Silly argument
On Point is discussing the new NSA data center in Utah, which will process and filter much more info than before. The discussers are worrying about whether this will allow NSA to intercept everything, worrying about whether NSA should be required to get warrants.

Stupid. Of course NSA intercepts everything. NSA has been one of the central nodes of the Net since the Net started in 1968. If you don't think they've been intercepting everything for 40 years, you're remarkably foolish. If you think it was worse under Bush or worse under Obama or worse under Clinton, you're too dumb to live. It's constant and maximal. NSA listens to everything it can physically manage to process.

If you think this is new, you're wrong. Back to 1940: our communication was carried by telephone, telegraph, radio and mail. Telephone operators could listen to any conversation; telegraphers had to consciously send and receive every message; radio could be heard by anyone, including government monitors; and mail was routinely opened if it seemed suspicious.

The only way to avoid interception of the content is by encryption. True in 1940 and true now. But encryption immediately raises red flags. True in 1940 and now. If the content is coded, spies can always do traffic analysis, tracing the location and identity of sender and receiver. This often tells spies more than the actual message. True in 1940 and now.

Interception is NOT the important question in any era. The important question is what the interceptors DO with their acquired info. Do they use it for personal enrichment via blackmail? Do they use it only to catch real criminals? Or do they use it to bomb and snipe people with currently unfashionable beliefs such as Christianity?
  ¶ 9:22 AM