[Eisenstein]

> there is nothing in those documents that could pose any significant threat to US national security.

You are saying that because if anyone attacks us with conventional forces we will nuke them/invade them then we have no nation security interest concerning anything in classified documents compiled by our espionage services?

Is this a correct interpretation and if so do you stand by it? If not can you please clarify what you meant?

[hax0ron3]

Revealing what is in those documents might threaten US power projection in the world, but it would not threaten US national security in any significant way. That is, it might hurt the US' ability to shape the world as it desires, but it would not make the US significantly more vulnerable to being attacked because no matter how much people know about the NSA's activities, groups that want to attack the US would still be confronted by the US' overwhelming national security strengths of being surrounded by huge oceans, having a nuclear deterrent, and also having the world's most powerful conventional military.

I can imagine there being classified documents that pose an actual significant national security risk. Perhaps some details about how nuclear plants are secured, or the details of the mechanisms by which authorization to fire nuclear missiles is given. Stuff like that. But there should be nothing like that in the NSA documents. Maybe there is something in there that would tip people off about the NSA's encryption-cracking capabilities. But no system that is actually critical for national security should be vulnerable to such information being revealed. And if there is some system that is vulnerable because of it, more surveillance is not the answer anyway.

[subjectsigma]

> Perhaps some details about how nuclear plants are secured, or the details of the mechanisms by which authorization to fire nuclear missiles is given. Stuff like that. But there should be nothing like that in the NSA documents.

You are wildly incorrect. NSA does lots to help secure the homeland.

[nerpderp82]

For like what 10B out of the 99B the US spends on "Intelligence", we at least get Ghidra and some dodgy cryptography.

[hax0ron3]

Such as what? And is it worth the downsides of mass surveillance?

[subjectsigma]

You can read their website and find out, they address some things you mentioned in the first few lines:

https://www.nsa.gov/Cybersecurity/Overview/

Whether or not that justifies mass surveillance is a different question. I don’t think so. The NSA is a really, really big place. You could work there for a lifetime and not engage in illegal surveillance. I think getting rid of the bad parts shouldn’t require us to get rid of the good as well.

[hax0ron3]

Yep, I agree with that last sentence. The only thing on that list that I think has to do with a significant national security threat is the nuclear command and control systems part. And we could have that without the mass surveillance.

[wubrr]

One of the big Snowden revelations was that NSA can literally do whatever they want without needing any kind of government or public approval. There is zero transparency and accountability.

[subjectsigma]

I know you’re being facetious when you say “literally whatever they want” but that’s not true even in jest. Congress approves their budget, they have to justify it like every other part of the government. I think the NSA should have less power and more accountability, but they’re not dictators.