From my conversations with friends and family, I think many people think that the NSA's sole purpose is to fight terrorism. That thinking has been reinforced by the NSA and the administration repeatedly claiming that NSA surveillance is justified because it prevents terrorist attacks. If not the "sole" purpose, in the least they think it's the NSA's "main" purpose.
But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.
> But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.
Being useful for one major thing doesn't mean that a tool is not also useful for other things. You can in fact point out as many other minor things as you wish, but that doesn't invalidate (by itself) the usefulness for the major task. So I don't see EFF's point here.
In fact that was the point I was about to make before screening the comments: "Of course NSA's powers extend beyond simple counterterrorism, who is claiming otherwise? Did they not read even a synopsis of the relevant law?"
But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.