I'd say his arguments appear clear and convincing, even to a skeptic like myself. I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening.
To be clear, I don't believe Hayden, he is likely lying about aspects of it, these systems will inevitably be used in the future for regular law enforcement purposes and the previous abuses by NSA staff is understated. Plus, it is unequivocally illegal and a violation of natural rights. And just a bad idea which will lead to a dangerous future.
> I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening.
I think that a) redefining common terms to mean idiosyncratic things and b) using the idiosyncratic terms in public to imply their original common meaning is enough to trigger a warning to the layperson against putting too much stock in a particular speaker's narrative. I can say from experience that people tend to perk up when you give them such a warning.
Also, Sam Harris isn't particularly well-versed in the issues surrounding wide-net surveillance. Add Bruce Schneier or Dan Bernstein to the discussion and that "seemingly perfect narrative" will start to look very different.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/privacy-and-security
I'd say his arguments appear clear and convincing, even to a skeptic like myself. I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening.
To be clear, I don't believe Hayden, he is likely lying about aspects of it, these systems will inevitably be used in the future for regular law enforcement purposes and the previous abuses by NSA staff is understated. Plus, it is unequivocally illegal and a violation of natural rights. And just a bad idea which will lead to a dangerous future.