The USA has witnessed our national security weaknesses at times of transition such as the changing administrations in the Executive Branch. The attacks on the WTC occurred in the first year of the two Presidents. There is sincere reasons to not change what works.
By
The real threat from terrorism (click here) is not the harm it inflicts directly but the over-reaction it provokes. We saw that with the invasion of Iraq. We're seeing it with security-state overreach....
The internet is a social tool. It sincerely has no place for national security or corporate business security. If commercial businesses want to place their own corporate security online it is at their own peril. That is the case with social content, too. From the beginning of the commercial use of the 'http: universe' no one ever promised security or benevolence. It is not possible to completely secure a global computer network. That is the TRUTH. Any other idea of internet security is a falsehood.
That is not the point so much as a fact. The point is the NSA finds surveillance a good tool to secure the USA from THREATS. The problem is that the NSA and it's affiliation with government power is threatENING more than the immediate concerns of citizens in regard to their own safety. There is no evidence that the NSA is using their surveillance to round up innocent people or depriving those that they may arrest due process. That stated, the only real threat to Americans with this surveillance is the interpretation by the courts of the information.
My suggestion is this. Leave the NSA alone to do the job they have to do while protecting citizens. That has worked fairly well. We are into this mess by a decade and there have been no real threats to innocent citizens. None that appears anywhere.
The focus really and sincerely belongs with Quality Assurance at the NSA and monitoring FISA.
Quality Control at the NSA has to include redundancy of security which includes honoring the right of privacy for the citizen. It also includes self-policing at the NSA. In other words, the telephone and data companies cooperating with the NSA are basically known to everyone. There are a finite number of them. Within that company structure are members of their networks, those that subscribe to their services. There are finite numbers of people using their services. The 'baseline' for surveillance is finite. It seems huge, but, in all honesty is it finite.
The information the NSA is finding valuable in application of USA national security has characteristics. Those characteristics should have been conceptualized by now. Getting the picture? With a finite baseline of possible insults to the USA national security and defined characteristics of what exactly the NSA calls a threat, where are we going with this thing? Is the NSA going to apply their 'science of identifying threats' to a finite level of consumers forever? Not likely. Sooner or later the baseline of threat perpetrators becomes defined.
The point is the 'repeat offenders' found in the surveillance becomes obvious and becomes the focus.
Hasan the Fort Hood murderer developed his tipping point over time. No one wants Hasan reaching a tipping point. We want Hasans to stop progressing to be Hasans. If the threat perpetrators continue their methodology without interruption there will be many Hasan, no different than Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest of the distinguished list of chronic threats.
Securing the USA from chronic threats has to be one of the goals of the USA's NSA AND how to achieve that. I would think other security agencies such as Interpol would carry that concern as well. The abusive cycle of radicalization has to be interrupted. That is the point. The Boston Bombers were radicalized. McVeigh was radicalized. We know their point of view never enters the paradigm of governing. Quite the opposite. When these events occur we as a nation believe more deeply in our definition of crime and punishment.
The NSA has a program they claim that works. We have to take them at their word. However, the program has dynamics that have to be examined for it's value. Only those within the NSA can do that, but, legislators can demand same. In demanding tight operations at the NSA legislators and their politics are served. There is always room for quality improvement with the NSA programs. There is always a place for oversight of FISA.
Currently, I think Congress has been lax and the Executive Branch has been left to pick up where Congress has been negligent or regressive. I can't say I would do anything different if I were in the Executive Branch and seeking to secure a nation of people. It is not realistic to believe there are alternatives to the current surveillance. There is also no reason for politicians to deceive about their knowledge of the operations of the NSA and the extent of the surveillance.
There are things legislators can do. There are things legislators have to do. It is that reality that has to be served. I am sure to many these statements are as clear as mud. Too bad.
Senator Paul is very verbal about the liberties of the people of the USA. He is correct in many ways. What then if anything does he suggest to maintain the level of security the USA now enjoys while honoring the liberties of Americans? I want to hear concrete policies to apply to the national security of the USA. We don't secure the USA by ideas that are not applicable or the hubris of 'do nothing.'
By
The real threat from terrorism (click here) is not the harm it inflicts directly but the over-reaction it provokes. We saw that with the invasion of Iraq. We're seeing it with security-state overreach....
The internet is a social tool. It sincerely has no place for national security or corporate business security. If commercial businesses want to place their own corporate security online it is at their own peril. That is the case with social content, too. From the beginning of the commercial use of the 'http: universe' no one ever promised security or benevolence. It is not possible to completely secure a global computer network. That is the TRUTH. Any other idea of internet security is a falsehood.
That is not the point so much as a fact. The point is the NSA finds surveillance a good tool to secure the USA from THREATS. The problem is that the NSA and it's affiliation with government power is threatENING more than the immediate concerns of citizens in regard to their own safety. There is no evidence that the NSA is using their surveillance to round up innocent people or depriving those that they may arrest due process. That stated, the only real threat to Americans with this surveillance is the interpretation by the courts of the information.
My suggestion is this. Leave the NSA alone to do the job they have to do while protecting citizens. That has worked fairly well. We are into this mess by a decade and there have been no real threats to innocent citizens. None that appears anywhere.
The focus really and sincerely belongs with Quality Assurance at the NSA and monitoring FISA.
Quality Control at the NSA has to include redundancy of security which includes honoring the right of privacy for the citizen. It also includes self-policing at the NSA. In other words, the telephone and data companies cooperating with the NSA are basically known to everyone. There are a finite number of them. Within that company structure are members of their networks, those that subscribe to their services. There are finite numbers of people using their services. The 'baseline' for surveillance is finite. It seems huge, but, in all honesty is it finite.
The information the NSA is finding valuable in application of USA national security has characteristics. Those characteristics should have been conceptualized by now. Getting the picture? With a finite baseline of possible insults to the USA national security and defined characteristics of what exactly the NSA calls a threat, where are we going with this thing? Is the NSA going to apply their 'science of identifying threats' to a finite level of consumers forever? Not likely. Sooner or later the baseline of threat perpetrators becomes defined.
The point is the 'repeat offenders' found in the surveillance becomes obvious and becomes the focus.
Hasan the Fort Hood murderer developed his tipping point over time. No one wants Hasan reaching a tipping point. We want Hasans to stop progressing to be Hasans. If the threat perpetrators continue their methodology without interruption there will be many Hasan, no different than Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest of the distinguished list of chronic threats.
Securing the USA from chronic threats has to be one of the goals of the USA's NSA AND how to achieve that. I would think other security agencies such as Interpol would carry that concern as well. The abusive cycle of radicalization has to be interrupted. That is the point. The Boston Bombers were radicalized. McVeigh was radicalized. We know their point of view never enters the paradigm of governing. Quite the opposite. When these events occur we as a nation believe more deeply in our definition of crime and punishment.
The NSA has a program they claim that works. We have to take them at their word. However, the program has dynamics that have to be examined for it's value. Only those within the NSA can do that, but, legislators can demand same. In demanding tight operations at the NSA legislators and their politics are served. There is always room for quality improvement with the NSA programs. There is always a place for oversight of FISA.
Currently, I think Congress has been lax and the Executive Branch has been left to pick up where Congress has been negligent or regressive. I can't say I would do anything different if I were in the Executive Branch and seeking to secure a nation of people. It is not realistic to believe there are alternatives to the current surveillance. There is also no reason for politicians to deceive about their knowledge of the operations of the NSA and the extent of the surveillance.
There are things legislators can do. There are things legislators have to do. It is that reality that has to be served. I am sure to many these statements are as clear as mud. Too bad.
Senator Paul is very verbal about the liberties of the people of the USA. He is correct in many ways. What then if anything does he suggest to maintain the level of security the USA now enjoys while honoring the liberties of Americans? I want to hear concrete policies to apply to the national security of the USA. We don't secure the USA by ideas that are not applicable or the hubris of 'do nothing.'
