> Governments are composed of people. The people who ran the government in the 1940s no longer did by 1960s... and the people who ran the government in the 1960s no longer do today.
This is a fair point, but I also think it can be useful to consider the perspective of government as a unified, evolving entity, much like it's useful to consider a forest as more than just individual plants that grow and die and are replaced by new plants.
> As new people enter and leave government, they will be prone to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors. And it is the citizen's duty to continue to step it up and hold it in check. It takes work to keep the country together, everyone knows that fact.
I agree with this point. Perhaps the issue is why these abuses keep arising; is it just human nature, or are there institutional factors at work (factors that transcend the revolving door of individuals entering/leaving government)? I don't know the answer.
Regardless, we seem to agree that the NSA abuses are troubling and need to be pushed back on, so I suppose we're basically on the same page.
I think my disagreement was mainly with the notion that the government was continually "giving up" power in a linear, cumulative fashion. Every time one of these programs is shut down, are laws passed to ensure they can never arise again? If so, that would be reassuring.
Because there is an inherent mismatch in privacy concerns and law enforcement / defense concerns.
Office of Censorship was created to counter the German / Japanese threat of spies during World War 2. It was seen as a necessary measure to help unite the country. The successful use of the Atomic Bomb is credited to the Office of Censorship, who helped keep the project secret. Quite possibly... the Atomic Bomb's details would have been leaked in WW2 if it weren't for the Office of Censorship.
COINTELPRO was then created in the 50s to counter the Soviet threat. In the 70s it was revealed it was being used for more than just that, and the project dismantled. In fact, FISA protections were supposed to prevent any large-scale domestic spying. The entire point of FISA was to stop future projects as they rose up.
As PRISM came up, despite FISA protections. Its important to realize how it happened. If you've been paying attention to Congress, FISA has in fact worked: Senator Wyden and Senator Udall have been criticizing these programs for a very long time. No one seemed to care in 2007 however, so the programs continued. I guess Edward Snowden has made things far more dramatic, and easier for the Press to talk about... but these are facts that have been discussed for some time now.
If there is a fault in FISA, its because Americans don't like listening to Senators. So no matter how many Senators you put in charge of watching the Intelligence Agencies, apparently no one will care unless a giant controversy is brought up by a non-politician.
Every few decades, peacetime makes us forget that the world is willing to attack us. Eventually, we as the citizenry work to dismantle the annoying and invasive defensive measures we give to law enforcement. (see Clinton Era in the 90s, where he reduced the size of Intelligence Agencies by half)
Then, an attack happens. The US returns to "war mode", and everyone is willing to trade privacy for security... at least for a few years. And that is when these new programs find their way into the system once again. The creation of Patriot Act led to the authorization of PRISM.
The important issue to see here, is that these programs are 100% legal. These agencies are always willing to follow the letter of the law. So... all we have to do is petition Congress to change the law. Section 215 of the Patriot Act: "Business Records Provision" is the law that legalizes the collection of Metadata. If it dies, the program dies with it.
> Every few decades, peacetime makes us forget that the world is willing to attack us. Eventually, we as the citizenry work to dismantle the annoying and invasive defensive measures we give to law enforcement. (see Clinton Era in the 90s, where he reduced the size of Intelligence Agencies by half)
> Then, an attack happens. The US returns to "war mode", and everyone is willing to trade privacy for security... at least for a few years. And that is when these new programs find their way into the system once again.
I appreciate the contextualization. For some reason it's a bit less scary to conceptualize these abuses of power as an autoimmune disorder rather than some kind of intrinsic cancer that never seems to go into remission. Probably because it makes this seem less like an inevitable slide into totalitarianism and more like a simple overreaction to a perceived threat, an overreaction which becomes increasingly malignant. The proper response is to correct this overreaction and work to put in safeguards to prevent future overreactions.
I hope your observation that "peacetime makes us forget that the world is willing to attack us" is not implying this is a bad thing; on the contrary, it seems like the closest we'll get to rationality.
> I hope your observation that "peacetime makes us forget that the world is willing to attack us" is not implying this is a bad thing; on the contrary, it seems like the closest we'll get to rationality.
Not necessarily. It comes with good and bad.
People have already forgotten that it is the NSA's job to investigate the Nasdaq and Google Hacks of last year. Chinese hackers were spying on Americans... hacking into gmail accounts and so forth.
And yet you read through this thread, with Groklaw closing down and everything. You have to remember: you may feel that the NSA has violated your privacy, but they are also the organization responsible for protecting it from other nations.
But peacetime makes us quick to forget these events. The Google-hack event was only 2 years ago, the Nasdaq hack is currently ongoing, the RSA hack was in 2011. Someone hacked Verisign in 2012. All are being treated as international hacking events.
The balance of "privacy" and "security" is more complicated than "destroy that program" or "remove funding" from a certain agency. Overreactions happen both in peacetime and wartime. Now, more than ever, as other countries spy on Americans, is the time for agencies like the NSA to step up and help defend.
You see how easy it is to turn an argument into anything? There are no easy solutions in politics. A lot is going on in this country, and its far more complicated than "totalitarianism" vs "privacy concerns".
"The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old. There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color."
-- Eric Holder, 2013
The Attorney General is responsible for the Department of Justice, which is in turn in charge of the FBI and DEA. Also, the FBI does not handle most drug related federal offences. That is the DEA. Get your agencies right!
Anyway, this would be the Attorney General bending the law. Legally, they are supposed to arrest you for smoking Marijuana. However... if the Attorney General bends the rules, and "fails" to arrest you on the charge, then the law is as good as broken. An official order from the Attorney General can stop the DEA from prosecuting Drug users, even without any changes to law.
And thus, the power of the executive branch. They can't change the laws, but Eric Holder is in a position to change the enforcement of laws. That is about as good as he can do, a future Attorney General / President may roll things back.
To Eric Holder, the Drug War is an anti-African American symbol. So it seems like he's doing what he can to stop it. He probably will crackdown on the obvious illegally operated Pot centers in California, but he's probably going to ease up the Drug War as much as he can.
This is a fair point, but I also think it can be useful to consider the perspective of government as a unified, evolving entity, much like it's useful to consider a forest as more than just individual plants that grow and die and are replaced by new plants.
> As new people enter and leave government, they will be prone to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors. And it is the citizen's duty to continue to step it up and hold it in check. It takes work to keep the country together, everyone knows that fact.
I agree with this point. Perhaps the issue is why these abuses keep arising; is it just human nature, or are there institutional factors at work (factors that transcend the revolving door of individuals entering/leaving government)? I don't know the answer.
Regardless, we seem to agree that the NSA abuses are troubling and need to be pushed back on, so I suppose we're basically on the same page.
I think my disagreement was mainly with the notion that the government was continually "giving up" power in a linear, cumulative fashion. Every time one of these programs is shut down, are laws passed to ensure they can never arise again? If so, that would be reassuring.