NSA Surveillance

I thank Con for what has so far proven to be a vigorous and enjoyable debate. I will now rebut Con's case, and then defend my own. CON's CASE Point 1: Con makes a big concession here, stating, "I have no problem with an agency monitoring potential terrorist threats on US soil." Therefore, we can take it that Con does not contest the NSA's legal right to conduct domestic anti-terrorism surveillance. Con drops the evidence I offered that the NSA reviews only .00004% of all internet activity. It retains even less. Therefore, we're talking about a relatively selective amount of data, which it is not that hard/inefficient to sift through. Moreover, Con DROPS that the connect-the-dots metaphor is a bad one, because much of the traffic that the NSA is viewing is already linked to terrorists--so, many dots actually need to be connected. Con also DROPS that 9/11 was an interagency failing, not an intra-agency failing, and therefore, by putting one agency in charge of the majority of the surveillance activity, we can avoid the problems associated with 9/11. The NSA can then share information other agencies may need. The use of the NSA as the primary tool does not mean that cooperation with other law enforcement groups will cease. Finally, Con offers this example of the Boston Marathon, but this is only one example. The NSA is human, it will fail every now and then. That does not mean that it is not generating NET benefit. Ultimately, it is the terrorist attacks that we never here of because they never come to fruition that justify the NSA's actions. Point 2: Con DROPS that secrecy is needed to prevent terrorists from adapting to our security strategies. Con only argues that traditional investigators are more effective. This ignores several arguments I gave earlier: (1) traditional investigators often rely on intel from the NSA, (2) the NSA has more resources, and (3) traditional forces are confined to U.S. borders. Moreover, if terrorists are planning an attack outside of the country, traditional investigators won't have access to the witnesses and evidence because they cannot go abroad to look. The NSA has the resources and the power to do what they cannot. All of these points go UNADDRESSED. As for Con's unwarranted comment about a loss of liberties, I will show that the NSA has effective oversight, which protects the liberties of citizens. Point 3: Con misconstrues my argument here. Losses of liberties are costs--though the NSA is heavily overseen. My argument was that the legality and constitutionality of the NSA's actions is irrelevant. Whether the NSA is acting constitutionally has no relevance on whether the NSA is generating net benefits. Besides, something can be unconstitutional without violating specific rights. Therefore, my point can be extended. Additionally, Con basically concedes that domestic surveillance is not inherently illegal, and Con DROPS my assertion that "until the laws governing the NSA are nullified by the Supreme Court, the NSA is acting constitutionally." Con also DROPS that the nun example is a non-unique piece of offense. I ALSO want a stricter definition of terrorism, but that does not preclude me from saying that the benefits of domestic surveillance outweigh the harms. Finally, Con DROPS that there are already many technologies that could infringe liberty, like CCTV in the UK, which videorecords thousands of regular people every day. But, with proper regulation, this technology has become useful to society. Therefore, simply because something has the potential to be invasive or costly does not necessarily mean that it cannot be safely used. With proper oversight, domestic surveillance by the NSA can be--and is--incredibly beneficial. Sources: Con acknowledges most of his arguments are based on one source. This is risky because if Schneier has a personal bias, has conducted faulty research, or is somehow providing inaccurate evidence, there is little evidence offered by Con to corroborate Schneier's positions. PRO's CASE Definitions: All of these were extend earlier. They are the framework for this round. Contention One: Remember that earlier in this debate Con DROPPED the following: that "intelligence-gathering is vital for internet security." In this last round, Con DROPS that NSA surveillance creates, "a repository of information available...in order to supplement and build on [traditional investigators'] existing evidence." Con also DROPS that " terrorists may have contacts in the U.S., making it not just an issue for U.S. authorities, but an issue for a more globally competent authority. That authority is the NSA." Con's only attack here is a new argument that Reinares is not up-to-date with modern NSA activities; yet, this is why I have other evidence and analysis to corroborate my points. Even so, the evidence is still logical, and makes sense in today's environment as it did 9 years ago, which was not all that far off. We are debating post-9/11 surveillance. The Reinares evidence is from 2004, and so is valid. The Italy example is there to illustrate that an intelligence agency surveilling both domestic and foreign targets is a necessary supplement to traditional methods, without which, traditional investigators would be unable to cope. Con NEVER rebuts these extrapolations I draw from Italy; extend them. Being a member of the army does not mean one is a government pawn. Servicemen have their own opinions of the government just as we do. Con also solely focuses on Carafano, barely mentioning Alexander, the person in the best position to give information on this topic. Con also drops that these independent analyses are mutually reinforcing. Finally, his source No. 4 is a libertarian columnist [1] who is against any increase in government power. Con's own source is biased. Contention Two: Con agrees that my numbers are correct. The "fixed dots" are the known terrorists that the NSA is monitoring. Extend the DROPPED CS Monitor evidence--surveillance is not indiscriminate or unreasonable. Con DROPS that employee misconduct is exceedingly rare. Con DROPS the Osmond is now free to say what he wants, and that he is highly qualified to speak on this issue. Con says that the NSA overclassifies, but the secrecy of FISA is necessary because there are MANY genuine instances where secrecy is required. Moreover, Con DROPS that secrecy necessarily precludes oversight. Therefore, by keeping proceedings secret, we prevent potential revelations of critical national security intel without preventing effective oversight. It's a win-win. Con also DROPS that when dealing with classified information, we're not dealing with the "usual judicial system." Con DROPS my Cole evidence, which also attests to the presence of oversights and checks on the NSA's power. Con's HuffPost and Slate sources oppose the NSA's actions. Con tries to obfuscate this, but it doesn't change that fact. Thanks! SOURCE: 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...