By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MTZehvor on 25 June 2013
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
MTZehvor said:
Slimebeast said:

Abuse is certainly a problem and in my view a much stronger argument than just simply "my privacy must be respected out of principle, no matter the circumstances".

Abuse was certainly a huge problem with the KGB and other secret government agencies in the East and are still today in Third world countries so the potential for misuse is there, and power itself usually corrupts like you say, but I'm now aware of any severe abuse in Western democracies in modern times. Yes some abuse certainly happens but I simply don't know about many cases where a person's life has been destroyed because of government surveillance abuse in the West.

But I know for a fact that thousands of people's lives are being destroyed by violent crime and terrorism every year.

Certainly, but we hardly even know how much the NSA's efforts would even begin to stem the tide of terrorism. According to them, their efforts stopped "dozens" of different terrorist attacks last year. But how many is dozens? How many of these attacks would have been preventable through other means? Who are these supposed terrorists to begin with, and when were they put on trial? Where is any credible evidence that proves these figures to begin with?

All that we have is the NSA's word that they've stopped "dozens" of terrorist attacks. Before an entire nation submits itself to secret government wiretapping that has the potential to be horribly abused, I would like a bit more concrete evidence that shows that this wiretapping actually prevents acts of terrorism, and if it does, how many attacks it prevents would be crucial as well.

Yes it's hard to evaluate the results. It relies a lot on trust, how much you trust your elected politicians and the government, and their efficiency and honesty.

But I believe they do have concrete results, CIA and NSA that is.

Recently I saw an Israeli documentary about the Shin Bet, the Israeli secret service responsible for security on the occcupied territories, and this was a documentary critical towards the organization and its methods, but it became very clear that Shin Bet has stopped several terrorist attacks and terrorist leaders. Naturally they used traditional secret service methods such as under-cover agents, interrogations and whatnot, but surveillance was one important method out of many.

There is one large difference between Shin Bet and what the NSA is doing here, however, and it's noted in this article. It's that they don't act in communities unless said communities are expected of wrongdoing to begin with, as opposed to a country-wide wiretapping process where your calls are recorded regardless of whether you are suspected of wrongdoing or not.

And even with that approach, there's still questions of morality/abuse. Women working with Shin Bet seduce suspected criminals into affairs, tape the actions during the affair, and then blackmail them with that tape. Shin Bet is arguably going too far with their programs themselves, and they aren't even spying on non-suspects. Imagine just how far a government who can spy on anyone will go.

But going back to the main point, I still have my doubts about the NSA's supposed credibility. Even if organizations like these have succeeded in other countries (and it's arguable that they have to any real degree), what the NSA is doing here with wiretapping is a much different approach than what other secret services are. Until some statistics can be shown that prove that what the NSA is doing is actually catching criminals that wouldn't be caught any other way, I will have my doubts about the effectiveness of this.