Your argument is in the same vein as why us has the largest military force. I don't think it's irrational, but I would say it does not address the new security threats.
I was trying to put a word on it too. It's irrational if minimization of harm is the goal. And it's totally blind to the externalities of pouring massive amounts of money into the surveillance industry and really the war industry more generally, as these two are highly interconnected.
The arguments are almost insidiously constructed.
> Vacuuming up packets is less alarming when you understand we've been vacuuming up radio and telephone signals for decades.
No.
> Seems like it's trendy to hate the NSA
Leading with an ad hominem.
> The US has tried going "NSA-less". It happened in 1929
Didn't something else happen in 1929 that impacted the overall stability and thereby war readiness of the US?
The arguments are almost insidiously constructed.
> Vacuuming up packets is less alarming when you understand we've been vacuuming up radio and telephone signals for decades.
No.
> Seems like it's trendy to hate the NSA
Leading with an ad hominem.
> The US has tried going "NSA-less". It happened in 1929
Didn't something else happen in 1929 that impacted the overall stability and thereby war readiness of the US?