

Motives Aside, the NSA Should Not Spy on Us - BikalpT
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/23/motives-aside-the-nsa-should-not-spy-on

======
SCAQTony
No, let's not place their stated motives aside and presume their premise is
simply misguided. Their premise is full bologna and a palpable excuse for the
uneducated.

From the article: "...But if their purpose is to protect us, why worry?..."

If their motives were that genuine and honest, why are they not freeing
American girls or otherwise from slavery? arresting cartel leaders or crooked
politicians or perhaps crushing insider trading?

The answer is that the NSA/CIA/FBI and all the other "alphabet soup" agencies
fear the public at large and are scared and want to protect themselves and
their institutions only.

I know I over-simplified but the last nation to do this was the Soviet Union
and they feared their public too.

~~~
tokenizer
>I know I over-simplified but the last nation to do this was the Soviet Union
and they feared their public too.

And this is why/result/symptom of the US collapsing. We've seen these things
time and time again. An empire who has no enemies makes an enemy out of
itself.

Interesting take on the US collapse preparedness from someone who experienced
it in the USSR:

[http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-
collaps...](http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collapse-gap-
ussr-was-better-prepared-collapse-us#)

------
CurtMonash
Shouldn't have been posted to Hacker News, solely because what it says is
already obvious to most people who read here.

------
tkahn6
I think the best solution would be to have the NSA and other security
apparatuses stop or significantly scale down their surveillance programs for a
few years.

Two scenarios would play out:

1) Nothing happens or a maybe Boston Marathon Bombing-style attack once a year
at most.

2) Bombs go off in a major shopping center or movie theatre every week,
perhaps a few in the Bay Area. This is similar to what happened in Israel in
the 90s.

In the first case it would mean that the surveillance really was for nothing
and the matter would be easily resolved.

In the second case, we would at least be in a position to make an informed
decision about whether the surveillance programs were worth the security it
gained us. I suspect people would have a different opinion about the
surveillance programs if scenario two came to pass - because preventing the
second scenario _is_ ostensibly the motive behind them.

~~~
aheilbut
Since nobody seems to have been paying any attention or have a memory, 9/11
was sadly the information about scenario two. It's not a bloody experiment
anymore.

~~~
throwaway868
If you think any of the measures instituted after 9/11 could prevent another
mass 9/11 style attack, you're in denial. Like people who want to ban semi-
automatic rifles because of school shootings. The Bush administration ignored
all the 9/11 warning signs.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-
hou...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-
deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0)

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/bush-knew-
mo...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/bush-knew-more-about-
bin-laden-plans-than-we-realized/56716/)

~~~
aheilbut
You got me; I'd also like to ban semi-automatic rifles. Give those deer a
fighting chance.

