NSA Surveillance

I will start some point by point analysis of bsh1's latest argument, using points I have already made. Regarding monitoring terrorist threats, I think it is wrong and inefficient to do so by mass surveillance. So no concession here. Regarding .00004% of data being sifted through. Redcoats with general warants weren't going through many houses themselves. So mabe US should reverse the Constitution to allow general warrants as well. Regarding connect the dots. I believe bsh1 is in misunderstanding of basic capabilities of what the computer systems in place at NSA are capable of doing. They store communications based on keywords like 'bomb'. And later they search for names like 'Abdul' when there is a suspicion on Abdul. Similar to storing all the Google results for 'Nintendo' and then looking for 'Peach'. But articles on Peach may not have Nintendo in them and Peach may also be the nickname of a real person on twitter. So you have false positives, false negatives and all manner of other problems. Mister Schneier has an understanding of IT by education and research. So do I. And so does the NSA that built the system and then expects it to be viewed as flawless. When judging the connect the dots metaphor pro's latest statements make me think that he does not have a basic understanding of what that metaphor describes. Regarding no sharing vs sharing of information. My round 3 [4] source shows that the congressmen themselves are in disagreement about how the newly reformed agencies are able to use mass surveillance to counter terrorist threats. Regarding bsh1's point2: I was under the impression that this debate is about mass surveillance on US soil and not abroad. I was not debating foreign mass surveillance, imoral but mandated by law. Regarding benefits of NSA surveillance: I urge bsh1 to study carefully the connect the dots metaphor in mister Schneier's blog posts to gain insight in how mass surveillance is inefficient. Regarding concession on my part that mass NSA surveillance on US soil is legal: if comparing the matter to the redcoats general warrants suggests legality. Regarding legality of CCTV's in UK. Domestic NSA surveillance came to public attention from a whistleblower. Regarding bias: bsh1's sources are biased or misused. And bsh1 gives no details of why mister Schneier should be biased. Let us go to pro's case in bsh1's last argument. Regarding intelligence gathering being vital for internet security. Mass surveillance is not the only means to gather intelligence so there was no point to drop there. Regarding the repository of information and terrorists contacts in the US. Going through the repository of mass surveillance information connect the dots style I have contended to be inefficient and that is the tool bsh1 would have US use to track foreign terrorists on US soil, infringing on US citizens rights in the process. Regarding mister Reinares. I fail to see how his european born expertise was built on mass surveillance and how benefits of classical intelligence gathering that he preached could be constructed to support mass surveillance. Regarding bias of misters Alexander and Carafano. Mister Alexander is politically involved or vote against me version 2.0. And I was clear in showing that The Heritage Foundation is more or less radical in it's conservative political views. Regarding some numbers on an NSA released paper. bsh1 fails to convince me that the analysis of that numbers was done outside of NSA and/or with an objective point of view. Therefore not combating the numbers on my part is harmless. Regarding my round 3 source [4]. bsh1 fails to see how I have not used the show host's opinions in my contention. Mister Carafano's words, bsh1's own source, and another person's words that in his own words was an constitutional expert is what I have used from that video as opinions. Regarding secrets that cannot be revealed. Redcoats rummaging about colonial homes were free to have a secret way of choosing the houses they were going to search. Regarding HuffingtonPost and Slate from which I used facts and not opinions. Using facts from people with opinions apparently means embroidering the facts with the opinions.