[optimusclimb]

Since HN is not transparent about downvoting, other than that only certain users have the ability - I'd love the feedback on the reasons for the down votes.

How a country could exist without an organization that pays attention to what the rest of the world is up to towards the goal of keeping itself "secure" is beyond me. What I wrote was a fictional circumstance which I thought explained to others how you'd arrive at this conclusion - i.e. answering the question that was asked.

[nkurz]

My downvote was because you led off with an unnecessary personal insult to a new user in response to a polite and legitimate question. He created an account a week and a half ago, has made a few high quality comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8614442), and I wouldn't want to see your rudeness drive him off, or worse, encourage him or others to respond in kind. The rest of your response was on-topic and well-argued, although like some of the others I think you might be unnecessarily equating the need for the NSA as a separate agency to the need for any form of foreign intelligence gathering.

[optimusclimb]

Thanks for the feedback. I wrote the first sentence because the question I was responding to was in my head akin to saying we should get rid of the police across the board because of what happened in Ferguson.

It might have been fine on other forums, but I see that I would have been better off letting the rest of my answer stand on its own merits (or not.) Will keep that in mind going forward.

[thizzbuzz]

Thanks! I've been on HN for 4 or 5 years though, I just make a new throw-away every few months. It will take a lot more than that to scare me off!

[vidarh]

You're changing the subject.

No other country has intelligence services with even a fraction of the reach of the NSA, so clearly countries can exist without an NSA class agency.

Whether a country could exist without an organization that pays attention to what the rest of the world is up to is another matter. It's a role served by diplomatic services, and where even the most low tech intelligence agency can provide substantial additional abilities without stepping all over civil liberties. I don't see anyone questioning the need for a diplomatic corps, foreign service, or even basic human intelligence agencies, or for that matter basic sigint.

But it's an entirely different issue than whether an agency like the NSA is needed - or warranted.

Arguably, while the NSA may thwart some threats, it is also part of maintaining the image of the US as the big bully of the world, and as a result it is part of creating the type of threats it is meant to protect you against. It's self-reinforcing.

[AnimalMuppet]

It's not that simple.

Arguably, NSA-type stuff (SIGINT) saved our behinds in World War II. Enigma let us read the German intentions, and Purple let us know what the Japanese were planning. The battle of Midway, for example, could have been completely different without SIGINT. So there's good historical precedence that we need something like the NSA.

On the other hand, we didn't figure out what the Japanese were up to by collecting metadata on domestic telephone calls. That is, some SIGINT activities are arguably essential, and some are... otherwise. The "otherwise" ones are both more intrusive to personal privacy, and less effective at national defense.

So one can be in favor of having the NSA, and against the NSA as it has become.

Side note: If there's ever another successful attack on the scale of 9/11, you're really going to see the US move toward a police state...