What if you want to sue NSA based on what Binney is saying. What makes it reasonable to believe Binney's claim of a continuation and expansion of the terrorist surveillance program?
There are probably a few ways to analyze this, but here's one line of questioning that looks only at the reasonableness angle:
Hoovering up "trillions" of transactions has to be feasible technology-wise and budget-wise, right?
NSA probably spends a chunk of its resources and budget analyzing the transactions because throwing the stuff away like unread junkmail makes no sense. Who would care if Binney's claim amounts to "NSA fondles Americans' emails and then throws them away".
So is it reasonable to believe that NSA has the tech and budget capacity to do what Binney claims, while at the same time, they're supposed to be collecting foreign intelligence in support of the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq and across the world, and also the State Department, the DNI, etc.?
It doesn't seem reasonable that the NSA would collect nothing other than Binneys' "Trillions" of American "transactions". That's because the information gathered probably won't do much of a job helping track domestic threats AND helping answer foreign intelligence questions such as: when is the taliban is going to attack a US military post in Afghanistan, or when and how is Kim Jong Un is going to act like a douche. So NSA probably has to split its attention to do the domestic and foreign collection. Also, NSA probably can't get away with shortchanging the parts of the government that rely on the foreign information. Judging by the scale of global US military and foreign affairs work, gathering foreign intelligence information is probably not a small job--lots of languages and lots of places. So NSA is probably using a lot of resources and money for foreign intelligence military, because otherwise it would really tick off the military, the DNI, the State Department, and also the Congressional committees that need foreign intelligence.
So why is it reasonable to think that NSA has the capacity to do what Binney claims?
Is it so cheap and easy to get and analyze Binney's American "transactions" that NSA hardly needs to use any effort? Maybe this is his argument, because if this is such a shameful or illegal effort, there's a chance that it wouldn't attract a lot of scrutiny.
But otherwise, it's probably a substantial effort that requires significant money, time and people to run, and that means if Congress doesn't already know about it, they've caught wind of it. In that case, why isn't Congress making a big public effort to investigate claims by Binney and others?
Even if Congress can't prove the thing is illegal, they money alone would probably lead some members of Congress to ask questions about a potentially embarrassing, illegal or wasteful program. Senators and congressmen doesn't usually get reelected because of how nice they are to the federal government. Senators and congressmen have an interest in showing the public that their oversight protects citizens' rights, and protects taxpayer dollars by doing something about illegal and wasteful government efforts. Certainly Senators Wyden has expressed concerns (http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-call-for-informed-debate-of-domestic-surveillance-law) but so far it seems like more smoke than fire. Also, this is a national election year. Those who want a different President probably aren't interested in protecting the incumbent from a budget or civil liberties scandal. There are a lot of incentives for a lot of legislators to take a public oversight interest in a valid claim, and at least some of them would probably welcome whistleblowers. So isn't it odd that not much is happening?
What about Binney himself? His credibility would certainly be made an issue in any lawsuit. Why should he be believed? He retired 11 years ago in 2001 according to the www.democracynow.org article. But he's making claims about a secret program that he hasn't had access to since 2001. Th
Slashdot Mirror
What if you want to sue NSA based on what Binney is saying. What makes it reasonable to believe Binney's claim of a continuation and expansion of the terrorist surveillance program? There are probably a few ways to analyze this, but here's one line of questioning that looks only at the reasonableness angle: Hoovering up "trillions" of transactions has to be feasible technology-wise and budget-wise, right? NSA probably spends a chunk of its resources and budget analyzing the transactions because throwing the stuff away like unread junkmail makes no sense. Who would care if Binney's claim amounts to "NSA fondles Americans' emails and then throws them away". So is it reasonable to believe that NSA has the tech and budget capacity to do what Binney claims, while at the same time, they're supposed to be collecting foreign intelligence in support of the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq and across the world, and also the State Department, the DNI, etc.? It doesn't seem reasonable that the NSA would collect nothing other than Binneys' "Trillions" of American "transactions". That's because the information gathered probably won't do much of a job helping track domestic threats AND helping answer foreign intelligence questions such as: when is the taliban is going to attack a US military post in Afghanistan, or when and how is Kim Jong Un is going to act like a douche. So NSA probably has to split its attention to do the domestic and foreign collection. Also, NSA probably can't get away with shortchanging the parts of the government that rely on the foreign information. Judging by the scale of global US military and foreign affairs work, gathering foreign intelligence information is probably not a small job--lots of languages and lots of places. So NSA is probably using a lot of resources and money for foreign intelligence military, because otherwise it would really tick off the military, the DNI, the State Department, and also the Congressional committees that need foreign intelligence. So why is it reasonable to think that NSA has the capacity to do what Binney claims? Is it so cheap and easy to get and analyze Binney's American "transactions" that NSA hardly needs to use any effort? Maybe this is his argument, because if this is such a shameful or illegal effort, there's a chance that it wouldn't attract a lot of scrutiny. But otherwise, it's probably a substantial effort that requires significant money, time and people to run, and that means if Congress doesn't already know about it, they've caught wind of it. In that case, why isn't Congress making a big public effort to investigate claims by Binney and others? Even if Congress can't prove the thing is illegal, they money alone would probably lead some members of Congress to ask questions about a potentially embarrassing, illegal or wasteful program. Senators and congressmen doesn't usually get reelected because of how nice they are to the federal government. Senators and congressmen have an interest in showing the public that their oversight protects citizens' rights, and protects taxpayer dollars by doing something about illegal and wasteful government efforts. Certainly Senators Wyden has expressed concerns (http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-call-for-informed-debate-of-domestic-surveillance-law) but so far it seems like more smoke than fire. Also, this is a national election year. Those who want a different President probably aren't interested in protecting the incumbent from a budget or civil liberties scandal. There are a lot of incentives for a lot of legislators to take a public oversight interest in a valid claim, and at least some of them would probably welcome whistleblowers. So isn't it odd that not much is happening? What about Binney himself? His credibility would certainly be made an issue in any lawsuit. Why should he be believed? He retired 11 years ago in 2001 according to the www.democracynow.org article. But he's making claims about a secret program that he hasn't had access to since 2001. Th