Confirmed: Countless lives saved because of NSA Data Gathering.

[ivwshane]

With statistics. If they're claiming that they stopped dozens of attacks via these wiretaps, etc., then they have a damn near perfect record of stopping terrorist attacks. And, with one attack last year - by someone they SHOULD have been keeping an eye on... that leads to quite a bit of skepticism right there.

The statistical likelihood of them miraculously stopping dozens of terrorist acts, without 100% surveillance, and then missing the Boston attack... And then, no one finds out about the acts that they stopped - no relatives have come forward "men in black cars took my husband away" - come on.

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen. Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.

I don't see how you can ask the question in that simplistic a manner. It depends on how much security versus how much privacy. One could easily support one program to thwart terrorism as a reasonable tradeoff but not another.

You just proved my point. What you see as a reasonable trade off is another mans view of rights being violated.

 

[mect]

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen. Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.

If it is only in place to spy on foreign communications, why do they need to collect data on every customer using Verizon (using the horrible assumption this was only happening with Verizon).

 

[ivwshane]

If it is only in place to spy on foreign communications, why do they need to collect data on every customer using Verizon (using the horrible assumption this was only happening with Verizon).

I addressed that in my previous post.

Here is a hint though: They don't know who the terrorists are or who they are talking to without having access to all the data.

 

[mect]

I addressed that in my previous post.

Here is a hint though: They don't know who the terrorists are or who they are talking to without having access to all the data.

No you didn't. You said we wouldn't expect them to catch in internal terrorist because we are only tracking foreign communications, which I pointed out was incorrect. Further, what evidence do we have that they can't perform these types of operations unless they have all the data? You are just pulling stuff out of your ass to justify this now.

 

[woolfe9998]

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen. Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.




You just proved my point. What you see as a reasonable trade off is another mans view of rights being violated.

Yes, people have different views on what is an equitable trade off and where we should draw the line. What exactly is your point?

 

[mect]

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen. Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.

This still doesn't address the fact that they can demonstrate how effective their policies are using statistics. I'm not expecting a 100% track record, but I am expecting significant improvement if they are going to severely violate our constitutional rights. Show me the data, show me how much this helps, and then we can begin to talk about how much privacy I'm willing to give up for that much more security.

 

[ivwshane]

This still doesn't address the fact that they can demonstrate how effective their policies are using statistics. I'm not expecting a 100% track record, but I am expecting significant improvement if they are going to severely violate our constitutional rights. Show me the data, show me how much this helps, and then we can begin to talk about how much privacy I'm willing to give up for that much more security.

So how many attacks have there been since 9/11? Are there more now or less?

 

[Fern]

[Confirmed: Countless lives saved because of NSA Data Gathering.

Nothing's has been confirmed; it's merely been claimed.

Crappy thread title.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, people have different views on what is an equitable trade off and where we should draw the line. What exactly is your point?

My point was that it's a trade off, either you keep your freedoms and be less secure or you give up your freedoms to be more secure. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

 

[ivwshane]

How do you show proof for things that did not happen?

One could say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil by a foreigner for 13 years, does that mean all the measures we have taken worked? Does it mean they were necessary?

You can't expect to be safe from a group whose members are scattered all over the world, who gets new members/recruits all the time and who communicates via various methods including cellular and through the Internet without allowing the government to monitor their communication methods.
And because these terrorist groups don't consist of a particular population of people (as in located in the same area) and because their members come from a wide spectrum of people (financially, socially, speaking) you can't expect the government to be able to limit the scope of their dragnet.

So again, the question is; are you willing to give up freedoms for security? You can add stipulations, what if's, buts, and ands but the core question/issue remains.

No you didn't. You said we wouldn't expect them to catch in internal terrorist because we are only tracking foreign communications, which I pointed out was incorrect. Further, what evidence do we have that they can't perform these types of operations unless they have all the data? You are just pulling stuff out of your ass to justify this now.

Yes I did.

 

[BoberFett]

So how many attacks have there been since 9/11? Are there more now or less?

What a good little Republican...

 

[Fern]

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen. Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.
-snip-

That's what WAS claimed back during the Bush admin.

Re: Phone records - I read the classified FISA Court order requesting the phone carrier to run over records. The court order specifically said that Verizen (I think it was them) did not have to segregate foreign records and US records, but to turn them all over.

Furthermore, regarding the PRISM Program, the whistle blowers are claiming US records are being obtained and stored.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So how many attacks have there been since 9/11? Are there more now or less?

There's more.

Shoe bomber

Underwear bomber

Times Square bomber

Hassan/Fort Hood shooting

Boston Marathon bomber

BTW: None of the above was stopped by the NSA etc; they were all stopped by ordinary citizens who noticed them and took action.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

I heard that this program has saved at least 650M American lives since it was started. Trust me.

 

[mect]

So how many attacks have there been since 9/11? Are there more now or less?

More or less than what? Your statement makes no sense. If you meant to say have the frequency of attacks since 9/11 increased or decreased, I honestly have no idea. That is something they can potentially argue, but if they are going to do that they need to show some hard data. For that type of a breech of privacy, I expect a significant impact.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So how many attacks have there been since 9/11? Are there more now or less?

how many attacks happened before 9/11? Were there more or less as compared to after 9/11?

 

[Darwin333]

Do you have anyone with reasonable accountability/authority to vouch for it, like say the NSA chief?

The guy whose very job is to lie is somehow in your bizzaro world more credible than the person your responding to? Not to mention the fact that he works for the government who NEVER lies to its citizens....

As far as accountability, accountability to who? The very person whose ass would be covered by said lie, thats what you want to run with?

 

[mect]

Yes I did.

Work on your reading comprehension. Go back to my first post, and you will realize this does not address my statement. You stated they can't catch everyone because they are only monitoring foreign communications. My post pointed out that they aren't just collecting foreign communications. You then responded with the necessity of collecting data on everyone. If you don't see how this response doesn't address my point, then I can't help you. Once you understand this deficiency, I'll continue this discussion.

 

[lagokc]

NSA Chief: Secret evil spy program prevented over 9000 terrorist attacks

"I can't tell you anything about them, that information is classified. But you can trust me, millions of American lives have been saved. Why would I lie? Now stop looking at me and increase my budget."

 

[Darwin333]

Well the terrorists have confirmation that the program actually exists, so that's the first effective measure the US lost. They wouldn't be trying to figure ways around it if they didn't know about it in the first place.

Give me a break, any even remotely sorta kinda not retarded terrorist is going to use burner phones and codes just in case they are being monitored. Its an absurdly cheap and easy layer of protection that would take a complete retard not to employ if they were planning terrorist activities.

Besides, the spooks don't give terrorists a phone call to let them know that a warrant to tap their phones has been obtained. It kind of defeats the purpose so they are still back to having no possible way of knowing but rather easy ways to reasonably protect themselves against it.

 

[Darwin333]

My point was that it's a trade off, either you keep your freedoms and be less secure or you give up your freedoms to be more secure. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

"Less secure" from a threat that kills fewer Americans than lightning strikes. I think I'll go with keeping my freedom thank you very much.

Thats not bullshit either, they would save more American lives by building a lightning protection system of some sort than this bullshit.

So I'll ask you, how scared are you of being killed by lightning, how does that fear affect your day to day life and what freedoms and liberties would you be willing to give up to be a little less at risk from lightning strikes?

 

[Darwin333]

But they don't have 100% surveillance. So a 100% track record seems unlikely to happen.

How do you know they don't have 100% surveillance? The more that comes out about the hardware and shit they have the more it sounds like they very well could.

Considering we have been told that the surveillance program in place is used to spy on foreign communications I don't see how they could have stopped two unaffiliated home grown terrorists.

Considering the fact that we now know they lied to you and us the question is very valid and remains....

 

[woolfe9998]

My point was that it's a trade off, either you keep your freedoms and be less secure or you give up your freedoms to be more secure. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

Yes, it is a trade off. But you framed your question in the abstract, where it really can't be answered meaningfully. If asked that question, I would answer with other questions: how much privacy versus how much security, and what specific government action are we discussing.

 

[MagickMan]

Why this country is going to shit ...


People don't care about what is being done, only who is doing it, fucking pathetic.

That's why it's better to hate and distrust both sides equally. Politicians are scum.

 

[DCal430]

I will be honest and say you have to be a troll or somebody easily lead by authority.

Who do you think you are to judge and question this mans explanation for his answer.