3 ms·
No. I too once thought that NSA and other Western intelligence agencies were doing things we should avoid. But then I learned the difference between democrat
by mhneu 8y ago
No.
I too once thought that NSA and other Western intelligence agencies were doing things we should avoid. But then I learned the difference between democratic and autocratic regimes' use of data collection.
In a word: rule of law. There are teams of judges that review surveillance applications. There are strong rules and laws to prevent misuse of data - NSA employees have been disciplined for violating the rules and reading data they are not supposed to. And in the West we vote for the leadership that supervises this effort - and the leadership changes. (we've had some election problems, yes - in part due to autocrats intervening in the West lately, but democracies are working to improve) It's not about people, it's about laws.
Autocratic countries don't have the same controls.
Also, in the influence campaigns autocracies have been running in the West, there's a ton of effort put into whataboutism - 'democracies do it too'. Be careful.
- pas 8y agoBoth is probably true, the NSA/gov overreach is bad, but the NSA/US has a significantly better civil oversight of intelligence services.
- ionised 8y agoAn oversight that rubber stamps 99% of surveillance requests from the NSA and allows it to use information sharing agreements with its allies to skirt around rules preventing surveillance of its own citizens. That is not oversight to me.
- mhneu 8y agoThat is a false talking point. The approval rate of FISA warrants does not reflect the strength of oversight. Be careful. There is a lot of disinformation out there designed to discredit democracies. Discussion of why this is false: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... The win rate is misleading for a simple reason: The requests the FISC receives are not a random or representative sample of all cases in which the executive branch believes it would benefit from a warrant. The number and type of government requests are responsive to the level of oversight the court exercises—just as a plaintiff’s decision to litigate is responsive to changes in the law. Because it is costly to make an ex parte application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests. And while the rarity of ex parte proceedings might make this outcome seem unprecedented or extraordinary, other ex parte proceedings—like those for Title III wiretaps and delayed-notice warrants—display equally lopsided results: the government “wins” almost 100% of the time.