NSA Orders Phone Records of Millions Collected

[GoSlash27]

And I'm not disputing the logic behind the numbers argument, GoSlash, but I will say that it's a losing campaign ticket. People don't always think in terms of probability. There's a much higher probability of dying from skin cancer than a shark attack at the beach, in fact the risk of a shark attack is astronomically low, but that doesn't stop beaches from putting up shark nets. It may be irrational, but ultimately the beaches that refuse to put up shark nets in some areas of the world lose out on tourism. It's just the way people think.

And frankly, we're all subject to this kind of bias. A terrorist bombing that kills 3 shocks the nation while a car crash that kills 4 might make the second page of the local news. And nobody wants to see a bunch of Muslims triumphantly shouting "Allah Akbar" in some Arab nation in the wake of a national tragedy. It's infuriating, and voters will turn to the politicians who promise to put a stop to it. If constitutional conservatives take a dispassionate stance on the threat of terrorism, they will lose the battle for civil liberties. I'm not arguing it's right, I'm just saying it's the reality we face.

IMO we need to push the discussion into the light rather than take a hardline stance. Admit there is a tension between privacy and security. Admit that terrorism is a legitimate threat to national security, but force people to recognize the privacy they're giving up for increased security with transparency. Force them to click "ok" to a disclaimer when they create an email account alerting them that the government has unrestricted access to their account. Once people see who's manning the computers, they'll be reminded that terrorism is not the only threat on the table.

I'm right there with ya on almost all of this, and it's a very well- written and thoughtful post.
But terrorism is *not* a legitimate threat to national security and I don't think it's wise to concede that point. Calling it so much as a threat to public safety is a wild stretch, but national security? The only legitimate threat to National security in this situation is the NSA itself.
Not sayin' I disagree with your logic, just sayin' it concedes too much to make an intellectually consistent argument.

[Seven]

terrorism is *not* a legitimate threat to national security and I don't think it's wise to concede that point. Calling it so much as a threat to public safety is a wild stretch

I'm sure the thousands of families who have lost loved ones due to terrorism would agree with you.

[GoSlash27]

Looking over my response, I think I failed to express my point. As is my tendency, I'll try to explain it as a football analogy.

So in this scenario your team has got the game in the bag. You're so far ahead and there's so little time left that you can't possibly lose unless you screw up very badly and let them back in. So you want to play conservative and another guy wants them to go all-out.
So this guy on the team gives a pep-talk telling them that the other team is still in the game and that your guys have to play desperate to win (which is, in your estimation, the only possible way to lose).
At that moment, you cannot counter their very bad advice by any argument starting with the words, "Yeah things look bad, but".
That loses the argument (and the game) right out the gate. It gives them too much credence and feeds into the sense of panic underlying their argument. Anybody can look at the scoreboard and tell that they've got the game locked down tight, but if both leaders are saying they don't, then the team is bound to give that guy's argument more credence than it deserves.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure the thousands of families who have lost loved ones due to terrorism would agree with you.

The private ownership of firearms kills *way* more innocent Americans every year than terrorism does. True fact. Are you willing to give up the 2nd Amendment to end that? If not, why not?

[Seven]

The private ownership of firearms kills *way* more innocent Americans every year than terrorism does. True fact. Are you willing to give up the 2nd Amendment to end that? If not, why not?

That has nothing to do with your statement that "calling terrorism a threat to public safety is a wild stretch". Seriously, think before you post. I'm not a supporter of privacy invasion at all, but there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their lives to stopping terrorism both domestic and foreign. And many of them do it the right way. Just because the government dropped the ball on anti-terrorism doesn't mean it's a lost cause. And it doesn't mean terrorism isn't a threat to public safety. I really have no idea how someone comes to that conclusion. Have we gone about fighting terrorism in the wrong way in many cases? Sure. Do we spend more money on it than necessary? Sure. But how does that turn into "terrorism isn't a threat to public safety"?

[GoSlash27]

That has nothing to do with your statement that "calling terrorism a threat to public safety is a wild stretch". Seriously, think before you post. I'm not a supporter of privacy invasion at all, but there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their lives to stopping terrorism both domestic and foreign. And many of them do it the right way. Just because the government dropped the ball on anti-terrorism doesn't mean it's a lost cause. And it doesn't mean terrorism isn't a threat to public safety. I really have no idea how someone comes to that conclusion. Have we gone about fighting terrorism in the wrong way in many cases? Sure. Do we spend more money on it than necessary? Sure. But how does that turn into "terrorism isn't a threat to public safety"?

I have already explained why that is so. The chance of an average American getting killed by terrorists is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't pose a credible threat to anyone. You are far, *far* more likely to die by falling out of your bed or drowning in your own bathtub, yet we don't call beds or bathtubs "threats to public safety".
As Patriot pointed out upstream (and you have displayed here) there is an emotional tendency to wildly exaggerate the the scale of the threat and make poor decisions based on that misperception.

[Seven]

I have already explained why that is so. The chance of an average American getting killed by terrorists is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't pose a credible threat to anyone. You are far, *far* more likely to die by falling out of your bed or drowning in your own bathtub, yet we don't call beds or bathtubs "threats to public safety".
As Patriot pointed out upstream (and you have displayed here) there is an emotional tendency to wildly exaggerate the the scale of the threat and make poor decisions based on that misperception.

Please point out to me where I addressed the scale of the threat.

While the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are not large by any stretch of the imagination, the threat does exist. And believe me, not everything is reported for public consumption.

We spend too much money on anti-terrorism and we've gone about it the wrong way. But claiming it isn't a public safety issue is vapid.

[Mach1]

After an Easy Hearing, the NSA and FBI are Ready for a Drink

If you were wondering how the NSA and FBI felt about the very friendly hearing the House Intelligence Committee invited them to today, a hot mic has your answer. "Tell your boss," NSA Director Keith Alexander told the FBI deputy director, "I owe him another friggin' beer."

Ben Doernberg caught the exchange, which we've clipped below. Alexander, being photographed at bottom center, is speaking with FBI deputy director Sean Joyce, to his left.

Throughout the hearing the two worked together, with Alexander frequently setting up topics upon which Joyce expounded. When Alexander said that the government's surveillance tools had stopped over 50 terror attacks, Joyce described four of them. And so on. Over the course of three hours, the two faced little in the way of critique.

Nonetheless, they were ready for a brew. Their more informal exchange came after Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan banged the gavel.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...r-video/66360/

[GoSlash27]

Please point out to me where I addressed the scale of the threat.

While the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are not large by any stretch of the imagination, the threat does exist. And believe me, not everything is reported for public consumption.

We spend too much money on anti-terrorism and we've gone about it the wrong way. But claiming it isn't a public safety issue is vapid.

I never claimed "it isn't a public safety issue". I said it's a stretch to call it a threat. It's no more of a "threat" than the ladder in your garage.

Your tone seems to convey some hostility. I'm curious to find out why my bald statement of the facts elicited such an emotional response from you.

[Seven]

I never claimed "it isn't a public safety issue". I said it's a stretch to call it a threat. It's no more of a "threat" than the ladder in your garage.

Your tone seems to convey some hostility. I'm curious to find out why my bald statement of the facts elicited such an emotional response from you.

To be completely honest, my patience for arguing semantics around here has really dried up.

[GoSlash27]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-cl...7#.UcOyIpycOYQ

Court documents and FBI field reports reviewed by ABC News undercut and contradict the dramatic testimony from senior counter-terrorism officials that the National Security Agency's surveillance programs thwarted an attack by al Qaeda on the New York Stock Exchange. *snip*
"We went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his co-conspirators and this was the plot that was in the very initial stages of plotting to bomb the New York Stock Exchange," Joyce testified.

Asked whether it was a "serious plot" by one member of Congress, Joyce said, "I think the jury considered it serious since they were all convicted."
In fact, ABC News found there was no jury trial of any of the three alleged plotters. None of them were charged with planning an attack on Wall Street.

A U.S. official familiar with the case acknowledged that Joyce had "misspoke" about a jury finding.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?? You don't get to offer up a steaming pile of bull dung as the centerpiece of your entire freakin' argument while under oath in a Congressional hearing, and then turn around and claim you "misspoke"!

If this is the best example they've got, I can't wait to hear the garbage that they thought wasn't quite as good...

[The Patriot]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-cl...7#.UcOyIpycOYQ
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?? You don't get to offer up a steaming pile of bull dung as the centerpiece of your entire freakin' argument while under oath in a Congressional hearing, and then turn around and claim you "misspoke"!

If this is the best example they've got, I can't wait to hear the garbage that they thought wasn't quite as good...

This is getting embarrassing.

[vader29]

U.S. files espionage charges agains NSA leaker

The U.S. government has brought criminal charges against Edward Snowden, the former NSA contract employee who exposed two of the government's top-secret surveillance programs -- one that collected the phone records of millions of Americans, the other monitored internet traffic -- CBS News has learned Friday.

Law enforcement sources tell CBS News' Bob Orr that Snowden has been officially charged in the NSA leaks matter. The case is still under seal, so the charges are not being presented publicly.

Snowden, who is believed to still be in Hong Kong somewhere, is being charged with espionage and the theft of government property relating to files he apparently took from the NSA, said Orr.

U.S. officials have asked Hong Kong authorities to detain Snowden, but it is uncertain of his current status and whether or not he has been taken into custody. This is a criminal complaint filed under seal and the Justice Department has 60 days to file a more formal indictment.

A contractor at the time, Snowden identified himself as the source of the leaked documents. He gave them to the newspapers the Guardian and the Washington Post. The leaks detailed programs that the NSA swept up vast amount of Internet and telephone data.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...ns-nsa-leaker/

[GoSlash27]

Pelosi booed for defense of NSA surveillance
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-boos/2450751/

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has disappointed some of her liberal base with her defense of the Obama administration's classified surveillance of U.S. residents' phone and Internet records.

Some of the activists attending the annual Netroots Nation political conference Saturday booed and interrupted the San Francisco Democrat when she commented on the surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency and revealed by a former contractor, Edward Snowden, The San Jose Mercury News reports....

Even the lefties are outraged about this one.

[Mach1]

PRISM-Proof Your Smartphone: 10 Apps To Keep The NSA Out Of Your Phone

http://www.ibtimes.com/prism-proof-y...-phone-1321085

[The Patriot]

I can't stress how unbelievably frustrating it is to see people come out in support of this surveillance program. Who would have thought the concept of a warrant would be perceived as some radical anti-social fringe ideology...

[X-Terminator]

I can't stress how unbelievably frustrating it is to see people come out in support of this surveillance program. Who would have thought the concept of a warrant would be perceived as some radical anti-social fringe ideology...

The "Teflon Don" is promoting it. Enough said.

[The Patriot]

The "Teflon Don" is promoting it. Enough said.

Tell me about it. "The threat of tyranny?... Okay, mister conspiracy theorist. Take a seat on the special bus." - That's pretty much the response you'll get for defending the constitution.