Why NSA Surveillance Will Be More Damaging Than You Think

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/why-nsa-surveillance-will-be-more-damaging-than-you-think/278181/

***SNIP

The real threat from terrorism has never been the damage it does directly, even through attacks as horrific as those on 9/11. The more serious threat comes from the over-reaction, the collective insanity or the simple loss of perspective, that an attack evokes. Our government's ambition to do everything possible to keep us "safe" has put us at jeopardy in other ways.

One more note: it is also worth emphasizing that this damage was not done by Edward Snowden, except in an incidental and instrumental sense. The damage comes from the policies themselves, just as the lasting damage from Abu Ghraib came not from the leaked photos but from the abuse they portrayed.

What governments do eventually becomes known. Eventual disclosure is likely when a program involves even a handful of people. (Latest case in point: Seal Team Six.) It is certain when an effort stretches over many years, entails contracts worth billions of dollars, and requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people -- any one of whom, as we've seen from Snowden, may at any point decide to tell what he knows.

In launching such an effort, a government must assume as a given that what it is doing will become known, and then calculate whether it will still seem "worthwhile" when it does. Based on what we've seen so far, Prism would have failed that test.

[think]

1. Agree. THE NSA surveillance is much more damaging than I

[PSPS]

2. Certainly true. I like the Abu Ghraib abuse vs the photos of the abuse comparison

But the worshipers and the apologists still won't get it. To them, everything that happens on Obama's watch must always be defended and, even worse, believed in. In other words, "dining room table."

[Catherina]

3. Rec n/t