What I am missing from Greenwald (or other journalists) is some serious analysis regarding what would happen, if NSA will really not be allowed to do "collect it all". I mean, whether it really isn't justifiable.
As an amateur, I am just thing aloud now: some "bad quys" are quite capable nowadays, and without collecting the whole haystack, you would be allowed to monitor someone only from some point in the future (after getting the court permission), and you couldn't "hear" the past conversations, if you didn't collect them. Moreover, if someone is very careful, it will be even difficult to discover that that person is suspicious and should be monitored in the first place.
Mind you, I am not defending the NSA strategy, I don't know if it is justifiable, I am just saying that Greenwald doesn't make any effort to let some opposing views to be presented. He just repeats the same arguments over and over again, but doesn't discuss what would happen in other scenarios (if NSA would be much less capable).
As an amateur, I am just thing aloud now: some "bad quys" are quite capable nowadays, and without collecting the whole haystack, you would be allowed to monitor someone only from some point in the future (after getting the court permission), and you couldn't "hear" the past conversations, if you didn't collect them. Moreover, if someone is very careful, it will be even difficult to discover that that person is suspicious and should be monitored in the first place.
Mind you, I am not defending the NSA strategy, I don't know if it is justifiable, I am just saying that Greenwald doesn't make any effort to let some opposing views to be presented. He just repeats the same arguments over and over again, but doesn't discuss what would happen in other scenarios (if NSA would be much less capable).