The only observation this comment makes --- that use of foreign intelligence to help make domestic criminal cases helps validate the intelligence programs --- is blatantly wrong.
I think you missed the rather insightful point he was making entirely.
The DEA's use of NSA intercepts "sounds" a whole lot more sensible (catching 'drug dealers') than what may be potentially 1000s of other horrific uses the government is also using this data for.
It absolutely does not sound more sensible for the USG to be focusing the tools of foreign intelligence on its own citizens for drug enforcement. I didn't miss his point; his point is wrong. Using foreign intelligence for criminal justice does the opposite of legitimizing foreign intelligence programs.
I think I've stated my opinions on this matter very clearly. I also think its pretty clear we don't agree on these issues.
You have a solid grasp of what is technically being done, though I think you are less alarmed at what's already taken place than you should be given this.
The NSA is completely out of control and in a position to blackmail anyone, cut off and control the entire worlds communications and subvert anything they want.
The NSA and the USG are simply telling everyone that we should trust them to be the good guy, just because. While the government has already proven they will torture abuse and murder people with impunity.
These two things are incongruous - we can't have a political system that is proven to abuse and one that claims to be the moral good guy.
It's not enough for you that we agree that the program is bad. We have to agree for all the right reasons. This is a perfect illustration of why HN is a terrible place to discuss politics.
Here's why: we have a situation where, for once, we've landed on the same conclusion. We got there for different reasons. Instead of looking at that as a great opportunity to learn something new from our differing perspectives, it's something that somehow manages to piss you off. If political discussion doesn't work here, it's certainly not going to work anywhere else.
I'm not getting my wish that discussions like these simply be banned from the site, but maybe we could take a baby step towards civility by not calling people names.
Second, I actually really enjoy talking about these things with you on HN.
Third, we both get emotional about things we discuss - I recall a thread between us ~2 plus years ago where we were in heated discussion!
And C) - these items are political - but entirely germane to HN as the whole thing is enabled by tech and techies "just following orders" and tech companies "just making more sales".
We are on a very slippery slope; nobody wants to live in danger, but everyone is in danger of government abuse with these programs.
Hey, just in the interest of thwarting a false equivalence: I haven't called you names. You have called me names, on this very thread. I'm not super offended and would still buy you a beer in person, but let's all be clear that we're not supposed to be doing that on HN.
You were never called any names. He said you were an apologist. In reading your postings, your comments do strike me as having an overtone of apology for the surveillance state.
In political matters - the power of government vs. the rights of the individual - most people will fall into one of the two groups as a basic mode of operation for their perceptions and personal philosophy. When governments become tyrannical, as the US government is now proving itself to be, the contrast between the two modes becomes starkly delineated.
Authority vs. Liberty is an ancient human argument that is obviously still being played out. Those of us with an unbreakable attachment to Liberty will see any arguments in favor of the current regime as apologia.
