The NSA will never be able to prevent a terrorist attack hatched and communicated entirely within the US since they're a foreign intelligence agency - by statute their focus is on foreign threats and they're not allowed to collect against people inside the United States. That's why, for example, congress called the FBI Director to question regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, not the NSA Director[1]. The NSA would only be able to help with terrorist attacks against the US planned by international terrorist groups or terrorist attacks purely directed overseas. That's not to say that US targeting of foreign terrorist threats doesn't have a purpose. We have lots of diplomats, soldiers, etc. serving overseas, not to mention aiding foreign partners.
I think the terrorism card has been played a bit too much by the administration. Yes, there is a threat, but it's much more of a threat to embassy staff and military overseas than ordinary Americans. I think it's used as justification because it's easier for Americans to see terrorists as threatening after the 9/11 attacks. It's harder for the average American to feel threatened by foreign spies and state-sponsored hackers, or see the value in spying on foreign government officials.
The parties who stand to benefit from cutting back NSA spying are the people who are targeted by it. Most of the articles that come out just show how the NSA is conducting their collection and then pass on assumptions that they must be targeting everyone. The NYT article we're discussing today actually goes into some detail on who they're targeting. Any tradeoff discussion needs to focus what they're actually doing and whether or not the US would be better without it. The problem of who they could be targeting can be dealt with using proper oversight and legal frameworks - we have an armed police force but don't live in fear of random officers breaking into our homes and gunning down our families.
I think the terrorism card has been played a bit too much by the administration. Yes, there is a threat, but it's much more of a threat to embassy staff and military overseas than ordinary Americans. I think it's used as justification because it's easier for Americans to see terrorists as threatening after the 9/11 attacks. It's harder for the average American to feel threatened by foreign spies and state-sponsored hackers, or see the value in spying on foreign government officials.
The parties who stand to benefit from cutting back NSA spying are the people who are targeted by it. Most of the articles that come out just show how the NSA is conducting their collection and then pass on assumptions that they must be targeting everyone. The NYT article we're discussing today actually goes into some detail on who they're targeting. Any tradeoff discussion needs to focus what they're actually doing and whether or not the US would be better without it. The problem of who they could be targeting can be dealt with using proper oversight and legal frameworks - we have an armed police force but don't live in fear of random officers breaking into our homes and gunning down our families.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/fbi-prevent-boston-...