I honestly don't know what that should have to do with the controversy but submit neither of us will be happier or smarter after the debate that a detailed answer to this question would provoke.
Ostensibly, requesting large amounts of data about broadly targeted foreign intelligence targets is to protect American interests, one of which is keeping terrorists from blowing us up (some might claim the most important one).
And, no bullshit, I prompt you this way because I know you to be wickedly smart and I assume good faith. I almost always learn something from discussing things with you, even if they turn out to just be little tidbits here and there.
I've probably learned more from you and rdl than the rest of HN commenters combined.
Every night, I bang two rocks together for several hours to scare off tigers so they won't attack me while I sleep. I have yet to be attacked by a tiger, so my plan must be extremely effective.
Serious question: are you stating that the reason we do not see 50,000 deaths per year in the US due to terrorist attacks is because the NSA keeps that from happening?
I think he's trying to pose the question that he thinks his opponents would ask, before they ask it.
But AFAICS no one is claiming that terrorism left unchecked would cause 50,000 deaths/yr, so really it's more of a strawman (and in poor taste too, IMHO).
Nope, because 50000 deaths/(50 plots/10 years) is too large of a number.
I don't think the NSA prevents significant amounts of American deaths. That means that these programs are all pain for practically zero gain. (And, consequently, ambivalence about them is dangerous poison.)
Why don't we see 50,000 deaths a year in the US from terrorist attacks?
N.B. that the NSA claims to have stopped "dozens" (<=100) of plots with these programs.