The danger as I see it is negligible to the average Internet user, until they become a person of interest to someone with the power to use these programs - a journalist say might pursue their work for decades without being interfered with, but with all their correspondence stored, only to find themselves undermined fatally by their actions at the age of 19 when they broke a story which the administration didn't like, decades later. In the same way that Nixon abused surveillance powers to undermine reporters, someone high up in the chain of command could redirect the NSA for their own purposes - if there is no open judicial oversight and no respect for the rule of law, this is inevitable. I wouldn't want to live in a world where that is possible.
What I find disturbing about these tools is that they are far more suited to retrospective analysis, and therefore to discovering dirt on ordinary people and undermining the rule of law, than suited to tracking terrorists (the ostensible aim). They'd be far more useful to someone like Nixon than to someone genuinely concerned with promoting America's interests in the world and stopping terrorist attacks, because those planning serious attacks will simply use other means of communication (as in Bin Laden's use of paper and messengers). In addition to that they are so wide-ranging that the damage and danger caused by them far outweighs any possible benefit.
Also this sort of powerful bureaucracy has a way of ensuring its own survival after it reaches a certain size and power - after all if the NSA hears politicians are planning to shut them down, they might have to take steps to stay in business - a very easy task with tame secret courts rubber-stamping requests and a culture of little respect for the rights of those surveilled. Just a matter of digging up their surveillance on most of congress (who of course have all had contact with foreigners, so fair game), and deciding where to apply leverage. Imagine then someone truly evil in charge of the NSA, and the power they could wield, unfettered by quaint notions of international law or oversight by other branches of government.
> What I find disturbing about these tools is that they are far more suited to retrospective analysis, and therefore to discovering dirt on ordinary people and undermining the rule of law,
Aha yes. Access this kind of system would be Stalin's or any other brutal dictator's wet dream. This is what they'd get a hard on thinking about. "Oh, I wish I had a system where everyone would input their hobbies, interests, connections, all they messages (Facebook, GMail, Skype, etc) and then I would be able to read and access those things, all the phone calls, shopping habits, text messages, what kind of porn they like, who they like to joke about, what they eat,...mmm". Well guess what we have that here and now.
Retrospective analysis is the key here. I have mentioned in the past how the formula for a successful brutal dictatorship is this:
1) Complicated, ambiguous and broad laws (disobedience, being suspicious, obstruction of justice, obstruction of business, disorderly conduct, etc etc)
2) Total monitoring and control & archiving
Just those 2) are enough. With enough background material to scare anyone with jail, a criminal record, disclosure of shameful information ("I see you like foot fetishes, how would you like if your church friends found out about that?... Are you sure you should keep participating in this Occupy movement, think twice about it...") they can control and manipulate anyone.
What I find disturbing about these tools is that they are far more suited to retrospective analysis, and therefore to discovering dirt on ordinary people and undermining the rule of law, than suited to tracking terrorists (the ostensible aim). They'd be far more useful to someone like Nixon than to someone genuinely concerned with promoting America's interests in the world and stopping terrorist attacks, because those planning serious attacks will simply use other means of communication (as in Bin Laden's use of paper and messengers). In addition to that they are so wide-ranging that the damage and danger caused by them far outweighs any possible benefit.
Also this sort of powerful bureaucracy has a way of ensuring its own survival after it reaches a certain size and power - after all if the NSA hears politicians are planning to shut them down, they might have to take steps to stay in business - a very easy task with tame secret courts rubber-stamping requests and a culture of little respect for the rights of those surveilled. Just a matter of digging up their surveillance on most of congress (who of course have all had contact with foreigners, so fair game), and deciding where to apply leverage. Imagine then someone truly evil in charge of the NSA, and the power they could wield, unfettered by quaint notions of international law or oversight by other branches of government.