I know that's what they're worried about (assuming good faith on their part). The potential downside is not tiny[1], but the question is what change in the likelihood is produced by the change in policy. Remember that we are not talking about forgoing all intelligence gathering; we are specifically talking about focusing on HUMINT and targetted surveillance instead of mass surveillance. Resources spent on mass surveillance are not spent elsewhere. I contend that the change from shifting resources to mass surveillance is likely to be small (if it's even in the desired direction). And a small change is something I want to bear if it is the price of respecting the rights of innocent people, because I am not a coward.
[1] Though if we keep our heads - which is what I've advocated consistently - it can be small. Sadly, I don't think that's likely, but we should continue to push for it. Fear of terrorism is how democracies fall - anyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy.
That's perfectly reasonable. I think you might be overestimating our ability to target HUMINT and other focused intelligence methods in a way that would cause a smaller sum of collateral harm to the innocent than less intrusive mass surveillance for the same amount of intelligence value. Bang-for-the-human-rights-buck, as it were. But you've identified the key tradeoff, and I don't feel like I know enough to argue further exactly where our policy should come down on it.
[A]nyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy.
I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".
'I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".'
It was a paraphrase, of course, but the meme is not uncommon - particularly amongst those who stand to profit from security contracts or wish to attack political opponents suggesting saner courses of action. Its prevalence has certainly decreased since 2002.
I stand by my use of the term; the force is well deserved, for a substantial threat to our freedom. And, for clarity, it has certainly included politicians and media personalities. I would note, however, that 1) "enemy" status is transient, and 2) violence (or even other exercise of power, like surveillance) is not always the appropriate way to respond to an enemy - almost never so if they aren't acting violently themselves.
[1] Though if we keep our heads - which is what I've advocated consistently - it can be small. Sadly, I don't think that's likely, but we should continue to push for it. Fear of terrorism is how democracies fall - anyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy.