Terrorism
In the 70's the US averaged 2.6 terrorist attacks per year.
In the 80's the US averaged 1.8 terrorist attacks per year.
In the 90's the US averaged 1.4 terrorist attacks per year.
In the 00's the US averaged 2.6 terrorist attacks per year.
So far the 10's are shaping up to be on par with 1990.
Following the September 11th attacks we passed the Patriot Act, created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA. The NSA is spying on everyone... and yet, we are no better or worse off now than we were in the 1970's when Nixon was the only one spying.
Had all the terrorist plots we foiled, succeeded, it wouldn't significantly alter the statistics or the risk.
Why then are we doing this to ourselves?
Why?
There is a very good interview with former director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, in the New Yorker.
Metadata is the least intrusive, most efficient way to do it. You don’t
want to translate millions and millions of calls; you want to get to the
most efficient approach.
I think that statement illustrates the mindset most effectively. It's not that we don't want to listen in to all your phone calls, it's just not efficient. So what does that mean? Will they record and translate millions and millions of calls if the efficiency improves?
To me, the question isn't whether or not these programs work, as they undoubtedly do, and well, the question is it worth it? Is it worth it sacrificing the foundational principles of our nation for a little safety? Face it, your chances of being killed by a fellow American are much higher than of being killed by a terrorist, why stop with them? Seriously, if your goal is safety, we have the technology to assure it.
Why do you find it tolerable to sacrifice your freedoms, your privacy to eliminate a remote threat but not to eliminate a more probable one?
But I do think people need to know that we’re at greater risk, and
there’s a lot more coming my way. It’s easy to stir up public emotion by
saying: They’re listening to your phone calls. They’re reading your
e-mails.
It's also easy to stir up public emotion by saying: The Boogieman is coming.
Think about it.
 |
| applysense |
Sorry, I couldn't resist that pun
Recent disclosures have illustrated the vastness of the surveillance network of the UKUSA agreement, a joint comprehensive electronic intelligence agreement, amid the fallout from Edward Snowden's revelations. How does an attorney maintain attorney-client privilege amidst the writhing tentacles of the all-knowing Oz? (I know, another bad pun).
Many of you in comments here, have expressed acceptance of surveillance in the pursuit of that holy grail; Counter-terrorism. The question now is where do you draw the line? Is blanket surveillance acceptable in the pursuit of trade negotiations? Criminal proceedings? More importantly, can you have one without the other?
I must reaffirm Ben Franklin's sentiment that "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." How about you, how far are you willing to go?
