
NSA Chief: Terrorists Using Leaked Info [video] - wikiburner
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp=52539269&#52539269
======
jacquesm
If there is one thing these leaks have done then it is to register in the mind
of the general public that these institutions are not just benign clubs of
mathematicians that boldly crack evildoer codes that no man has cracked before
but that they are collecting any kind of data they can get their hands on,
including yours, to decide later on if it was useful or not.

The fact that that alone and the potential consequences are now (slowly)
sinking in to the public consciousness made these leaks more than worth it.

That debate needs to be had and it needs to be had in the open, the hypocrisy
of politicians (Merkel comes to mind) when they address the subject is
telling.

That 'terrorists' (who are these guys anyway, didn't you mean criminals) are
using the leaked info is a statement of fact which is hard to falsify
(terrorists won't own up to it) and probably even harder to prove so it should
carry very little or no weight at all.

~~~
dhimes
_in the mind of the general public_

I wish this was true. I don't think it's there yet. I virtually hear nobody
outside of tech talking about it. It's really quite remarkable.

~~~
lukifer
It's the Big Lie phenomenon at work. Someone revealing a specific embarassing
private email between two law-abiding citizens? That would be a story. But
reading and processing every email is just too big to contemplate, and to
those who don't know how databases work, I'm sure that it seems impossible.
Surely no one could or would do that, right?

I'll tell you what, though: young people are absolutely paying attention.

~~~
throwit1979
Quite relevant to your post, although image memes are generally frowned upon
by HN: [http://i.imgur.com/mW0YHRK.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/mW0YHRK.jpg)

------
downandout
This is nothing more than a combination of fear mongering and pouting over the
loss of the secrecy that their little fiefdom once enjoyed. These are
government servants at their worst.

~~~
bittired
Well, doubting that leaks of information won't have a negative impact on our
security is pretty obtuse also. I'm not afraid, but I also wouldn't be
surprised if we have a greater number of terrorist attacks in the coming
years. It's in their interest to complain for multiple reasons.

~~~
downandout
Snowden merely confirmed a widely held suspicion that the feds are recording
and analyzing most modern communications. The notion that terrorists didn't
already assume this and use encryption online and burner cell phones is
dubious to me. If anything, Snowden may have stopped some would-be terrorists
by showing them just how many ways there are for them to get caught.

~~~
BWStearns
There's also another layer to this: The terrorists that actually exist are not
10 feet tall and not all geniuses. If I told some of my non-technologically
oriented friends how to encrypt and anonymize their communications, they
couldn't do it. If I went one step further and configured their computers and
explained to them how to use it, they would probably still leak information by
misusing it.

Are the terrorists changing their tactics? Probably. Is it going to do them
any good? Unlikely.

------
beedogs
I like that he covers his ass by saying "terrorists _and other groups_ " have
been changing their habits. "Other groups" probably means stuff like Occupy,
animal welfare activists, other sorts of scary 'fringe' groups, and probably
rank-and-file citizens too, but it's a useful way to bulk up his claim a
little more.

~~~
bjornsing
I think he's specifically referring to the HN community there. ;)

------
chao-
The majority of my HN comments are multi-paragraph, needlessly thought-out
statements. But on this one all I can muster is:

 _Boo Fucking Hoo._

~~~
foobarbazqux
Pithy one-liners are much more fun.

------
anonymoushn
"You have seen concrete proof that maybe places where you used to be able to
listen to are now silent?"

"We have concrete proof that terrorist groups and others are taking action,
making changes, and it's gonna make our job tougher."

Although the lead-in mentions that intelligence collection has been hindered
(in the past tense), Keith Alexander is only willing to say that it will be
hindered in the future.

~~~
danenania
Because clearly our entire legal framework should be designed around making
the NSA's job easier. Why not put surveillance cameras in everyone's houses?
Why not implant everyone with tracking chips? Why not have TSA agents look up
our assholes with a flashlight at airport security? All these things would
certainly make the country safer.

Just as concerning as the programs themselves are these kinds of idiotic
arguments that their proponents make to justify them. I'm not hugely keen on
trusting someone who can't avoid extremely simplistic logical fallacies in his
reasoning to oversee the surveillance of all humanity.

~~~
w_t_payne
Don't joke about it. This sort of thing is all to plausible. Think about the
data collected by fitness-tracking devices. What about when these are mandated
by your insurance provider? After all, some car insurance companies are
already promoting the use of tracking devices in your car. There are all sorts
of ways that we can be induced to buy and install the infrastructure that
facilitates an Orwellian police state. This book does a good job of laying out
how it could (all to plausibly) come about:
[http://amzn.com/1841499390](http://amzn.com/1841499390)

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Provider-issued set top boxes and routers are scarier, IMO.

~~~
dpcx
In what way?

~~~
knowaveragejoe
As the other reply said, the provider has remote access to those devices. That
amounts to them having a fully functional computer(or 2 or 3) replete with
wireless radios and other goodies in your house(at least, in theory).

------
scrrr
Ah, the liars are releasing a new statement. Very interesting. And their job
is tougher now? Interesting. How did they ever fight criminals and terrorists
before mass surveillance! Unimaginable.

~~~
droopyEyelids
I liked how he said 'No one can listen to all the phone calls and read all the
emails, the volume is simply too much!' neatly side stepping the fact that a
computer is not a person.

~~~
Roboprog
Exactly, as if they couldn't _store_ them.

Maybe, just maybe, enough lay people are used to using "Google" to query a
mountain of crap (the internet) to find a few interesting nuggets that they
realize the government could do the same.

Step 2: getting people to realize how badly this can go when correlation =
causation, and _you_ are guilty by association.

------
headShrinker
Leave it to NBC News to cover the NSA's BS stance, as well as the the programs
legality issue, yet completely zone out about the programs effectiveness,
expense, expanse, or actually question the NSA chief's statement, 'it is
impossible to listen to phone calls, and read all emails due to their shear
number'. But they are recording them all... which is the problem!

------
dantheman
Is he merely telling us the least untruthful statement? I mean how can anyone
trust a word he says?

------
w_t_payne
Since the definition of "terrorism" has been watered down to the point where
it can mean almost anything, a "terrorist" can therefore be almost anyone ..
or, to be a little kinder to our lords and masters, the number of people to
whom the term "terrorist" can potentially be applied has increased
dramatically.

If enough people have changed their behaviour as a result of the surveillance
/ nascent police-state scandal, then this statement is statistically
plausible, so I am not calling out "B.S." just yet - although the usual
warnings about rampant language-lawyering apply as per normal.

------
joelrunyon
"Not to hide it from you. But to hide it from those AMONG you who are trying
to kill you."

Oh, well that makes me feel safe...

~~~
_sabe_
Haven't you seen them? I hear they're everywhere.

------
perlpimp
Now NSA is terrorizing American public, shame on them! or wait they are
shameless. SAD.

------
alan_cx
Sorry to be cynical and grumpy, but.....

Careful folks, come high karma folks here will accuses you of trite anarchy
for these comments.

------
sudonim
Nice fearmongering:

 _" The reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the american people, not
to hide it from you, but to hide it from those who walk among you who are
trying to kill you."_

... well in that case, please take my rights and the rights of my neighbors if
it gives me a little temporary security.

------
thejteam
This illustrates nicely the problem that I have with the way Manning and
Snowden went about leaking their information. It seems that they grabbed a
bunch of information and sent it to reporters without really thinking what
information ought to be released. Do I think that the existence of the NSA
spying programs should be public knowledge? Yes. Do I think that I really have
a need to know the exact methods they use to implement these programs? No.
That part is not necessary for us to make an informed decision and whether or
not the programs should exist.

~~~
dmd
Manning, probably. Snowden? Have you been paying _any_ attention at all? It's
been extremely clear that he (and the Guardian) have been _extremely_
conservative in what they've released and have spent enormous effort on making
sure it doesn't contain information that would harm anyone or anything other
than the reputation of the US government.

~~~
thejteam
In what has been publicly released, I agree with you. I'm also sure he has a
lot of information on his pen drive that is being circulated around back
channels, whether he really wanted it to or not.

~~~
jessaustin
You're sure, I'm not sure. Do you have anything to back up your statement?

------
delinka
Mods: Can we get a (vidoe) in the title?

------
bartl
What is this supposed to link to? What I see is "As civil war rages on in
Syria, humanitarian suffering is reaching new catastrophic levels."

~~~
VLM
Probably a "hidden" message about where this is leading America to...

------
ynniv
Billions of documents sounds like a lot to people who aren't programmers!

------
forgotAgain
Hopefully Congress does as well.

------
unclebucknasty
> _The reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the American people. But,
> to hide it from those who walk among you who want to kill you._

Fear-monger much? What can you _not_ justify with this line of reasoning?
"Well, we're not herding you all up into concentration camps because of
anything you've done innocent Americans. We're putting you all there because
of the evil Americans who walk among you."

If we buy the mindset that the "evil-doers" are indistinguishable from
innocent Americans, then we will allow virtually anything.

And, is this overt paranoia inducement even remotely justified? I mean,
really, what percentage of the so-called terrorists are "other Americans that
walk among us"? For that matter, how many "terrorists" are really out there?

But, this is a subtle, insidious, and very purposeful shift. It's an example
of how they've moved the goalposts and are increasingly morphing these
"terrorist-tools" into a hyper-surveillance program to keep tabs on all
Americans. There was a time when they'd have to justify their actions and
abide by Constitutional protections by pointing to foreign involvement in
monitored communications. The line was that they are not monitoring us, as
much as they are monitoring those foreigners who happened to be talking to us.
Now, he's allowing that Americans are specifically being targeted
domestically, but that it must be done because the terrorists "walk among us".

Also love the way the story frames the NSA activity as more benign and highly
targeted:

 _" [a program that] gathers data on numbers dialed and length of calls,
though not call content, and another that allows the NSA to monitor overseas
e-mails and Internet sites used by suspected terrorists."_

Makes it sound highly targeted and less invasive to innocent Americans. But,
we've already learned how they get call content, that the distinction between
foreign and domestic communication is less meaningful than we originally
thought, and other details that go beyond the benign characterization of the
story. This story seems to be stuck in the days before so many more
revelations came out.

They left out all but the "This message brought to you by the NSA."

~~~
swalkergibson
> How many "terrorists" are really out there?

I was intrigued by this question and wondered the same. I created this Google
spreadsheet
([https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTjVTjz9GpldFJ...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTjVTjz9GpldFJoYUVEMjJ1bHI2NFh5V3YxWUwzR3c#gid=0))
with the estimated strength of all groups listed here:
[http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195553.htm#ano](http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195553.htm#ano).
As of 2011, it would appear that the US government has calculated there are
approximately 50,000-100,000 terrorists worldwide. I did not include the names
of the groups in the spreadsheet, but I went top-to-bottom through the list
and recorded the "Strength" of each group and put it into a cell.
Unfortunately, the estimates are almost entirely vague and nebulous (probably
intentionally), so I was very generous in my calculations. The spreadsheet is
world editable, so I invite any contributions.

For scale, according to Wikipedia and this site:
[http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-
California.html](http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-California.html), all
terrorists in the world identified by the US government would fit in a city
between the size of Novato, CA (50K population) and Boulder, CO (100K
population).

According to the DoD budget here
([http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budge...](http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf))
we have spent $1.5 trillion dollars on "Overseas Contingency Operations" since
FY2001. Taking that data into account, we have spent $17 million for every
single known terrorist in the world since 2001, at a rate of $1.2 million per
year (14 years).

According to this:
[http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66)
we spend $10,694 per year on pupils in the US public education system.

Are there any people out there who happen to know off-hand how much money the
French government spends per person on healthcare?

------
squozzer
The Enlightenment. Born 1632, died 2013. Rest in peace.

~~~
Roboprog
Died 2001, you mean. At least in the U.S.

(Sometimes, I think the U.S. started to commit suicide in 1981, though, with
the advent of Reaganism, but that's a slightly different discussion)

