
NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed - shill
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-stock-exchange/
======
jaysonelliot
This is the wrong argument to have. The issue is not whether or not illegal
surveillance has thwarted any plots.

We could put a video camera in every home that can't be turned off and has a
direct feed into the local police station. I'm sure that after a few months,
the police could then point to all the crimes they'd discovered as a result.

Success rates are not the only consideration when determining whether or not
we should give a particular power to the government.

~~~
thufry
They're not the only consideration, but they are a major consideration. The
public's tolerance of any privacy infraction will depend strongly on whether
that infraction prevents 1 death a year or 1,000,000.

~~~
jaysonelliot
A privacy infraction that prevents a million deaths a year still has to be
weighed against other ways to prevent those deaths without violating people's
rights.

Yes, the easiest way to do something might be to violate the Constitution, but
that doesn't mean it's the only way.

~~~
thufry
In an imaginary world where an unconstitutional privacy infraction could be
demonstrably proven to prevent a million deaths per year, the Constitution
would be amended.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're completely missing the point.

Let's take the worst-case disaster scenario: Terrorists are going to get a
nuclear weapon and blow up a major city every year. Millions of deaths per
year.

Here are two ways to prevent this:

A) We read everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion and
arrest anyone who we think has obtained nuclear materials necessary to make a
bomb. Obviously if we hadn't arrested them they would have killed millions of
people, so reading everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion
has saved millions of lives per year.

B) We track down and secure all the nuclear material (e.g. what the Russians
have lost) using traditional investigative work so that terrorists can't get
it. Since it's too hard for them to make themselves, this prevents them from
obtaining a nuclear weapon, problem solved.

C) We send undercover operatives into terrorist networks and disrupt them
before they ever get off the ground.

You don't need A if B works. You don't need A if C works. You don't need A if
any of D through Z works either.

~~~
thufry
Non-renewable energy sources are being continuously depleted. Mankind's
options are:

1) Conserve energy through efficiency.

2) Develop renewable energy technologies.

3) Invent cold fusion.

Sure, we might not need 1) or 2) if 3) works, but without the existence of 3),
it's very easy to make a case for 1) and 2).

~~~
DuskStar
Except that in even the mid-long term (several hundred years) non-renewable
energy is reasonable. (Based on estimates of Uranium and other fissile
reserves)

And of course by the time that runs out, we'll have something like Planetary
Resources up and running...

So while 3) might not ever happen, that does not imply 1) or 2) are the only
remaining options. Proof by elimination only works if you can prove for all
options, not just your preferred subset.

------
aegiso
It's shocking how fast "terrorism" has been redefined from "use of terror as a
means of coersion" to "Islamic fundamentalists" to "evil".

These days politicians mix that word into a sentence with anything or anyone
they want gone, and the public supports the cause, for fear of their own
safety. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is strong.

But every now and then I like to think back to the original definition. By
which it would seem that the United States' response to terrorism has been
exponentially more terrorism.

Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from
9/11 by now.

~~~
redblacktree
> Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from
> 9/11 by now.

This thought created a particularly deep reaction in me.

------
hawkharris
The only thing that scares me more than terrorism is U.S. policymakers'
reaction to terrorism.

I'm not sure which civil liberty they'll strike down next in the name of
preventing future attacks. Their means-to-an-end attitude exposes not only
hysteric, irrational thinking, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the
Constitution.

~~~
k2enemy
I understand the spirit of your comment, but there should probably be a long
list of things that scare you more than terrorism.

~~~
hawkharris
I could have taken into account clowns, Stephen King novels and high
cholesterol, but for the sake of wordplay and relevance to this discussion, I
thought I'd leave it at terrorism.

(Jokes aside, though, I understand your comment and agree that we shouldn't
let terrorism paralyze us with fear, as it's intended to; plus, the risks of
an American being killed in a terrorist attack are very low.)

------
jessaustin
_Fowler declined to comment any further, including whether he would seek to
reopen the case, given the government admitting that secret, and
constitutionally suspect, methods were used to gain access to his phone
records._

Well that's troubling.

~~~
NickNameNick
It could be an interesting point.

Does any investigation which used data from the NSA, especially early in the
investigation to obtain warrants and more data suffer from a 'fruit of the
poisoned tree' problem, where much of the evidence used later could be
declared inadmissible on appeal?

Has 'trying to be helpful' on the part of the NSA and/or FBI poisoned
thousands of convictions?

~~~
pilsetnieks
Considering the article, 50 planned attacks would not result in thousands of
convictions, and it isn't known how many of them were in the US (Other
countries could have different standards for evidence or may have, in good
faith, believed that it was all acquired legally.) Even so, the point was not
that some people were convicted of planning attacks but that the attacks were
prevented.

Meanwhile, it's the _method_ of prevention that should be disputed, not the
fact of it.

------
saalweachter
_“Hasanoff relayed that the New York Stock Exchange was surrounded by
approximately four streets... "_

I love that. It captures downtown Manhattan perfectly.

~~~
SimHacker
[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance)

------
epoxyhockey
_spy techniques publicly disclosed two weeks ago had halted some 50 terror
attacks in 20 countries_

Sean Joyce, modern day _Iraqi Information Minister_. Reference:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-
Sahhaf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf)

------
dear
If they lock everyone up, I am sure the crime rate would be zero.

~~~
mmagin
You'd be surprised at all the illicit activity that happens in prisons, at
least in the US.

~~~
uptown
I'd also be surprised if any of that crime is counted towards regional crime
statistics.

------
seeingfurther
The Stock Exchange isn't a place anymore but a network.

~~~
bwhite
Like many office buildings, it is of pretty good size and houses a goodly
number of workers. What sets it apart from almost all other buildings its that
it is symbolic. The financial reporters are still frequently "on location"
there, it is in downtown Manhattan, and there is an enormous American flag
covering the Broad St side of the building.

------
Alex3917
This reminds me of that time the FBI caught a black kid taking pictures of his
family at Disney World, and then claimed they prevented the next 9/11\. Oh
wait, this exact same thing has happened literally dozens of times.

~~~
tptacek
When did this happen? Link?

~~~
Alex3917
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell)

My details were slightly off, but close enough.

~~~
tptacek
Just to be clear: no black kid, and a malicious witness trying to weasel out
of multiple felony charges. :)

------
gesman
Well there is a bigger list of plots that has not been prevented.

------
b6
It's also irrelevant. We're here to talk about their crime spree, not any
supposed good works done during.

~~~
MichaelGG
It's definitely NOT irrelevant. At some point (say, alien terrorist invasion
that'd kill everyone on Earth), most people will decide it's a worthwhile
tradeoff. If it only stopped one small bomb against a concrete statue, people
would decide the other way. There is certainly a crossover point.

The crossover is probably not even close to being reached, but discussion
about it is certainly relevant. Many people believe they'd be under major
attacks without these secret program. Dismissing their claims doesn't further
the discussion.

~~~
b6
I take your point. But if there's a credible threat, they should say what it
is and allow the public to decide whether the law should be amended.

In all probability, there is no credible threat. That's why they choose to do
this stuff without consent, and why they've been blocking the courts from
ruling on it for years. And this is more of the same -- more manufactured
bogeymen, more obfuscation. They want to talk about _anything_ other than
their lies and their crimes.

