3 ms·

I'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated differently from the rest of us.

dom0 10y ago
I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.
- DanBC 10y ago
  They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
- rl3 10y ago
  The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
- Already__Taken 10y ago
  But now you've just got exactly that for every potential upcoming politician up to the point they take office.
rl3 10y ago
Morally I don't disagree that it's indefensible. From a pragmatic point of view, it may have some utility. It's easier to fight surveillance when you're not being actively blackmailed by said surveillance. The counterargument there is that it's also easier not to care about surveillance reform when you know you're insulated from the surveillance in the first place. Likely a false sense of security, though.

dom0 10y ago

I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.

DanBC 10y ago
They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
rl3 10y ago
The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
Already__Taken 10y ago
But now you've just got exactly that for every potential upcoming politician up to the point they take office.

rl3 10y ago

Morally I don't disagree that it's indefensible. From a pragmatic point of view, it may have some utility. It's easier to fight surveillance when you're not being actively blackmailed by said surveillance. The counterargument there is that it's also easier not to care about surveillance reform when you know you're insulated from the surveillance in the first place. Likely a false sense of security, though.