

Why is the NSA spying on innocent people? - sentisenti

We finally have proof that we are, in fact, all being spied on, all the time, and there&#x27;s little or nothing that can be done about it. Great.<p>But one aspect of this story still baffles me. Why would they go to such great lengths to amass all this information, the vast majority of which is probably useless from a national security standpoint? What do they have to gain from this state of total surveillance?<p>I&#x27;ve seen a guy in another thread say that it makes no sense, but surely he must be mistaken! There must be a plan, a strategy, right? How do I explain this to my friends and parents?
======
shdon
Your title makes no sense. According to such agencies, there are no "innocent"
people. From their perspective, there is only definite threats and potential
threats.

And yes, the vast majority is doubtless completely useless. They're looking
for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Their rationale is that, in order
to find the needle, they'd better ensure they have the entire haystack
(preferably the entire farm).

------
frozen11b
It's quite simple. They are collecting everything that might be of use in the
future. Since you can't know exactly what you might need from an in-tel stand
point then you save every bit of data you can.

Also the ability of Big data to find correlations in data gets exponentially
better with the more data you have. This NSA program is the very definition of
Big Data at work.

------
jackjet
Because you can't just selectively spy on the real terrorists (if there are
any). You have to gather all the information on everyone, then you can narrow
it down, by searching for "bomb" in all internet traffic for example.

------
devx
You can't have total power without total surveillance. Communist dictators and
others knew that very well. To remain in power you need to crush any and all
dissent, as early as possible. For that you need near perfect
surveillance/spying on every one.

DHS was already giving surveillance info to the police through the "fusion
centers" during OWS, and we know they were considering the protesters
potential terrorists, and they were arresting a lot of people who protested
against the banks. It was pretty clear on which side the government was on.

So what do you think will happen at the next potential massive protest? Start
thinking stuff like "pre-crime" (which will be achieved if they continue like
this), and there may never be a massive protest again, because everyone who
attempts to attend one will be arrested.

I don't know what the hell is going through these people's heads, and whether
they're all just psychopaths or they really want all this power, but the fact
that US considers all countries "adversaries" is just another side effect,
because they already consider everyone who might speak or protest against the
government a "threat".

------
danso
Sorry, but what do you mean we "finally have proof"? We have insinuations that
they are ahead of the field in cracking encryption standards and that they
work with companies to easy surveillance, but that alone is not enough to show
that they we all have been "spied on, all the time"...and certainly, not
"there's little or nothing that can be done about it."

Have you already forgotten about Edward Snowden? The NSA __contractor __(i.e
outside employee, and by most accounts, not a high-level one in terms of
ranking) copied tens of thousands of documents and secret files? Maybe you
read that he, too, was a regular Internet user. In fact, he was a frequent
anonymous poster to Ars Technica, where, according to reports:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/nation/la-na-nsa-
sno...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/nation/la-na-nsa-
snowden-20130622)

> _But in hundreds of online postings dating back a decade, Snowden also
> denounced "pervasive government secrecy" and criticized America's
> "unquestioning obedience towards spooky types."_

If the NSA has a continuous surveillance program going on, it sure sucks if it
couldn't unmask its rebellious contractor before he went and took a bunch of
files with him to Hong Kong. And it doesn't seem that he did much to hide his
identity, if Ars Technica could de-anonymize him.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to downplay this situation. But your
defeatism is just as naive as what you probably think of Americans who don't
seem to mind the NSA. If you're really upset about this whole thing, how is
your unfounded attitude of "there's little or nothing that can be done about
it" going to contribute much? I would argue that that kind of easy cynicism is
what helps us get into these scenarios in the first place.

~~~
sentisenti
Well, if my attitude is unfounded and my cynicism easy, what can you do about
it?

The general consensus seems to be that the solution will have to be political,
not technical. Makes sense to me.

So it comes down to this: do you honestly still believe in democracy?

Edit: downvoted by some anonymous coward for daring to suggest that there
might not be a solution. Don't bother to prove me wrong, just click the
downvote arrow! That will really show me. Faith in humanity: restored. lol

