You're making a long-winded argument against what the NSA actually did. My point was to look at the entire picture when evaluating such wrongs. Fix the bad stuff. Leave the good.
Now make a case for why we need the NSA. Then we'll be on the path to some kind of progress. By only pointing out the bad, it's a one-sided discussion. Nothing in life is one-sided.
For a freedom to mean something, it has to be delineated -- i.e., it must have limits. Can't cry movie in a crowded firehouse. etc. I'm completely with you on the freedom discussion. I just don't hear any delineation.
Outrage over legitimately outrageous behavior from the NSA does not imply that there is some sort of unbalanced perspective that needs to be tempered.
At any given moment this debate needs rest on a larger foundation of common understanding if any progress it to be possible. It is completely unfair to project into that unspoken space an extreme, one-dimensionsal and altogether unlikely position, and then say there is a lack of balance because the person hasn't yet distinguished themselves from it.
No one should have to defend their love of country every time they criticize the Iraq war. Similarly, no one should have to prove that they understand the nuances of legitimate anti-terrorism operations just because they express legitimate outrage over a legitimately outrageous event. It is curious why anyone's first instinct would be to demand such a thing, in the face of the towering need for public outcry.
We don't need the NSA. Signal intelligence is great for fighting countries, but it will will fail because terrorists are a tiny minority hiding in a huge sea of humanity. I am all for the CIA and FBI but we just don't need a the huge budget of the NSA for anything right now and because of this they can't really help.
Correction: I have no problem with the NSA building secure systems but that's a tiny fraction of their budget.
Now make a case for why we need the NSA. Then we'll be on the path to some kind of progress. By only pointing out the bad, it's a one-sided discussion. Nothing in life is one-sided.
For a freedom to mean something, it has to be delineated -- i.e., it must have limits. Can't cry movie in a crowded firehouse. etc. I'm completely with you on the freedom discussion. I just don't hear any delineation.