist activities did not involve events in the United States, Alexander said. Alexander went on to say that in 53 of the 54 cases, data collected under Section 702 provided the initial tip to "unravel the threat stream." He said that almost half of terrorist reporting comes from Section 702, ... ... and the associated infographic: [2]. Your own link states that the NSA claimed 42 plots and 12 instances of material support. Senator Leahy's quote speaks more to both the media game of telephone than the NSA's claims and the fact that the figures from the Section 215 program (bulk phone metadata) were being conflated with the Section 702 program (PRISM). As a result, this article and a whole slew of other articles try to tie the 54 plots in with the Section 215 program, when right from the beginning General Alexander was stating that the overwhelming majority came from Section 702 collection. Draw what conclusion you may want from those numbers - three commissions have done so over the last year and concluded that PRISM was incredibly valuable[3], but the bulk phone records not so much[4][5] - but, that doesn't say much about the 54 number. [1] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19175466-nsa-chief-says-surveillance-programs-helped-foil-54-plots http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19175466-nsa-chie... [2] http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/802269-untitled0001.html http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/802269-untitled0001... [3] http://www.pclob.gov/Library/702-Report-2.pdf http://www.pclob.gov/Library/702-Report-2.pdf [4] http://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf http://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Rec... [5] http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Final-Report-RG.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Final-...

spammyusername 12y ago
Maybe it's nitpicking, maybe not. But you're saying one unconstitutional, immoral, wasteful program has been deemed useful by a corrupt and inept body, and the other hasn't. That's a really great idea I'll consider carefully.

jacquesm 12y ago

That number probably includes the ones where the authorities supplied means and opportunity and the 'terrorists' supplied only stupidity and motive.

SapphireSun 12y ago

So I was reading an article about information Snowden released the other day about how the US is gearing up for cyberwar. It occurred to me that it has to be obvious that NSA is aware aware of its limitations in performing counterterrorism using this needle/haystack approach. While there have been some documented abuses of the system, it's not clear that they have been systematically useful to its operators on a scale large enough to justify the program's spending and civil rights implications. President Obama is a constitutional scholar, but he backs the rhetoric even as he tries to close Guantanamo Bay. I wonder if this concept of total information awareness justified by terrorism is in fact primarily a way to set up information warfare capabilities in a way that is palatable to the public. E.g. PRISM is a way to monitor network traffic globally, very useful in a war. NSA and the executive branch clearly believe they are doing something so righteous that it justifies excessive breaches of civil liberties, lying to congress, and more. While I strongly disagree with them, I am beginning to suspect that these are preparations for some kind of global cyber war. If the preparations are good, the executive branch would be convinced that history would vindicate them, otherwise I'm fairly sure without sufficient justification, historians would see this as a 1984 scenario and punish their legacies harshly.

sasas 12y ago
Highly recommend "@War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex" [1] by Shane Harris which goes into fascinating detail on how the "US is gearing up for cyberwar" [1] http://www.amazon.com/War-The-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex-ebook/dp/B00HP6T7V0 http://www.amazon.com/War-The-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex...
click170 12y ago
Wouldn't part of preparing for cyber war include shoring up your local defenses? But instead of increasing security requirements or making software vendors somehow liable for bugs they produce, they're still going with lowest common denominator tactics for defense contract procurement. Because of this, I have a hard time seeing this as preparing for cyber war in any way other than aggression tactics. I see little evidence of increased defense focus at home.
- 12y ago