
NSA having flashbacks to Watergate era - austengary
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/24/nation/la-na-nsa-spying-20130824
======
devx
>The government should have long ago explained the parameters of surveillance
that touches Americans, Aftergood said.

There should be _no_ dragnet surveillance against Americans, according to the
Constitution. All investigations need to be specific, against specific
individuals, and evidence for probable cause needs to be given to a judge
(which is _not_ done through fishing expeditions, in case it wasn't "clear"
enough for the NSA, because I noticed they're playing the "incompetent" card
lately, when the only other alternative is playing the "guilty" card).

I'd also argue dragnet surveillance shouldn't be done against any country
(except perhaps in time of war - _declared_ war, not this perpetual drone war
US is having all over the world now), but we should take things one step at a
time, I guess.

> One U.S. official, for example, told reporters on a conference call that
> about 56,000 communications of Americans were inadvertently intercepted each
> year before Bates shuttered the program. The official called that a
> "relatively small number."

Is he joking? Yeah, I can see how when NSA spies on _billions_ at a time, tens
of thousands doesn't seem much of a big deal to them, but those tens of
thousands could include all politicians and judges in US, and then some.

This is no different than saying "out of the thousands of 'targets' we killed
with drones, only a few hundred were civilian - which is a "relatively small
number" given the circumstances (drone attacks not being surgical)".

Who would accept such an argument? Does the police get to say that out of a
few gang members shot, only a few shot by them were innocent civilians? I
don't think so (well, ok, I know recently that's actually exactly what has
been happening with the police in US, too, but it used to not be the case, and
shouldn't be the case).

