NSA surveillance played little role in foiling terror plots, experts say
The defence of the controversial data collection operations, highlighted in a series of Guardian disclosures over the past week, has been led by Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, and her equivalent in the House, Mike Rogers. The two politicians have attempted to justify the NSA's use of vast data sweeps such as Prism and Boundless Informant by pointing to the arrests and convictions of would-be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi in 2009 and David Headley, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
But court documents lodged in the US and UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data-mining through Prism and other NSA programmes played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots. Conventional surveillance techniques, in both cases including old-fashioned tip-offs from intelligence...
Well, Mike of N.Y., the mail is still private, I believe it takes a search warrant to look at it. So, there you go! You can encode what you send by mail as far as that goes, and point to point fax might work also.
One time I decided to experiment to see if an encoding program worksd (I might be on some government list even though I tried it once and sent mail to myself) It worked alright --but-- every mail service that the message went through said encoded message on the header! I suppose that set alarm bells off, and I do believe that was before I believe the government had this particular snooping program in place.
So, you can have private email, but you'll probably get noticed by all sorts of government agencies if you use it.
By the way even with a private phone line etc, I never say or even as far as U.S. mail is concern say anything that can't be completely public, but then what Christian should worry about that.
However, if a couple of inventors who are not in the same location want to share ideas and plans via email and keep it private --which they should be able to do-- they probably have a dozen government agencies down on them after about two exchanges of encrypted messages.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Link: "NSA director says surveillance programs thwarted â€˜dozensâ€™ of attacks"
Dozens, meaning two, one of which was the bombing in India which killed some 160. If this is thwarting an attack, maybe the surveillance programs should be reconsidered. I don't think monitoring of Jim's phone calls is helping a whole lot. But NSA has promised to release...something... alleged info formerly derived in secrecy, but now ok to give away so as to demonstrate trustworthyness.
From the link: "President Obama last week said he would welcome a public debate over the surveillance, saying Americans will have to sacrifice some privacy for the sake of security"
Doublespeak, as well as nonsense. What is there to debate if he has already decided what "Americans will have to sacrifice.." and why? How much we're willing to give up, if any, for so-called security is up to us, not the head of the executive branch. That isn't his decision. Nor Bush's, Jim. (I'm trying to save your knee. )
Ah, WSJ probably would agree with the title of this thread, so many of you should enjoy, The Surveillance Programs - WSJ. The Wall St. Journal doesn't make their articles public for long, so if interested, read them (the first one) or view them (the second one) while they're hot!