Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance(nytimes.com) |
Momentum Builds Against N.S.A. Surveillance(nytimes.com) |
That's HUGE. Does anyone have any more details on this?
The tone of the whole article seems to indicate that change is inevitable. We need to stay vigilant and make sure the changes aren't just window-dressing.
Politicians may be slow, but they'll respond to momentum.
It's my belief that skilled politicians equate the Edward Snowden revelations and the fears he has of losing his life to that of the "rape of Lucretia" in Ancient Rome. (The rape and suicide of Lucretia toppled the monarchy in Rome and brought in the Republic.)
60-minutes, Wired Magazine, the New York Times have been talking about Patriot Act abuses and even the signing of the NDAA which gave Obama the right to imprison anyone without a lawyer or the right to trial. It also gave him the right to drone-kill anyone if so desired.
All of this has gone over the public's head because a real life example wasn't involved - BUT - when Edward Snowden, a real person said, "I may be killed for telling you all of this" and then abandoned a sweet paycheck because he couldn't live with myself if he didn't that got people's attention much like the aforementioned rape and suicide of Lucretia in ancient Rome.
Just a thought.
It is hard to say if we'll see meaningful reform come from this, but it is encouraging see the reaction so far. The hearings in the House this week are going to make for very interesting TV too.
I look forward to the day she is no longer "serving" the people of California.
Set aside whether you are with or against what Snowden did, this what Feinstein said is exactly the reason why those systems should not exist in the first place. Imagine someone hacking into NSA (if you say its impossible then I have 640 kilobytes memory for you that will least you a lifetime) and downloading all the phonecalls and emails and those in the office right now. Disaster.
The existence of this data IS the biggest terrorist threat to this country, or many other countries in that matter. Unfortunately such a disgusting heretic blob as Feinstein herself will never understand it.
It's not surprising. I'm amazed that anyone in Silicon Valley is willing to vote for her.
Say what you want about the "balance of security and civil liberties". Secret law and democracy are plainly 100% incompatible and a third grader can understand why. Secret law all but guarantees an eventual transition to outright totalitarian fascism.
It shouldn't have. But this is how these things happen. People don't act immediately on them, even if they think differently. They just build and build up frustration inside of them, while the politicians keep stepping on them more and more, growing ever more brave in doing that because they see no one protests against their actions - until one the people day blow up and the move seems "sudden".
Politicians should consider themselves lucky this is not a violent revolution meant to overthrow the government, and they should fix the problem as soon as they can.
And I'd also like to see the PATRIOT Act seriously scrutinized from the point of view of civil liberties.
Recent re-expansion has included the New York Times' successful defense of the publication of The Pentagon Papers. I think we're seeing another example of this here. 9/11-like attacks have not reoccured, and the public pendulum is shifting back.
If no more significant terrorist attacks occur, eventually I predict that significant portions of the Patriot Act will not be renewed. This is somewhat like firing your gardner as unnecessary because you don't see any weeds in your garden, but, even so, I suspect the Patriot Act is overkill.
I feel so cynical, and dearly hope that I will be proven wrong.
You can conclude whatever you want from a false hypothesis. The truth is that eventually some terrorist will find a way through all the security systems we set up.
I want a website where I can read about all politicians against PRISM/ deep surveillance systems, and all those scumbags who voted this thing in, and continue to go with it.
Then when it comes around next election, I want to go to this website, connect my mailbox with it just like Facebook or LinkedIn ask me to, and send email to EVERY CONTACT from my mailbox as of WHY they should not vote on those people with link to a nice page with description on each and every one of those scumbags.
Go!
I think most representatives could give two shits about the American people and their privacy, but threaten their turf and their power and it's game on.
Granted, Snowden is an important part of the story, and he will be remembered very favorably by history. But for people who are predisposed to buying the administration's fear mongering, he has been easily dismissed and used as a distraction in the short term.
He's a good looking heteronormative guy with no criminal record nor obvious sexual improprieties. He had nothing to gain from making the disclosure and apparently quite a bit to lose.