Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell

Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."

Comments

Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill USans

[sepluv]

Last week, he also said that, if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".

Here's a quote from the interview with El Paso Times:

Q. So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?
A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing.

What's this guy smoking? Or maybe it is a threat to the members of congress à la the film, Enemy of the State.

This is a managed interview

[E-Sabbath]

Look how much the man speaks, compared to how little the interviewer speaks. There are no slips in this interview, and there are a very large amount of omissions. Of course, all the omissions are of things that would be blatantly illegal, and we do know some of them are occurring. (Surveillance of all American phone calls at the switch level, for example. The taps are in, even if unused.) It only makes me exceptionally curious as to what he's hiding, because I certainly get the impression he's hiding something.

Re:well not exactly

[Xonstantine]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist. I'm more concerned about my civil liberties. In the end, government can do very little to protect us but can certainly make our lives miserable while trying. The problem with all these terrorism laws is, despite ostensibly to fight a temporary battle, they stick around and get used for every day mundane law enforcement. Sort of like the telecom tax used to pay for the Spanish American war...these things tend to stick around long after their original purpose has lapsed.

And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.

Odds of Dying

[Khammurabi]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist.

According to a nifty study done in 2003, your odds of dying (per year) due to a terrorist act (assuming you're not blowing yourself up) are 1 in 77,292. And that number was calculated by lumping roughly 30 other causes of death in along with it (that's a fair bit of data skewing). The actual odds are likely 3 times as remote as that (if not more) if the real data would be taken into account. (What's it been pre and post 2001, like under 500 each year before and after if you include school shootings and such?)

Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.

By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?

America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.

So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.