What is the argument against Snowden

[Marley23]

@DrCube

Not only that, but I haven’t met a single person who has a problem with spying on terrorists, Snowden included. The problem is spying on literally everyone else. Get a warrant and spy on terrorists all you want, NSA. That’s your job. Leave the rest of us alone.

There’s some gray area in there; this is partly about figuring out who the terrorists are in the first place. But they don’t need to cast this absurdly large net to do it. They don’t know what to do with all the crap they’re collecting. The only thing they’re really good at is figuring out how to collect more and more raw data.

It’s literally only good for blackmailing your political enemies. Call me paranoid, but I’d bet money the NSA was behind Eliot Spitzer, Herman Cain, David Petraeus, and other scandals from the last few years.

There have always been political scandals. Spitzer’s problem was that the FBI looked into both the prostitution ring he patronized and his bank records (because based on his finances his bank was afraid he was being blackmailed). I think other people in the FBI got Petraeus. Cain’s dick swinging was brought to light by Jon Huntsman Sr.- also the guy who told Harry Reid that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes.

@The_Controvert

Successful terrorist plots tend to require coordination and sharing of information.

Yes. It’s gotten harder to do that, which is why we’re seeing fewer September 11ths and more lone wolf stuff. That’s a good thing, but it’s also sensible to discuss the cost.

You mention the ignition failure. Do you suppose if this guy had better information, perhaps he might have had a more successful attack?

It wasn’t about information, it was about competence. He’d been trained in bomb making and did a shitty job. Same thing with Richard Reid, who couldn’t light his shoe bomb because he was sweating too much. NSA surveillance is not going to stop that, and it seems like it still isn’t doing the job.

Without Snowden, we have a higher likelihood of getting an intercept, leading to a foiled plot. This is because people used the internet and phone without giving it a second thought.

You are dead wrong, and I already explained this. Terrorists already knew that using the phone and internet was dangerous. If you think terrorists didn’t know their phone lines or emails might get hacked until May of this year, you are living in a fantasy populated by dumb cartoon terrorists. What happened as a result of Snowden is the rest of us might have second thoughts about the phone and the internet because we might be spied on.

p.s. There are other foiled plots that aren’t listed because we don’t publicize everything.

Right. The NSA’s track record is so great that Alexander felt he had to exaggerate it by 50 foiled plots.

[Miller]

@The_Controvert

Hah, thread resolved. Thanks, internet!

When the best evidence your chief apologist can come up with is “maybe one or two” examples, that’s not exactly a slam-dunk win for your side.

[Deeg]

@The_Controvert

Sure, be glad to! Here’s a bunch of foiled terrorist attempts that are less likely to be foiled post Snowden. Enjoy.

You need to explain why Snowden’s actions make it less likely to foil attacks. I think most of us, regardless of what we think of Snowden, want the actions of the NSA curtailed. Your argument indicates to me that you think the current surveillance by the NSA is right and proper. Is this true?

[Evil_Captor]

@The_Controvert

Hah, thread resolved. Thanks, internet!

As for why, I didn’t think it was necessary to go into detail. But since some folks fail to grasp the concept…

Successful terrorist plots tend to require coordination and sharing of information. The plots that fail are either poorly planned, or lacking in key information. You mention the ignition failure. Do you suppose if this guy had better information, perhaps he might have had a more successful attack?

Now consider how the authorities foil plots. If the bad guys try to get better information or better coordination, they must communicate. Each time that happens is a chance to be busted. Without Snowden, we have a higher likelihood of getting an intercept, leading to a foiled plot. This is because people used the internet and phone without giving it a second thought.

As for intercept avoidance, yes proper spycraft can allow end-runs around monitoring. But many terrorists are losers who lack the discipline to follow intercept avoidance methodologies. And when there’s a faster, more convenient option, that can be attractive and alluring.

p.s. There are other foiled plots that aren’t listed because we don’t publicize everything.

People who would give up essential freedoms for security deserve neither. – Ben Franklin

You deserve neither.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Marley23

It’s not important in light of what’s going on here. He did break the law, but it seems the NSA has also been breaking the law and its actions affect far more people in a more significant way. And there was no obvious legal way to make this issue public. At least two Senators were opposed to these programs and felt they couldn’t even discuss them publicly.

I’d say the whistleblowing itself has affected all of us in the sense that, at a time when we are finally winding down the overt warfare in western Asia, we now have this fresh batch of raw eggs on our face, an embarrassment, I would think, to any American who has to deal with any of the other countries involved on a personal level. When I had my year in Europe we were only five or so years past the end of our Vietnam involvement, but I don’t remember anything approaching this level of outrage.

Not everybody spies to this extent and for these reasons. Basically everybody spies, but not everyone spies to this enormous degree on its own citizens and on friendly nations for reasons not related to national security.

Everyone doesn’t spy to the same extent, but they do spy some. And we’re hearing almost entirely about the role of the United States in this, with only occasional mentions of how the intelligence services of other countries collaborated, almost as an afterthought. This probably comes from the fact that Snowden is himself American, and this is the data to which he had access. Many people from several players on the world stage are involved in this, but it’s mostly those from jut one country who are now being castigated.

This doesn’t make it right to spy on foreign populations, but then I’m not convinced that most of what we’ve been hearing about actually is spying. For example, I have never once confused the Internet generally or any email provider specifically with a personal wall safe or bank safe deposit box, and I’ve always done my best to manage my online behavior accordingly. By the same token, neither have I ever assumed that the metadata from my mobile or land line is inviolate. If nothing else, telephone companies probably started logging everybody’s calls from day one, and I’d be surprised if they have ever been unwilling to surrender customer metadata on probable cause. In short, I have never had the expectation of true privacy when it comes to anything involving remote communications, so while I do see the potential problems with regard to due process and such, I’m not feeling the general outrage and hysteria.

[Marley23]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

I’d say the whistleblowing itself has affected all of us in the sense that, at a time when we are finally winding down the overt warfare in western Asia, we now have this fresh batch of raw eggs on our face, an embarrassment, I would think, to any American who has to deal with any of the other countries involved on a personal level. When I had my year in Europe we were only five or so years past the end of our Vietnam involvement, but I don’t remember anything approaching this level of outrage.

The embarrassing thing is that this was happening.

This doesn’t make it right to spy on foreign populations, but then I’m not convinced that most of what we’ve been hearing about actually is spying.

This seems like it’s mostly a semantic quibble. Tapping a diplomat’s phone or bugging consulates is spying by any definition. Whether you call the other stuff spying or not, you’re talking about vast and indiscriminate and practically unsupervised collection of the communications of huge numbers of people who didn’t do anything.

For example, I have never once confused the Internet generally or any email provider specifically with a personal wall safe or bank safe deposit box, and I’ve always done my best to manage my online behavior accordingly.

Did you believe the government might be logging your activity if it thought there was a 50-50 chance you were foreign? Did you think it might be hacking into databases of more or less every major internet company?

By the same token, neither have I ever assumed that the metadata from my mobile or land line is inviolate. If nothing else, telephone companies probably started logging everybody’s calls from day one, and I’d be surprised if they have ever been unwilling to surrender customer metadata on probable cause.

The collection of metadata is Constitutional, at least in some contexts. The internet data isn’t metadata, it’s the actual communications.

while I do see the potential problems with regard to due process and such, I’m not feeling the general outrage and hysteria.

I think we’re past potential problems with regard to due process. There’s very little due process here, and the secret courts (hoo boy) supervising this process are rubber stamping just about everything the government is doing.

[Leaper]

@Evil_Captor

Clear to any rational member of the general public. Snowden’s revelations have made it clear that the NSA has greatly exceeded the scope of it’s authority and is basically an out of control snooping machine. If you disagree, you are not rational, at this point.

So yes, individuals within the government should (without consequence, probably?) be able to apply their individual judgment as to whether secrets they have access to should remain secret or not.

(Not condemning — just making sure I get it. If I don’t, please correct.)

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Marley23

I think we’re past potential problems with regard to due process. There’s very little due process here, and the secret courts (hoo boy) supervising this process are rubber stamping just about everything the government is doing.

But to what extent is anyone being prosecuted, imprisoned, or deported as a result of the data so gleaned? I’ m not arguing with you here; I really wish to know, and I 'm not sure I’m getting a balanced picture from my usual news sources.

I think I can most succinctly state my position thus: What the government knows about me per se doesn’ t concern me as much as what a bad government might do with that knowledge. And for that to become an issue at all, someone would have to decide to look at my activity, out of that of millions of other people.

[Marley23]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

But to what extent is anyone being prosecuted, imprisoned, or deported as a result of the data so gleaned?

I’m not sure anyone is being prosecuted. If this information has only been used against a couple of terrorists I doubt anybody could use it to prosecute anyone even if they wanted to. The problem to me is that it’s a huge, unnecessary and unregulated intrusion of everyone’s privacy. The government seems pretty good at maneuvering stupid terrorist wannabes straight into prison, which raises some other significant concerns, but I don’t think they need this kind of data hoovering for that.

I think I can most succinctly state my position thus: What the government knows about me per se doesn’ t concern me as much as what a bad government might do with that knowledge. And for that to become an issue at all, someone would have to decide to look at my activity, out of that of millions of other people.

All you’d have to do is be in touch with someone who is in touch with someone from the wrong country.