3 ms·

Suppose that someday you run for office, or lobby for a cause, or run a prominent company. Suppose that you OR someone you love has something in their past they

Suppose that someday you run for office, or lobby for a cause, or run a prominent company. Suppose that you OR someone you love has something in their past they wouldn't want shared, OR which could be misconstrued in the press. Suddenly, you learn that unless you drop out of the race, or stop lobbying, or withdraw from a business venture, you or someone you love will be publicly shamed, fairly or not. Or worse than shamed: framed and locked up. We already threw out due process in cases related to terrorism, right? Not plausible? Not with thousands of intelligence workers and officials, with information on everyone retained for decades, with the NSA working hard to break old encryption so that archived conversations can be made searchable in their databases? Not plausible for this administration or any future one? That's a huge bet. I'm with the Founding Fathers and the 4th Amendment: the government has to be limited in its searches to specific cases with specific justification.

rprospero 14y ago
Here's the thing I've never understood about the "framed and locked-up" argument. If the government was going to go to frame me for being a terrorist, why would they need the giant wiretapping facility? All they need to do is hire a couple of interns to write a whole bunch of "Death to America!" emails and just tell the courts that I wrote them. They'd declare national security issues on why my lawyers can't see the network traces that "prove" that these emails came from my computer. I guess I'm just saying that the government has been able to frame me a lock me up for over a hundred years. I don't see what this changes about that?
- mhurron 14y ago
  It's more palatable to the people if they can hang you with your own words. No one is going to care if they can 'prove' they saved the people from a danger. On top of that, the people will be more willing to accept any 'proof' they intercepted when they know the government is intercepting everything.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  A lie is much more convincing if it's constructed on a kernel of truth.

rprospero 14y ago

Here's the thing I've never understood about the "framed and locked-up" argument. If the government was going to go to frame me for being a terrorist, why would they need the giant wiretapping facility? All they need to do is hire a couple of interns to write a whole bunch of "Death to America!" emails and just tell the courts that I wrote them. They'd declare national security issues on why my lawyers can't see the network traces that "prove" that these emails came from my computer. I guess I'm just saying that the government has been able to frame me a lock me up for over a hundred years. I don't see what this changes about that?

mhurron 14y ago
It's more palatable to the people if they can hang you with your own words. No one is going to care if they can 'prove' they saved the people from a danger. On top of that, the people will be more willing to accept any 'proof' they intercepted when they know the government is intercepting everything.
nathan_long 14y ago
A lie is much more convincing if it's constructed on a kernel of truth.