Is The Staggering Cost of NSA Surveillance Worth It?

[stromboli]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201308 ... h-it.shtml

The incredible thing in the defense of all of these NSA surveillance programs is that defenders always go back to examples like September 11th -- suggesting that if one of these programs stops another attack, they'll be worth it. And while such attacks are devastating in so many ways, we all implicitly recognize that there is a cost to preventing another attack, and certain costs are simply too high. We'd be much less likely to have another attack, for example, if we grounded all airplanes permanently and never let anyone enter or leave the US. But, obviously, that's a "cost" that is way too high. Yet, for some reason the defenders of these programs seem to pretend that there are no costs at all. Yet, there are huge costs. We've already discussed how the NSA's surveillance activities are hurting American businesses and why the tech industry should be furious about these efforts -- and that cost is becoming clearer day by day.

A new study suggests that the direct losses to US tech companies from people and companies fleeing to other services (often overseas) is likely to be between $22 billion and $35 billion over just the next three years. Germany is already looking at pushing for rules in the EU that would effectively ban Europeans from using services from US companies that participate in NSA surveillance programs (which is a bit hypocritical since it appears many EU governments are involved in similar, or even worse, surveillance efforts).

And... for what benefit? We've already seen multiple Senators point out that the NSA and its supporters have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that the bulk collection of metadata (the Patriot Act Section 215 program) was necessary in stopping any terrorist activity. So the "benefit" on the other side of the equation appears to be absolutely nothing. How could it possibly make sense to have a program which costs billions to our economy -- and directly to one of the few rapidly growing and expanding sectors of the economy, which also has tremendous productivity benefits for nearly all other parts of the economy -- for no benefit at all?

The fact is that big terrorist attacks are flashy and attention grabbing. They pack an emotional punch. I still remember quite clearly watching the towers fall in NYC over a decade ago. But we have to face facts: those things are extremely low probability events. A recent look at the probability of getting killed in a terrorist attack compared to almost any other cause of death shows that you're much more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And the list goes on. Click the link above and it shows what incredibly small probability event terrorist attacks are.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't make efforts to stop terrorist attacks. We should. But they need to be within reason, and with a real recognition of both the costs and the benefits. We don't spend nearly as much trying to stop death from fireworks, yet they're 14 times more likely to kill you. You're nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Yet, we don't violate everyone's privacy to stop cops from killing people. You're 4,706 times more likely to be killed by alcohol than a terrorist. And yet... drink up. People take risks. We certainly try to minimize those risks but within reason.

If the costs are astoundingly high while the benefits are slim to none, then such programs shouldn't even have been seriously considered in the first place, let alone implemented and defended vigorously (and misleadingly) by those in power.

Apparently nobody in government, either NSA or their spokespeople, actually looked to see if their complete denial of civil rights and prying into every corner of human rights actually was worth it.  I have seen other reports that the TSA is similarly over funded and shows little actual effect on the ability to sabotage or take over a passenger plane.

I would think that a primary argument against what is happening. The other argument is that, as radicals learn of these efforts, they would find different ways of communicating under the radar. Likewise I have seen blogs where people have built devices to sabotage an airplane from stuff you can easily get on board with.

Simply by overhauling the whole operation and making it more logical and sensible in operation, they could save billions and soothe a lot of ruffled people.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Aren't there some airports where you can buy a knife after you go through the security checkpoint? I seem to remember something like that but I may be wrong.

Also yeah, there is really no point in such bulk collection of data, all it does is create noise to sift through.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The real cost-benefit analysis is, "Are we seen as doing something proactive against the bogeyman? Will we be able to stay in power?"

Everything else is window-dressing.

[stromboli]

It amazes me and shows the utter hypocrisy of our leaders that they can't see the incredible waste of time and money involved, and the likewise incredibly blatant violation of civil rights. We could save billions just by shutting down or curtailing a large percentage of what the NSA is doing.

[Shiranu]

You really believe politicians don't see how much of a waste of money it is, but simply don't give a fuck because it is making their friends down at "Military Gear Inc." or "Computer Programs For Spying Corp." some nice, big, lucrative money from contracts?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

On that note, I wonder how much damage a meteor the exact size and shape of the capital crashing into the capital would cause?

[stromboli]

You really believe politicians don't see how much of a waste of money it is, but simply don't give a fuck because it is making their friends down at "Military Gear Inc." or "Computer Programs For Spying Corp." some nice, big, lucrative money from contracts?

Obviously. I meant what I said more or less sarcastically. The level of hypocrisy is beyond measure.

[SGOS]

...as radicals learn of these efforts, they would find different ways of communicating under the radar. Likewise I have seen blogs where people have built devices to sabotage an airplane from stuff you can easily get on board with.

I remember George Bush making the dramatic claim in a post 9-11 speech:  "The world has changed!"  (Bush did have a flair for the dramatic), and it got a lot of heads nodding in agreement.  But stop and ask yourself if the world is actually that different?  On 9-11, did people suddenly decide to start attacking the US on a weekly basis?  Those terrorists, existed before 9-11.  They had made several previous assaults on  dense concentrations of US citizens.  It had been going on for a long time, but suddenly, the world changed.  Why?

That being said, the government still needs to do a cost analysis on spending.  Currently, they do informally, at least to the extent that they make informal pronouncements like, we have to stop people from smoking drugs at all costs, or stop terrorism at all costs.  Really?  At all costs?  Such decrees thrive in an atmosphere of hysteria.

I remember prior to the invasion of Iraq, some calmer head had the audacity to ask, "How much will this invasion and the subsequent nation building of Iraq cost if we start this war?"  This led to the common hysterical response, "Yeah?  Well how much will it cost if we don't?"  Remember that famous response?  It was a pro-war talking point all across the media.

Now of course, it all seems like such folly in retrospect, but at the time, before we actually thought it through, such irrationality seemed to make valid sense, at least on the surface.  

Twin Towers are destroyed
It was done by Arabs
Therefore, we must invade Iraq

As irrational as this was, the blatant non-sequitur of this reasoning, remained hidden from the majority of Americans.  We don't think, when we become hysterical.  It's not particularly an American response.  It's a human response.  It's just that Americans have huge amounts of money to waste on their hysteria.

[Jason78]

Is The Staggering Cost of NSA Surveillance Worth It?

No.  But then I'm not paying for it.

I'm more concerned with GCHQ doing the NSAs grunt work.   Because my taxes do pay for that, and my government seems to be under the misapprehension that the USA are our allies.

[aileron]

The NSA has a critical mission to fulfill, but their leadership has become seduced with what is technically possible rather than what is sensible and effective.  It's a 21st century twist on the boy-toy mentality that bought 20th century generals and admirals weapons platforms that were hugely expensive and unnecessary.

[stromboli]

We have an overkill technological mentality in our defense department and the NSA that is driven by rich contractors happy to put money in the pockets of willing congressmen. Thanks to Snowden, the NSA is a more visible example of the utter waste in our government, using every corrupt method to justify their actions. If we do not reverse this and soon, our government will collapse under its own weight.