Skip to comments.The Lamest Possible Rationale for NSA Spying
Posted on 01/14/2014 7:13:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Last June, in response to a question about indiscriminate spying by the National Security Agency, I made two simple points about the importance of judicial oversight and cost-benefit analysis.
I want at a minimum there to be judicial oversight whenever the government spies on American citizens, but I also think some cost-benefit analysis is appropriate. Just because a court has the power to approve snooping, that doesnt mean its a sensible use of law enforcement resources.
Nothing since then has changed my mind.
Indeed, Im perhaps even more skeptical of untrammeled government power and ability to spy on citizens for the simple reason that I dont trust politicians.
Just look at how the White House turned the supposedly professional IRS into a partisan political operation. The government had power, ostensibly for a legitimate reason, but politicians and bureaucrats then used the power is a grossly improper fashion.
On the other hand, I know there are people out there who hate America. And they dont just hate us because were intervening in the Middle East. I suspect many of them would want to kill us even if we had a perfect libertarian foreign policy of non-intervention and peaceful global commerce.
Now we learn from a report in the Washington Post that government has become bigger and more powerful and that our privacy has been violated as part of the NSAs spying, yet there have been no benefits. As is zero. Nada. Zilch.
Here are some excerpts.
An analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism. In the majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case, according to the study by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit group.
But perhaps, you may be thinking, this is merely the predictable conclusion of a group that is predisposed to be skeptical. Thats a fair concern, but the article also has some very compelling corroborating evidence.
The study, to be released Monday, corroborates the findings of a White House-appointed review group, which said last month that the NSA counterterrorism program was not essential to preventing attacks and that much of the evidence it did turn up could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.
So not only do outsiders find little to no value in NSA spying, but even hand-picked insiders couldnt come up with any evidence to show that the program was effective.
But you wont be surprised to learn that defenders of the NSA have come up with a cant-miss way of defining success.
Senior administration officials say it has been valuable in knocking down rumors of a plot and in determining that potential threats against the United States are nonexistent. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. calls that the peace of mind metric.
Yes, your eyes did not deceive you.You actually read correctly. The government wants us to acquiesce to a loss of privacy because we will learn that there are no threats and well have peace of mind.
That has to be the lamest justification for government power that Ive ever read.
This is even more preposterous than asserting that we should squander $1 trillion per year on anti-poverty programs, not because that redistribution will help the poor, but rather because it makes leftists feel better about themselves.
That being said, supporters do have a somewhat powerful comeback.
Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director and a member of the panel, said the program needs to be successful only once to be invaluable.
Indeed, I suspect this is the main reason why ordinary people might support the NSA.
But I disagree with Mr. Morell because he asserts that a single example of success would be invaluable. The article, for instance, cites one victory for the NSA surveillance program.
the program provided evidence to initiate only one case, involving a San Diego cabdriver, Basaaly Moalin, who was convicted of sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. Three co-conspirators were also convicted. The cases involved no threat of attack against the United States.
Im glad that a foreign terrorist attack was blocked, but is that really invaluable? Does that victory justify a very expensive and very intrusive NSA monitoring regime?
As Ive acknowledged before, I dont know enough about terrorism to offer an informed viewpoint. But I have studied a similar issue, money laundering laws, and that research leads me to be very suspicious about the NSA.
These laws were put in place with the excuse that government would collect and analyze large amounts of data to help deter crime.
All the evidence, however, shows that these laws are a costly failure. Theinvade our privacy, hurt the poor, impose high regulatory costs, and have little or no impact on underlying crimes.
Just something to keep in mind when people argue that government should have more power and authority.
P.S. At least the revelations about NSA spying have generated some first-rate political humor.
P.P.S. Keep in mind that the NSA is just one cog in the machinery of government. So if youre worried about the NSAs intrusion and power, then you should also worry about the power of the IRS. If youre concerned about the IRSs authority, then you also should fret about the Obamacare exchanges. And if you think the Obamacare exchanges give the government too much knowledge and power, then you should be agitated about know-your-customer laws that require banks to spy on their customers. And if youre not happy about those money-laundering rules, then you surely should be dismayed about asset-forfeiture rules. And if you dont approve of government stealing property, then maybe you dont like government accumulation of power for the Drug War. And if the failed War on Drugs rubs you the wrong way, then perhaps you
I better stop now. I think you get the point.
And now, if I understood correctly, DOE wants to examine our homes for energy usage. Have we lost our minds??? Is there no end to the intrusive government behavior/control that Americans are willing to tolerate?
Data collected this way is useless in real-time.
You don’t have to understand data-warehousing and computer software to know why
In order to LOOK AT all this mountan of data for 300 million people you would need millions of researchers poring through it contantly. Computer software can pick out some words and phrases but that just cuts it down, it does not make it manageable to analyze in real-time to find terrorists plots. So that is a lie.
There is just too much info to look at. There are not enough people to sift through it and decide things in real time.
If you store it ALL, you can go back and look at the any of the data at a later time...let’s say if you criticize the president, or apply for a govenment program...
This is the ONLY way this info is useful.
Piss off someone in government? Let’s just have a look-see at those old voting records and phone conversations, shall we?
I agree with you. Databasing all this stuff is just going to for regular people what the DNC’s databasing has done for anyone remotely interested in running as a conservative.
Progressives track promising conservatives and then run up a record on them. What they did to Palin is an example.
One thing I’d point out about databasing is that IF you had a very specific quantum of information you wanted to know real time about a person, then you could create a deliverable that would give an interested party real time information from a vast database in real time.
You have to be incredibly specific, and everything from the amount of information to the way it is delivered has to be taken into consideration.
Everything Orwell feared has come to be. It’s funny, because 1984 is no longer required reading in school any more. Funny how that works.
“So not only do outsiders find little to no value in NSA spying, but even hand-picked insiders couldnt come up with any evidence to show that the program was effective.”
Kind of like the TSA. Oh wait exactly like the TSA. Not one incidence of hands down the pants has found a terrorist.
More data to compel the citizen to do something illegal or not in its interest for sake of socialism. It is straight up national socialism given we also attack now antigay nations abroad.