NSA Surveillance

I will take this opportunity to thank Con for joining in this debate. I will use this speech to rebut Con's case, point-by-point. CON's CASE Point One: Con asserts that there is simply too much information out there to sift through effectively. Yet, only about .00004% of the internet's content is reviewed by the NSA--this is less than one part per million. [1] Essentially what the NSA is doing is putting the information through a sieve; it does not retain most of the information it views, but it has to analyze a lot of raw data to find those nuggets of information that could be useful. In fact, the connect-the-dots metaphor that Con is using is not actually the best metaphor to use. The NSA's intelligence network, which does do some connecting dots, also analyzes traffic between known terrorists and individuals in the U.S. In this case, connecting-the-dots is not necessary, because the traffic is known to be directly linked to terrorists, and therefore, can prove invaluable to security experts. Finally, the example of 9/11 is inapt for the claim Con is making. 9/11 was a inter-agency failing, not an INTRA-agency failing. In the case of 9/11, many disparate agencies from the DIA to the NSA all had information, but, because they failed to share their information, they were unable to connect-the-dots. [2, 3] If the information were focused more within a specific agency, the data-sharing problems would not arise, and so it would be easier to connect-the-dots. In this way, Con's own analysis fails. Point Two: Con essentially offers a plan that training and hiring better investigators would solve the problem better than NSA domestic surveillance. To quote Con's own source: "we cannot neglect the feeling of security, because it's how we collectively overcome the psychological damage that terrorism causes. It's not security theater we need, it's direct appeals to our feelings." [4] What Schneier is arguing in this piece is that "spying" laws fail, because they operate behind the scenes. In fact, what is needed, according to Schneier, is a more visible security effort. It would seem, that under this analysis, that the additional hassles at the airport are actually good, despite Con's protestations. I would counter that it is not more visible security precautions that we need, but more effective behind-the-scenes efforts. Visibility makes it easy for terrorists to scrutinize our security efforts, whereas, if things are less then visible, it becomes harder for terrorists to adapt and react to our security strategies. Moreover, traditional investigators often rely on research conducted by intelligence-gathering organizations, and even then, they do not have the resources that the NSA does. Ultimately, having the NSA working to promote safety will bring experts and materiel to bear on the issue that otherwise would not be available, and thus, NSA surveillance is beneficial. Point Three: Con makes some Constitutionality arguments here. Firstly, this debate is one of cost-benefit-analysis, and therefore this debate should not be weighed under a legality calculus, but a benefit calculus. Moreover, I would cross-apply my second contention here which speaks directly to the constitutional oversight mechanisms in place that help to keep the NSA in check. And, until the laws governing the NSA are nullified by the Supreme Court, the NSA is acting constitutionally. In addendum, we are not debating how to define terrorism, we are debating whether surveillance is useful in combatting it. The nun example is, consequently, not topical to the debate. I can agree that the definition of terror should be more stringent, while still believing the NSA's actions to be justifiable. Lastly, as to Cons assertion that "'it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state'," there are many such technologies or advancements already in existence. For example, WMDs, NBCs, CCTV, and more. All of these technologies have the potential to be disastrous for liberty, but as long as they are vigorously regulated, they can be employed constructively. It is not the technologies themselves that should be at issue, rather it is the method of oversight. Final Notes: Con relies entirely on one source to makes his case, whereas I pull from a variety of experts with concurring opinions to build my arguments. Additionally, much of my case can be cross-applied to Con's. For example, my C1 addresses Con's points about the efficacy of the NSA, and my C2 counters the assertions that there is a lack of checks levied on the NSA's power. With that, I look forward to Con's next speech. SOURCES 1 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2 - http://www.afcea.org... 3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4 - https://www.schneier.com...