[badsock]

The forces you describe have been in effect for more than half a century, and during that time the actual damage we've seen from stateless actors has been miniscule compared to what has been visited on people by their own governments, governments that have been granted too much power out of fear.

We don't need more dragnet surveillance, we need courage and perspective. Yes, there is a possibility that a stateless actor could end the world. There's lots of other ways the world could end too.

[sml0820]

There is a trade off between the collective rights of the innocent citizenry and the rights of the victims of the crimes that can be avoided. At some point the cost of civilian lives will exceed the cost of strain on civil liberties.

Technology progress and, ultimately the potential magnitude of destruction, is expanding at an exponential rate. Therefore looking at the past 50 years is synonymous with driving by looking through the rear view of the car.

Your civil liberties will begin to erode. Even if a bill is passed that revokes the rights of the NSA, at some point in the next few decades a destructive event due to technology innovation and commoditization of knowledge will cause these civil liberties to be eroded.

[nitrogen]

What evidence exists that terrorism has reached or will soon reach such a scale? I see a lot of fear in your comments but not a lot of facts. How will a stateless actor kill billions of people? How will they even come close to matching the terrorism of second hand smoke or car crashes?

Hand-wavy extrapolations of technological progress are far from sufficient justification for giving up civil liberties. We need actual, public evidence of a sizable threat, actual public proof that the agencies asking for this invasive power can be trusted, and most importantly, actual public proof that these invasive powers will solve the problem they purport to solve at less social and financial cost than any other approach.

[sml0820]

Let's state the facts: There are biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that can kill millions of people today owned by state organizations. Some of these states have questionable long-term motives whether driven by power or resources.

There are stateless organizations that would use those weapons in a moment's notice against the entire population of the United States.

What you are suggesting is that there is no current evidence of weapons of mass destruction being moved or the knowledge and capital required to make such weapons being from a state to a state-less organization. I disagree:

Number of terrorist groups that have demonstrated interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon: 4

Al Qaeda, Chechnya-based separatists, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Aum Shinrikyo

Number of terrorist groups that may be capable of acquiring and using nuclear weapons: 5

Al Qaeda, North Caucasus-based separatists, Lashkar-e-Tayyib, Hezbollah, Taliban

Number of known groups that have attempted to buy nuclear material on the black market: 2

Aum Shinrikyo and Al Qaeda

Even if so, there is evidence of weapons of such scale in questionable states such as Syria. In addition there is evidence of weapons transfer, albeit not chemical, biological, or nuclear, to stateless organizations.

Millions of people do not have to die to have a substantial impact on a nation. For you what is that number? Is it in a nominal amount of deaths that reach above the amount of second hand smoke or car crashes?

Regardless, from a perspective of economic cost giving up the civil liberty of driving as a result of deaths is not parallel to giving up the civil liberty of someone checking your phone records.

For now you will not be willing to give up your civil liberty since the probability of you being hit by a terrorist attack is low ( I would be willing to wager you to do not live in major metropolitan city). Given the current pace it is a function of time before a stateless organization increases its death count. At that point you will be willing to give up some of your civil liberties.

[nitrogen]

At that point you will be willing to give up some of your civil liberties.

This is unlikely. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you have satisfied requirement #1 (proof of a threat). #2 (proof of trustworthiness) and #3 (proof of efficacy and best approach) remain unsatisfied. How is reading my email and leaving vulnerabilities in my software going to prevent a non-state group from buying a WMD?

If we ever reach that point it will be a sign that we have totally failed to build a global enlightened society. I remain unconvinced that universal snooping will even help with that at all, let alone be the most effective approach.

[darkarmani]

> There is a trade off between the collective rights of the innocent citizenry and the rights of the victims of the crimes that can be avoided. At some point the cost of civilian lives will exceed the cost of strain on civil liberties.

That's a huge assumption. A totalitarian state comes at a cost far larger than civilian lives from terrorism. You are pretending that innovation will continue at the same rate without an open and free society.

[sml0820]

You are taking the slippery slope argument. The fact that the NSA would like the access to data mine phone records does not mean we have slipped into a totalitarian state. We have given up civil liberties for the sake of avoiding crimes in the future. I would state that innovation has been at an all time high in this condition within the past decade.