Serious reflection about the “need” for NSA surveillance

[Jessy169]

We knew all along that the post-911 world we lived in had turned into one of increased government monitoring of electronic communications. It has never been a secret. There have been numerous articles posted here on DU and elsewhere since 911 illuminating the ever-increasing and newly-discovered methods which the U.S. Government uses to monitor electronic communications.

Now we have Snowden and a revelation of government monitoring that is shocking in its scope and in its capability for being used against us – “us” being the people of America and the rest of the world.

I tend to be a strong supporter of and believer in Obama. I trust his character, even when I don’t agree with him.

So I ask myself, how is it that Obama would apparently approve of and defend the level of electronic monitoring – some would say “snooping” – that Snowden has revealed.

I can only think of one answer. The answer, I suspect, is that the government – military, executive branch, etc. -- believe that as much of a dangerous and overreaching slap in the face that their level of electronic monitoring involves, the fact remains that what they are trying to prevent with all this monitoring/snooping is far worse than the act of monitoring itself.

Nuclear proliferation. Deadly chemical weapons. Crazy and deranged individuals everywhere including those homegrown here in the good old USA. One heinous act – another 911, or much worse – maybe involving massive destruction from chemical, biological or nuclear attack. What happens then?

We live in very dangerous times. Technology has given the worst among us the ability to cause unacceptable damage – to structures, lives, economies, stability, you name it.

I extremely dislike the level of government monitoring – and data storage – that Snowden has revealed. But I wonder if it isn’t “worth it” if the “powers that be” and that are “in the know” sincerely believe that it is necessary to protect us from severe acts of terror. And I wonder if maybe this is why Obama and other government officials appear to be strong supporters of the government’s extensive electronic monitoring, even though they might not have been strong supporters until they learned of just how dire the threats are against us.

Does anybody think along those lines?

[magellan]

1. No. But I refuse to live in fear.

The world didn't change after 9/11 of its own volition. Scared people let other people use fear tactics to talk them into changing it. The terrarists won.

[quinnox]

2. nah, I honestly don't worry about terrorists under the bed and in the closets

and anyway, I think there comes a point where freedom should trump security. Freedom is much more important than having a paranoid society of snoops and spies 24/7 monitoring people, IMHO.

[bowens43]

3. No it's not worth it

Living in a free society has risks. The only way to eliminate the risk is to eliminate the freedom

[RC]

10. Eliminating the Freedom does not eliminate the risks

It just introduces a whole new paradigm of risks.

[redstatebluegirl]

4. Yes, I have thought this way during all of this,

still unsure of my final verdict though.

Jessy, you are going to get slammed, put on your armor and hunker low. The people who feel what you have said is nuts will be unmerciful in their condemnation. I applaud you for saying what many of us have felt but were afraid to say out loud on this board. Your op is genuine, you will be accused of trolling, being an operative for the party (whatever the hell that means) and worse. Last time I looked we still live in America where you have a right to your opinion...

There are folks on this board who do not believe in civil discussion, they will be out in force on this one....

Stay strong.

[Jessy169]

15. Thanks for your support redstatebluegirl!

Don't worry, I've been slammed on DU for opinions expressed a few times in the past -- ya just gotta be tuff...

[wandy]

5. I am trying to look at it like this. Trying...........

Was Air force 1 there when Obama took office?
He used it.
Was this NSA mess there when Obama took office?
He used it.

I said trying. Not sure I'm there yet.

[enlightenment]

6. I cannot agree with you,

because your premise is based on two things that I a not willing to accept without very, very good cause - faith and fear.

You fear the world that we live in - the world that we created. It's not a very nice place, so I'm not going to say your fear is unreasonable.
You have faith - you call it trust - that the President and those around him are acting on best principles to protect you and others from the things you fear. Faith is something you either have or you don't, and while I may believe your trust is misplaced, I won't criticize you for having it.

But I don't think that way. The world has been a not very nice place for my entire life, and I am a child of the Cold War, so my entire existence is bounded by the reality that we - as a species - could turn this big blue marble into a cinder with the touch of a button. As for faith? I don't have it - and trusting a politician? Harks back to the parable of the scorpion and the frog - and I'm no frog.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. What I'd like to know is where people draw their "freedom" lines.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the NSA might have heard you tell someone to pick up a loaf a bread and that Jimmy really likes Sally because he told Lisa in gym class he thought Sally was cute (or whatever) would get the same response if we had Medicare for all and the government found out you got treated for an STD or had an abortion.

It seems to me we want it both ways. We are okay with the government knowing the intimate details of our health care, but draw the line on trusting them with this NSA stuff?

Where is the line of trust?

[randome]

8. "What do you mean, a serious game? What are you talking about? This is hockey!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MineralMan]

9. It's difficult to judge intelligence operations well.

Some small amount of information on one program has been released by Snowden. The bulk of information on what NSA and other agencies are doing remains classified and undisclosed. Snowden has very limited information, because access is tightly limited. I've looked at what he has released. It is all low level briefing presentations, not serious classified information. It's typical of what is shown to congressional committees and others who have Top Secret clearances, but no "need to know" more than that basic information.

So, the details aren't known about how much data has been accessed, how it has been used, what it may have prevented, or much else. Snowden has no access to that information, since access is tightly controlled for anything beyond those basic briefing documents.

I'm writing as someone who worked at the NSA at one time, decades ago. Nothing I know from then is pertinent, except the tight controls use to keep truly sensitive data secret. That hasn't changed, and will not change. Congress and others get briefed with information like that Snowden released. It has a Top Secret classification, but its release does no serious damage to the programs mentioned.

So, yes, there is collection and monitoring of data. That's all Snowden, and now everyone, knows. Beyond that are multiple levels of information that have not been released, and that are unlikely to be released. The President has made statements based on his knowledge of operations. His statement are pretty likely to be accurate, as far as they go. But, even the President does not have access to details of operations unless there is a need for him to have access to those details. I know this because I have been present at a presidential briefing on one occasion. Even the President gets the information he needs to make decisions, not the details, unless they are needed.

It's all part of the compartmentalization of classified information.

If the President says something, it's very likely to be true, but he may well not know the details, because he trusts his briefing personnel and doesn't need to know the details. That's how the system operates.

[Jessy169]

12. You're talking about "plausable deniability"

I know what that means because I've watched "Independence Day" several times. It seems very likely to me that there are much more powerful forces in America than the presidency, but those powerful forces operate in secrecy, behind the scenes. I also seriously doubt that Obama has the ability to stop or modify the extensive electronic monitoring that Snowden revealed, or that he is like us as yet totally unaware of. Those "hating on" Obama and blaming him for the surveillance are blaming him for something that he isn't responsible for, and has no choice but to support -- IMO.

[TheKentuckian]

11. You realize that anything can be excused and whitewashed under such logic AND that

carried to any conclusion means abandoning the very concept a free society in exchange for an impression of security.

I also think the "post 9/11 world" rhetoric is pure, unadulterated Bushshit with no other intent than to excuse and build acceptance for systems of control.

This is the real world, it doesn't have a child safety cap and with that in mind, even if your feelings are dead on, the situation is beyond any measure of control and will be abused without real recourse in the future even if Obama is pure as the driven snow.

[Jessy169]

13. I tend to agree with you

But I'm trying to see "the other" point of view -- it does have merit.

What if you're in charge and you know with near certainty that something really bad will happen if you don't do something that you know will bring scorn and accusations down on you? Maybe our U.S. Government is in THAT position, and we just are blissfully unaware of it?

Both sides of the argument have merit, it seems to me. My initial reaction is one of disgust and anger, but then I think, maybe there's a reason. Just trying to be open-minded.

Today, the truly enlightened are skeptics and cynics...

[Marrah_G]

14. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty

nor safety" - Ben Franklin

[Jessy169]

16. What liberty did we give up?

The "liberty" from ever having our electronic communications or private networks filtered and/or added to a database for future reference should the "need" arise?

Things were much simpler back in BF's day, weren't they? Today, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, every fucking step of the way. Call it one way and you'll get slammed by 50% of the people, call it the other way and you'll get slammed by the other 50%. So, given that reality, just make the call you think will do the most good, or stands the best chance of succeeding, then let the slamming begin -- I guess.

[Marrah_G]

17. Our privacy

It's really that simple.

You can justify and rationalize anything but it doesn't change the fact that our privacy has been infringed on.

You don't have an issue with it, but many people do.

[Jessy169]

19. Evil prefers privacy

There's all kinds of creepy evil little worms crawling around in the "privacy" of wherever they are lurking. Evil grows and becomes stronger in privacy.

I read a science fiction book one time where the entire alien humanoid population was telepathic -- kind of like a bee hive or ant colony, there was no "privacy" or need for privacy -- everybody knew what everybody else within a certain circumference was thinking and/or doing -- and that was okay. No crime or deviation, no perverse acts, a very efficient and advanced civilization. But probably boring, to me and you anyway... I wish I could remember the name of that book.

[Marrah_G]

20. I'm going to end this conversation here

I simply cannot, choose not to, have a conversation on this topic with a person who has your views. I find them incredibly disturbing.

[nebenaube]

18. No, never!

It's only the prosecute the weak. No, FUCK NO!

[JDPriestly]

21. The surveillance needs to be very open.

The criteria that is used to determine who and what is under surveillance should be known to us all.

We are still innocent until proven guilty. We still have a right to dignity no matter what.

If we are given accurate and reliable guidelines as to what can and cannot be said on the internet or on the phone, then we are given the chance to lead our lives without surveillance.

But, of course, the minute that the government sets limits on the words we can use, speak or write, it violates the First Amendment.

Which brings us back to the question "What is being defended with this program?"

Just the physical shells we call our bodies? Or our country which means our Constitution and what, since the Declaration of Independence we have agreed are our inherent and basic rights?

I think the US government has to either just announce it has given up on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and declare itself a dictatorship or give up on the surveillance.

We cannot have a living, breathing democracy without the Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, our government is just another dictatorship, sometimes benevolent, sometimes heavy-handed.

So which do you choose? Democracy with freedom of speech and assembly and press or a dictatorship.

In particular, the fact that, as Greenwald explained, the US government places our communications with others outside the US under surveillance means that no reporter who presents or writes or prepares "news" stories with information from outside the US can be relied upon to tell the unfettered truth.

So, you can forget about freedom of the press when it comes to reporting international stories. We do not at this time enjoy it.

It's your choice. I choose the Bill of Rights. I choose freedom.

This is one area in which there can be no compromise. You can either speak and write freely or you cannot. There is no compromise.

[kentuck]

22. I have thought about that...

but I do not agree with it. I think intelligence gathering is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Like the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the stew".

I think the CIA and the NSA and all our intelligence gatherers are too big and need to be streamlined. All together, with satellite spying and everything on the black budget, we don't even know what we are paying for. It is a pig in a poke.

Also, I think there needs to be more accountability. Sometimes I wonder if the President is calling the shots or a couple of people at CIA or NSA are calling the shots? What President would dare to disagree with their assessments??