So with all that data and all those phone records why then

[Wheezer]

didn't they catch the Boston bombers? Or at least have some fucking clue what those two were up to?

 

[colonelciller]

because it is about control and maintaining the current power structure.

a better question is why the administration and politicians like Feinstein lie about its efficacy in stopping "attacks". perhaps their motives lie elsewhere.

 

[Kadarin]

because it is about control and maintaining the current power structure.

a better question is why the administration and politicians like Feinstein lie about its efficacy in stopping "attacks". perhaps their motives lie elsewhere.

This, tbh.

 

[Dari]

Control and sometimes they let attacks occur so that they can get more control.

 

[werepossum]

didn't they catch the Boston bombers? Or at least have some fucking clue what those two were up to?

This is an incredible amount of information and government does not yet have the capability to sift through it looking to stop crime or terrorism. I'm not even sure that Google, Amazon or WalMart could handle this much data effectively. However, once there is a lead this information can be back-mined to discover links and gather proof. Thus although government could not stop the Boston bombers, they did identify and catch them incredibly quickly.

There was a program (probably still extant) in the 90s which copied all broadcast phone calls to the UK to be parsed. A program looked for key words and patterns, and flagged phone numbers. For positive hits, a more powerful, more sophisticated program scanned the calls, and in turn its positive hits were fed to an even more powerful, more sophisticated program. Obviously this takes a buttload of bandwidth and computer power. Eventually a human listened to the call. However, most CIA analysts did not (and probably still do not) actually fluently speak the languages of the nations or areas to which they are assigned, so generally this was handled by contract labor, usually immigrants from the regions themselves because of colloquialisms. The whole process was terribly time-consuming and expensive, and simple codes or even just some caution could defeat the system.

I do not believe that Obama would knowingly allow a terrorist attack to take place, and I'm sure that if he did there are men and women who would stop him out of patriotism or compassion or even simply party ideology. Government is composed of many different people, most of whom are perfectly decent people.

 

[bradley]

Control and sometimes they let attacks occur so that they can get more control.

Which I am convinced happened on 9/11 and ever since we are living in its aftermath. Additionally, we should have hundreds of video angles for the Pentagon attack. More than ten years later.... nothing.

 

[Kadarin]

Additionally, we should have hundreds of video angles for the Pentagon attack. More than ten years later.... nothing.

True, that. I don't recall ever seeing any airplane debris from the Pentagon attack.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no magic system that picks only winning lottery numbers or crime about to be committed.

If the government had access to the totally of all communication, and for sake of argument let's say it does, it would not be enough. The reason is resources are limited. People would need to follow up on possible threats and the lower the threshold for possible crimes the more people and money required for the higher number of investigations. It's always been that way. Want to be safe? Have the police stay with you 24/7. Even if it worked no one could afford it. Imagine keeping constant watch on the loudmouths on forums alone. There's no budget big enough and I'm a assuming quantum computers exist and are in use.

 

[michal1980]

There is no magic system that picks only winning lottery numbers or crime about to be committed.

If the government had access to the totally of all communication, and for sake of argument let's say it does, it would not be enough. The reason is resources are limited. People would need to follow up on possible threats and the lower the threshold for possible crimes the more people and money required for the higher number of investigations. It's always been that way. Want to be safe? Have the police stay with you 24/7. Even if it worked no one could afford it. Imagine keeping constant watch on the loudmouths on forums alone. There's no budget big enough and I'm a assuming quantum computers exist and are in use.

If you have nothing to hide,

you wont mind us putting these camera's in your house.

 

[boomerang]

Is the name "Minority Report" inherently discriminatory? If we're headed in that direction, maybe we should settle things like this ahead of time. No sense having Harry Reid blocking votes on something as important as national security.

Will I, as a conservative individual be able to loudly vocalize my displeasure at the amount of money that is being spent on these programs in the name of national security without being chastised viciously be the left? Al Qaeda is on the run, everyone in the world loves us, so why do we need these programs? Are returning veterans and right-wing fringe groups really that big a danger to our nation?