285540

#179149

David B. Grinberg
Participant

Henry: as you know there are two separate surveillance programs/tools at issue. These two programs/tools may in fact be considered one by many members of the public due to media disinformation.

1) Surveillance of mass phone records via meta data (per Verizon, etc.).

2) PRISM, which is aimed at online communications to the US by foreigners (via Google, etc.).

Regarding your question:

"Why did it take Chairman Rogers and or the NSA close to 2 weeks to get this data out to the public?"

My guess is because of the painstakingly slow bureaucratic process to declassify top-secret info/intel.

Regarding your other question:

"Why didn't this program catch the Boston Bomber(s)?"

It could be that the NSA uses these programs only deliberately and sparingly -- which actually counteracts all the allegations that gov is spying on Americans. To the contrary, only anonymous meta data is being collected per phone records, of which 99.9% was never even used over seven years.

Thus, could all the media sensationalism surrounding Snowden's unlawful disclosures -- plus barking up the wrong tree by privacy advocates -- actually may be much ado about not much (0.001%)?

A supplemental reason why the gov hasn't gone public about top-secret info/intel could be because of the very domestic and global public outcry that has surfaced since the iillegal leak to the media by Mr. Snowden (whom, by the way, is being labeled as a "traitor" from Congressional leaders of both parties -- House Speaker, Sen. Feinstein, others). Personally, I think that's up to a U.S. court to decide, although folks are certainly entitled to their own opinions (but not to their own "facts").

The "Boston Bombers" case may be an anomaly because the intelligence community appears to have dropped the ball and dismissed it even after the Russians tipped us off about the perpetrators.

Here's my question: why hasn't one single person come forward with concrete and indisputable evidence of how either of these "Big Brother" surveillance programs specifically damaged or otherwise infringed on their privacy rights???

In that regard, the public silence is deafening, as they say -- and telling.