If there is one thing these leaks have done then it is to register in the mind of the general public that these institutions are not just benign clubs of mathematicians that boldly crack evildoer codes that no man has cracked before but that they are collecting any kind of data they can get their hands on, including yours, to decide later on if it was useful or not.<p>The fact that that alone and the potential consequences are now (slowly) sinking in to the public consciousness made these leaks more than worth it.<p>That debate needs to be had and it needs to be had in the open, the hypocrisy of politicians (Merkel comes to mind) when they address the subject is telling.<p>That 'terrorists' (who are these guys anyway, didn't you mean criminals) are using the leaked info is a statement of fact which is hard to falsify (terrorists won't own up to it) and probably even harder to prove so it should carry very little or no weight at all.
This is nothing more than a combination of fear mongering and pouting over the loss of the secrecy that their little fiefdom once enjoyed. These are government servants at their worst.
I like that he covers his ass by saying "terrorists <i>and other groups</i>" have been changing their habits. "Other groups" probably means stuff like Occupy, animal welfare activists, other sorts of scary 'fringe' groups, and probably rank-and-file citizens too, but it's a useful way to bulk up his claim a little more.
"You have seen concrete proof that maybe places where you used to be able to listen to are now silent?"<p>"We have concrete proof that terrorist groups and others are taking action, making changes, and it's gonna make our job tougher."<p>Although the lead-in mentions that intelligence collection has been hindered (in the past tense), Keith Alexander is only willing to say that it will be hindered in the future.
Ah, the liars are releasing a new statement. Very interesting. And their job is tougher now? Interesting. How did they ever fight criminals and terrorists before mass surveillance! Unimaginable.
Leave it to NBC News to cover the NSA's BS stance, as well as the the programs legality issue, yet completely zone out about the programs effectiveness, expense, expanse, or actually question the NSA chief's statement, 'it is impossible to listen to phone calls, and read all emails due to their shear number'. But they are recording them all... which is the problem!
Since the definition of "terrorism" has been watered down to the point where it can mean almost anything, a "terrorist" can therefore be almost anyone .. or, to be a little kinder to our lords and masters, the number of people to whom the term "terrorist" can potentially be applied has increased dramatically.<p>If enough people have changed their behaviour as a result of the surveillance / nascent police-state scandal, then this statement is statistically plausible, so I am not calling out "B.S." just yet - although the usual warnings about rampant language-lawyering apply as per normal.
Nice fearmongering:<p><i>"The reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the american people, not to hide it from you, but to hide it from those who walk among you who are trying to kill you."</i><p>... well in that case, please take my rights and the rights of my neighbors if it gives me a little temporary security.
This illustrates nicely the problem that I have with the way Manning and Snowden went about leaking their information. It seems that they grabbed a bunch of information and sent it to reporters without really thinking what information ought to be released. Do I think that the existence of the NSA spying programs should be public knowledge? Yes. Do I think that I really have a need to know the exact methods they use to implement these programs? No. That part is not necessary for us to make an informed decision and whether or not the programs should exist.
What is this supposed to link to? What I see is "As civil war rages on in Syria, humanitarian suffering is reaching new catastrophic levels."
><i>The reason we use secrecy is not to hide it from the American people. But, to hide it from those who walk among you who want to kill you.</i><p>Fear-monger much? What can you <i>not</i> justify with this line of reasoning? "Well, we're not herding you all up into concentration camps because of anything you've done innocent Americans. We're putting you all there because of the evil Americans who walk among you."<p>If we buy the mindset that the "evil-doers" are indistinguishable from innocent Americans, then we will allow virtually anything.<p>And, is this overt paranoia inducement even remotely justified? I mean, really, what percentage of the so-called terrorists are "other Americans that walk among us"? For that matter, how many "terrorists" are really out there?<p>But, this is a subtle, insidious, and very purposeful shift. It's an example of how they've moved the goalposts and are increasingly morphing these "terrorist-tools" into a hyper-surveillance program to keep tabs on all Americans. There was a time when they'd have to justify their actions and abide by Constitutional protections by pointing to foreign involvement in monitored communications. The line was that they are not monitoring us, as much as they are monitoring those foreigners who happened to be talking to us. Now, he's allowing that Americans are specifically being targeted domestically, but that it must be done because the terrorists "walk among us".<p>Also love the way the story frames the NSA activity as more benign and highly targeted:<p><i>"[a program that] gathers data on numbers dialed and length of calls, though not call content, and another that allows the NSA to monitor overseas e-mails and Internet sites used by suspected terrorists."</i><p>Makes it sound highly targeted and less invasive to innocent Americans. But, we've already learned how they get call content, that the distinction between foreign and domestic communication is less meaningful than we originally thought, and other details that go beyond the benign characterization of the story. This story seems to be stuck in the days before so many more revelations came out.<p>They left out all but the "This message brought to you by the NSA."