3 ms·

"the query results are IMMEDIATELY destroyed" The data that was queried, however, is not -- so the query could be run again later if someone wanted to. "The m

"the query results are IMMEDIATELY destroyed" The data that was queried, however, is not -- so the query could be run again later if someone wanted to. "The metadata is collected, destroyed after 5 years," An awfully big window for policies to change. Destroyed after 5 years can become destroyed after 10 years, or never destroyed at all, when the people in charge change their minds. How would we even know about the change, when everything is done in secret? The fact that members of Congress need to be told what the period of time is means that they did not know beforehand; will they be told when the period of time is lengthened (I have no hope for it getting any shorter)? "Alexander said that 20 analysts and 2 managers (himself and Inglis) are the only people with access to this database." Assuming everyone always follows the rules, which is a pretty stupid assumption.

rtpg 13y ago
>Assuming everyone always follows the rules, which is a pretty stupid assumption. That's why there's oversight. What's the point of making rules if you assume no one follows them? This is Rule of Law 101.
- betterunix 13y ago
  What oversight would you be referring to here? Does someone (not chosen by the people in charge of the NSA, up to and including the President) come in to periodically audit the NSA and ensure that they are only spying on Americans when they have a warrant? Do their computers even keep logs to enable such auditing? The problem here is that you have a secret agency that is saying, "Look, really, we have these policies and we promise that we follow them. Of course, you cannot come in and check to see if we are following them, because our operations are a secret." It does not help that whistleblowers are considered to be traitors in this situation. How exactly do you think the rule of law works?

rtpg 13y ago

>Assuming everyone always follows the rules, which is a pretty stupid assumption. That's why there's oversight. What's the point of making rules if you assume no one follows them? This is Rule of Law 101.

betterunix 13y ago
What oversight would you be referring to here? Does someone (not chosen by the people in charge of the NSA, up to and including the President) come in to periodically audit the NSA and ensure that they are only spying on Americans when they have a warrant? Do their computers even keep logs to enable such auditing? The problem here is that you have a secret agency that is saying, "Look, really, we have these policies and we promise that we follow them. Of course, you cannot come in and check to see if we are following them, because our operations are a secret." It does not help that whistleblowers are considered to be traitors in this situation. How exactly do you think the rule of law works?