[citation needed]

@FearlessFly You will never know of the range and value of those data. That is the way it is supposed to be. You and all of are have been receiving the value of those data and have been for many, many years.

@wordywalt It is hard not to notice that no evidence to directly dispute the article has been offered.

The problem is when there is a differential value to some of us and others of us, and when that differential is large, and especially when one of those values is negative.

@FearlessFly the Intel community can be a scary place. The NSA does produce massive data from multiple sources. How much is really useful is a matter of opinion. I don't have any sources, only knowledge having worked military Intel in the late 70's and early 80's and kept up with some who stayed in or continued working it elsewhere - someone I know got in trouble with the FBI for using a satellite to see who was at his now ex wife's house. No prosecution, just a reprimand (That was about 9 years ago).
I remember when I was in, we were told that 10 percent of calls from NYC down to D.C. were checked on if only for a few seconds. (I knew a guy who did that - met him at SAC).
That said, I know how good surveillance was in my time 40 years ago and just knowing the growth of tech I can only imagine that the shit seen on movies now is probably pretty close.
Add on: in defense of the Weapons of Mass Destruction debacle from Bush II, know that there are often conflicting assessments and from what I believe, most in Intel didn't think there were any weapons. I think Cheney fed the "minority report" to his puppets.
Also: the government will lie to those doing the spying. This came out publicly in 85, and when some people I know found it and sent the info and pictures to the community, within three days it was squashed. An atomic bomb was set off the coast of South Africa in 79. We were told - nope not a bomb but phosphorescent fish rising to the surface and then told, not to destroy, but send all info to D.C., not Hawaii where we normally sent stuff. That spot on the Indian Ocean would have taken most of the phosphorescent fish in the sea.

Using Bayesian logic, @wordywalt, you should be able to sum the value of the program to classified operations, and make a prediction that you would stake your own retirement on that consensus would agree when it is safe to declassify the benefits. Anything less is breathless dogma.

@epiphos If you did your homework, you would find many instances in which the NSA provided critical information to our country. It is up to you to disprove my statement. Your characterization of what I said as dogma is pure bullshit game-playing.

@epiphos Just because some actions of the NSA have been negative does not mean that the whole program has a negative effect on our values. Again, it is up to prove that the negative outweighs the positive.

@worldlywalt how would you feel if your investment advisor came to you with the " Again, it is up to prove that the negative outweighs the positive" when you raise some concerns about your portfolio? What if he told you to do your homework?

I am confident the NSA is doing a lot of great work, but not all of their programs can be great, and if they are truly cutting edge, that means a significant fraction of experimental programs will fail and that's OK, but cancel that shit and do something different.

@epiphos The organization that has not made some real mistakes does not exist.

@wordywalt You seem to conflate criticism of one NSA program with criticism of the NSA as a whole. The NSA benefits from cancelling failed programs, and learning from those failures. I feel you would deny this opportunity, and recreate the politics of the USN Mark 14 torpedo.

Somebody's boys are throwing some awesome parties out there in Utah. What kind of parties do they have in Utah?