Slashdot Mirror
Americans Not Bothered by NSA Spying
Snap E Tom writes "According to a Washington Post poll, a majority (63%) of Americans 'said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.' A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected personal calls that they made. Even though the program has received bi-partisan criticism from Congress, it appears that the public values security over privacy."
Shouldn't it go more like: Washington Post: Hello, do you have a minute to take a survey?
Citizen: Of course I do!
Washington Post: Great! We were just wondering whether you're concerned with the recent news of the NSA?
Citizen: What news?
*click*
Washington Post: Another call with no objections!
Well, if they don't value their security sufficiently, their privacy will be moot because they will be dead. So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists. It surprises me just how poorly the reality of global jihad has sunk into American mainstream consciousness. I stongly urge those of you utterly against the very concept of the NSA to surf around and find yourself the AlQ Nick Berg beheading video. Fellow travellers of the people who did that are in the US and EU right now. Personally, I can't wait for the day Hilary walks into the White House and gets an eye opener. Then we will see whether the measures taken under Bush are an overreaction or just the start. And a big shout out to the guys at GCHQ and the NSA if you are reading this. More power to your elbows.
You were modded down not for saying that the populace agrees with a foolish tyrant, but for saying that it's not the responsibility of the government to do something about it.
I think it is much simpler than that. The leftists that read site are in denial of the fact that mainstream America is willing to give President Bush the tools he needs to fight terror.
an ill wind that blows no good
But don't accuse the other 63% of being stupid sheep unless you know what reasoning they applied to their opinion. What are they personally giving up (in more specific terms than just "privacy")? What are they personally gaining?
I will accuse them of being of stupid sheep because only stupid sheep who can't see beyond the direct personal effects would chose the way they did. If you limit the scope to personal effects it comes down to this:
PROs: No benefit - less than 1 out of 100,000 americans have been killed by terrorist acts in the last 10 years. Chance of happening to any individual is effectively zero, nothing the NSA does will reduce those odds.
CONs: Waste of tax dollars.
Anyone smart enough to see beyond the scope of just personal effects can see a bunch more cons like:
1) Call graph data makes it easy to hunt down whistle-blowers who call reporters.
2) Call graph data makes it easy to infer bogus connections between people, potentially resulting in bogus arrests and false imprisonment.
Yet extending the scope like that reveals no new benefits - smart terrorists won't be using phones to communicate.
So yes, anyone who can't do a simple cost/benefits analysis of this situation is a stupid sheep.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
True enough, but if you open up your borders even more than that imbecile Bush is currently doing, and if law enforcement completely stopped doing its job (not that I'm convinced that they are doing a very good job at the moment), the probabilities would probably change. Furthermore, if you provided every Muslim with (even more) free weapons, (even more) money, and free airplane tickets to the US, the probabilities would change even more. The only conclusion I want you to draw from this is that a lot more people want to kill you than have the means to do so.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
You don't know that. You can't know that. The minute AQ gets ahold of a nuke the odds will shift quite dramatically against you. And when a couple cities dissappear beneath a mushroom cloud you'll be the first one to say the government didn't do enough.
It really irritates me when idiots like you call terrorists "boogeyman". These people are not like you and me. They're dangerous, and they do their best to become more dangerous. The fact that we haven't been hit since 9/11 doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they're not interested in setting off bombs in shopping malls and sports stadiums, killing mere hundreds.
Terrorists are a lame red herring. There's always been terrorists, there always will be unhappy people in this world.
Yes, there have always been terrorists. But the technology that allows regular people to make biological weapons, or small states to make nukes is new within the last couple decades.
The idea these are "unhappy people" is laughably ignorant. They're not "unhappy people", they're religious fanatics. They think the act of slaughtering American civilians will get them into heaven. And they're supported, with money and training, by states in the Middle East.
My point being that this is often used as an ad hoc attack against someone who people of the left tend to disagree with even though every independant study I've seen on the subject suggests that Fox News right wing bias is much much less than the majority of the remaining MSM's left wing bias (with noted exceptions to "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer", "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and "Good Morning America" which tend to fall just slightly to the left of center). In most cases the studies I have seen have shown a just slightly right of center bias on Fox and not the far outlier those on the extreme left love to claim.
Of course in a industry with a self reported rate of 70-90% liberals (and according to survey data more to the far left than center left on most topics) anyone who happens to not follow the groupthink agenda is seen as an extremeist for the right side.
It's amazing that even with my admittance that I do not watch Fox news with the exception of two talk shows, you still maintain that I'm essentially brainwashed by them. I rarely, if ever, use even the couple shows I do watch on Fox as primary sources for my opinions.
Three words: pot, kettle, black
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!