Actually, they used to. Then they wised up and started using couriers. Both worked to the disadvantage of Al Quaida. When they stopped using electronic communications their organization suffered. Then, it was the movements of a courier that gave away Bin Laden.
So, regardless of whether you think it's OK for the NSA to spy on everyone, this push did break down Al Quaida's organization.
Whether it affects cell oriented terrorism (or 'lone wolf' terrorism) is another matter. For example, for the Boston bombers one of them did mention something about terrorism and came on the radar, but the FBI misjudged the threat.
To prevent further attacks. The situation re: radicalization has not changed, and will not change until the economic and social situation in Arab countries improves and/or Saudi influence changes/decreases.
Radical Islam is still around, as you can see by their infiltration of various populist movements in the Arab countries.
Monitoring of social media (as someone mentioned elsewhere here) is probably a very cost effective way of keeping tabs of the flow of money and influence of radical groups.
Except that terrorist attacks on the US were rare before this program, before its predecessors, and before the Internet. "Radical Islam" is not a specific threat by any stretch of the imagination. Most Islamic terrorists are fighting in the Middle East, not in America.
Further, this program is not focused on Islamic groups. It is broad, wholesale surveillance. Everyone is being monitored.
Sorry, but the "we are doing this to keep you safe" line is getting pretty old.
Re: Terrorism. Yes, most of the death count is at the homes of terrorism (which perversely gives the greatest hope that it will stop). However, radical Islamic terrorism is exported all over the world.
Re: Why have espionage agencies, and what should be their scope. Yes, this is a good debate but along the lines of "How big should our military be?" I believe the answer is very complex. As a citizen of a country I would hope my country has a military and an intelligence agency. I would hope both are independent of political influence, yet are under the leash of civilian government.
What should the scope of a spy agency be? By the very nature of the business it needs to be secret from the general public (i.e. other nations). Countries have spied on each other through out history because you really want to know what the other fellow is up to, especially if you can do something about it.
Snowden's statements re: spying on China/Russia whatever are not surprising. If you are a US citizen I would hope that you hope your intelligence agencies are keeping an eye on China/Russia, just as a Chinese citizen you would hope the Chinese government is trying to get information about the US.
It's a delicate game that all countries play to varying degrees of success.
Where Snowden has crossed the line is that he was working for the government and then decided to embarrass it re: other countries.
If Snowden had said, look China spies on the US, Russia spies on China, and the US spies on both. I think this is illegal, he would have been an interesting person to follow though a little naive.
From what he has done, I would think, there is a pretty high chance he is on some payroll, probably Chinese. Again, as others have mentioned, his timing and his statements are not that of a person trying to correct a wrong. It really sounds like some one who's a pawn in a diplomatic game.
When you have a government throwing billions of dollars into locating you, how exactly are you supposed to hide? Especially since Osama's courrier was only discovered because he was sold out (or tortured out) by his associates. In security you can only be as strong as your weakest link, and when dealing with a global organization you will surely have weak links.
> In security you can only be as strong as your weakest link, and when dealing with a global organization you will surely have weak links.
This is the point that this, bandwagon, article misses completely. They may be judging right, the smart criminals (or terrorists) understand tradecraft and how to avoid using obvious means of detection. However there are always many more low level folks that wil slip up due to lack of competence and lack of experience. When this happens we (non-terrorists) are able to establish a foothold at some, any, level of the organization and start to pick it apart.
So, regardless of whether you think it's OK for the NSA to spy on everyone, this push did break down Al Quaida's organization.
Whether it affects cell oriented terrorism (or 'lone wolf' terrorism) is another matter. For example, for the Boston bombers one of them did mention something about terrorism and came on the radar, but the FBI misjudged the threat.