PBS NewsHour: "Mass Surveillance REDUCES Our Ability to Stop Terror Attacks"

[KoKo]

Ex-NSA Analysts on Their Top-Secret Discoveries
PBS NEWS HOUR:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GJS7F-mShpI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

NSA Whistleblower: Government Failed to Stop Boston Bombing Because It Was Overwhelmed with Data from Mass Surveillance On Americans
Posted on November 1, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Mass Surveillance REDUCES Our Ability to Stop Terror Attacks

The former head of the NSA’s global intelligence gathering operations – William Binney – says that the current spying program not only violates Americans’ privacy, but sucks up so much data that it INTERFERES with the government’s ability to catch bad guys.
In the following brief excerpt from an interview by PBS NewsHour, Binney explains that over-the-top spying actually interfered with the government’s ability to stop the Boston bombing:

AND:

Israeli-American terrorism expert Barry Rubins points out:

What is most important to understand about the revelations of massive message interception by the U.S. government is this:

In counterterrorist terms, it is a farce. Basically the NSA, as one of my readers suggested, is the digital equivalent of the TSA strip-searching an 80 year-old Minnesota grandmothers rather than profiling and focusing on the likely terrorists.

There is a fallacy behind the current intelligence strategy of the United States, the collection of massive amounts of phone calls, emails, and even credit card expenditures, up to 3 billion phone calls a day alone, not to mention the government spying on the mass media. It is this:

The more quantity of intelligence, the better it is for preventing terrorism.

In the real, practical world this is—though it might seem counterintuitive—untrue.
It is not the quantity of material that counts but the need to locate and correctly understand the most vital material.

If one looks at the great intelligence failures of the past, these two points quickly become obvious. Take for example the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. U.S. naval intelligence had broken Japanese codes. They had the information needed to conclude the attack would take place. Yet a focus on the key to the problem was not achieved. The important messages were not read and interpreted; the strategic mindset of the leadership was not in place.

So what needs to be in place, again, is to focus on the highest priority material, to analyze correctly what is available, to have leaders accept it, and to act.

If, however, the material is almost limitless, that actually weakens a focus on the most needed intelligence regarding the most likely terrorist threats. Imagine, for example, going through billions of telephone calls even with high-speed computers rather than, say, following up a tip from Russian intelligence on a young Chechen man in Boston who is in contact with terrorists or, for instance, the communications between a Yemeni al-Qaida leader and a U.S. army major who is assigned as a psychiatrist to Fort Hood.

That is why the old system of getting warrants, focusing on individual email addresses, or sites, or telephones makes sense, at least if it is only used properly. Then those people who are communicating with known terrorists can be traced further. There are no technological magic spells.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/nsa-whistleblower-government-failed-to-stop-boston-bombing-because-it-was-overwhelmed-with-data-from-mass-surveillance-on-americans.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Institutional stupidity

with our money.

[pansypoo53219]

2. the red scare led to the military industrial complex, 9/11 has led to the

surveillance industrial complex.

[rhett o rick]

3. It's never been the lack of data, but the inability to deal with all the data they have.

They had enough data to prevent 9/11 but couldnt process it properly. After 9/11 they screamed for allowances to get more data. This was a ruse. Preventing another 9/11 isnt as important to them as getting enough data that they can control everything and everyone.

In politics problems are solved, not to get the best solution, but to get the solution that advances an agenda.

After the invasion of Iraq based on extremely bad intelligence data, was anyone fired? Nope, and George Tenet got a medal of Freedom award for gathering and packaging bad intelligence data.

After 9/11, did anyone get fired for failing to halt this disaster? Nope. So why didnt they know about this attack? One reason is that there was too little data. Which is bullshit. The had all the data they needed. But preventing the attack on the WTC wasnt their top priority. The excuse of not having enough data was used to pass laws allowing the intelligence agencies more power to get more data.