It's been reported but NSA FISA victories aren't exactly the sort of thing that gets upvotes around here.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/Section%20702%20of%20the%...
> In 2009, for example, Section 702 helped foil an active plot to bomb the New York City subway.
> (U) Section 702 has been used to identify ransomware attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure, and multiple attacks have been identified and defended against because of Section 702 collection
> (U) Section 702–acquired information related to sanctioned foreign adversaries was used in U.S. government efforts to stop components for weapons of mass destruction from reaching foreign actors.
> (U) Section 702 information has identified key economic security risks, including strategic malign investment by foreign actors in certain U.S. companies.
> (U) Section 702 collection has helped identify when hostile foreign intelligence services are trying to send their operatives into the United States to recruit spies here in the United States.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap...
[2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ...
They can not tell us that they are reading the encrypted communications of other governments but still tell us "We caught Joe Criminal on Wednesday who tried to blow up the moon, and Bill Evilguy on Friday who tried to poison the waterhole, and Amanda Terrorist on Sunday who tried to murder 10,000 kittens". Then they could hold public trials for those terrorists where even if we can't see all of the evidence we still know exactly who they are imprisoning/killing, when and how often.
If criminals come to realize that terrorist attacks are likely to get them killed or sent to rot in gitmo because of how successful our spy agencies are, and they decide to hold up liqueur stores instead how is that a bad thing?
Personally, I think both categories are likely true, but I couldn't comment on the effect size. One thing that law enforcement stats generally indicate is that a great deal of property crime is uninvestigated and unsolved. Maybe that is fine, but detailing, "we tried our literal best surveillance methods and have not managed to reduce convenience store robberies" gives an edge to those who would like to premeditate. Of course, if they think they won't get caught in the first place, it doesn't matter.
I think this framing is a bit naive. It also implies—without evidence—some malice on the part of LE. The suggestion is that this activity is known to be ineffective for the stated purpose, so continues to be conducted for some other purpose, which by definition would be nefarious.
But, there is no proof of this, except that some would like to see more perp walks that reveal sources and methods.
And, as much as people sound the alarm, we've seen relatively little-to-no abuse of these epanded powers. Americans are not being prosecuted at-scale, if at all, over information that may have been incidentally captured.
The truth is that powers had to be expanded to keep pace with changes in technology, and a changing world in general. Without this our LE wouldn't stand a chance. Now one might argue about degree and balance, but that's not what I generally hear. Instead, it's mostly vague alarmism and mistrust about the very idea of any expanded powers.
Want a grim reality check on "what they say vs reality", then go read this https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ... . Particularity interesting is this section: "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:"
This is another vague allusion. Consolidate power for whom? How exactly does it do so? What, specifically, is this "power" and how is it used against American citizens?
>it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits
The article referenced here is from 2014, so not exactly up-to-date. And, in multiple instances, the authors acknowledge that they don't even know whether the programs were used.
In still other cases, they acknowledge the programs' use in prosecuting terrorists, but casually cast them aside as a low percentage. OK. But, who wants to sign up for "just a few terror incidents"?
>Want a grim reality check
Another report from 2014, and additionally has nothing to do with the subject. "Someone in the government did something wrong in this completely unrelated way 10 years ago" is not a valid argument.
Just look at the number of terrorists that were already on the FBI's watchlist, and whose plots were foiled by random citizens stepping in rather than the FBI. (Hint: it's literally every one.)
Even more incendiary, look at the number of school shooters that have been on LEO watchlists, and also failed to do anything to prevent tragedy.
The brain dead rebuttal to this is something like civil rights getting in the way. But if civil rights are holding them back, why invade privacy at all if nothing actionable is going to be done.
Seems vague. What exactly does this assertion mean? Are you saying that they are collecting this information to blackmail people or something similar?
Because I don't see people being defenestrated or otherwise prosecuted for threatening the "bureaucracy". On the contrary, there seems to be an all-out public assault on our government from some quarters.
And who, exactly, is the "established bureaucracy" anyway?
also I disagree that we're not in world War III. we are, it just hasn't been officially declared yet.
This may be the only time this quote has been used un-ironically, in good concious:
"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make." -Lord Farquad
1) Clearly the US Intelligence community telegraphed Russia's plans to invade Ukraine well in advance. 2) Recently the US warned of an impending terror attack on a concert in Moscow just before one happened.
Most intelligence they collect won't be made public, so only those in the higher echelons of government will know what they regularly learn. But I do think they have demonstrated the ability to predict the future more than a few times with their public statements.