There are bigger worries than the NSA's data-mining
Many libertarians are furious at the National Security Agency's data-mining operation. After all, it's the latest intrusion of Big Brother. But I can't get that worked up about it.
I know Big Data now in NSA computers probably includes my phone calls. I know the snooping may be unnecessary. Government's claim that it prevents terror is weak: Officials say a terrorist was caught but New York City police say he was caught via other methods. I'm skeptical about the very claim that any terribly important “secrets” are held by unhappy 29-year-olds and 4.8 million other people (that's how many Americans hold security clearance for classified material).
So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not.
Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots. And my electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on.
They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right, I spent an hour searching.
Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work. Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. My privacy is already blown.
I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe — forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.
Much of America's defense spending goes to defend our allies in Europe and Asia. They spend less because we spend more. And it's not clear that we do what we do efficiently. The U.S. Department of Defense is prone to the same sorts of inefficiency that plagues other parts of government. The department's brownie recipe is 26 pages long.
Military officials say al-Qaida has been weakened. Iran (someday) may build a nuclear bomb but we managed to deter China and Russia when they had thousands.
Some people want the U.S. military to police the world: contain China, transform failed states, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries, protect sea lanes, protect oil supplies, stop genocide, protect refugees, maintain bases in allied countries, police our southern border, stop drug trafficking and spread good through humanitarian missions. The list is endless, which is the problem.
The U.S. military can't be everywhere. And we can't hand the government unlimited power and unlimited money every time a potential crisis looms.
We must remain on guard against threats. But bankruptcy may be the greatest threat.
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of “No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Jerome Bettis to be enshrined in hall of fame
- Springdale trestle bridge deemed structurally sound
- New Kensington woman struck by vehicle, injured
- Rossi: History beckons for Seattle’s Seahawks
- Alle-Kiski Valley deemed medically underserved
- Tennessee quarterback Peterman considers transfer to Pitt
- January temperatures, snowfall unremarkable in Western Pennsylvania
- Westmoreland museum spotlights artist John Kane’s late-in-life fame
- Big Bang ‘waves’ go poof under analysis
- Saxonburg Area Artists Cooperative closes its doors
- Suggestions are aplenty on what Penguins need to break through