6 ms·

Pretty simple way to frame this in a way that Washington can understand: The NSA data collection programs are _job killers_ for American high-tech workers and

• Vivtek 13y ago
  But none of their friends. More enemies means more federal funds doled out to Halliburton!
• mikhailt 13y ago
  Not only that, it will cause us the lead in innovation and technology services. It affects all apps that depend on those cloud services and they are getting yelled at by their customers for not providing better alternatives.
• flyt 13y ago
  "Hard working, innovative technology companies are losing out to foreign companies due to this unaccountable, big government program. It's time to reign in this anticompetitive NSA behavior and let American business compete on a level playing field." *formatted for a talking head to use on FOX News/MSNBC/CNN
  • derefr 13y ago
    That's beautiful. Now do company-sponsored/pre-tax health insurance coverage!
  • jrockway 13y ago
    Can't the NSA spy on foreign operations without any legal oversight, as opposed to spying on domestic operations with "oversight" from a secret court? Both are bad.
    • glesica 13y ago
      Since all of the companies fingered as cooperating actively with PRISM were American companies, the assumption is that while the NSA may spy on foreign companies those companies are not actively cooperating with the NSA and it is therefore (in theory, I suppose) harder for the NSA to get at their data.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Can't the NSA spy on foreign operations without any legal oversight Yeah. It would be kind of bizarre to have a military signals intelligence service where spying on foreign electronic communications was some kind of exceptional activity. The whole point of the NSA is spying on foreign operations. The legal restrictions involving a "secret court" (the two courts themselves aren't secret, though their proceedings tend to be) for oversight are to prevent the abuse of the "foreign intelligence" excuse as a backdoor for blanket domestic surveillance. Or at least, that was the original purpose of FISA after exactly that kind of abuse. With various "War on Terror" era changes, its arguable that the purpose of the oversight has been reversed so that it now serves as a form of legal cover for the abuse of the "foreign intelligence" excuse as a backdoor for blanket domestic surveillance.
      • Silhouette 13y ago
        Yeah. It would be kind of bizarre to have a military signals intelligence service where spying on foreign electronic communications was some kind of exceptional activity. And then international travel became a routine occurrence, and countries made "alliances", and international commerce became one of the most powerful forces driving the global economy, and the Internet arrived, and the kind of black and white world you're imagining went away. No country exists in such a vacuum in the twenty-first century, and a country that respects the basic rights of its own people but completely ignores the rights of others will pay a price for that hostility sooner or later. At least today that price is mostly measured in dollars and not blood as it might have been a few decades ago. It's sad that a lot of the abuses we've seen and heard about in recent years have to be curtailed through financial pressure and not politicians doing the right thing, but that doesn't make people voting with their wallets any less effective.
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          Travel doesn't really change things. The issue is sovereignty; relations between nations remain stuck in a place very close to the Hobbesian state of nature. Insofar as this is a problem to solve, the solution is popularly accountable governments with broader geographic scope than existing nation-states. Note, however, that, there's not much movement in this direction (EU expansion is pretty much it) anywhere in the world, and some movement in the other direction.
    • untog 13y ago
      Oh, sure. But they can't legally compel foreign companies to give them data.
  • bulatb 13y ago
    "Those companies are full of hipster kids with fancy Ivy League degrees, spoiled with perks and massive salaries, making useless products that are scary because your kids understand them and you don't. They're coldly taking steady jobs in manufacturing, retail, and service just so Google can install another ball bit. The NSA has put them in their place and now they're whining. And don't forget, these programs keep you safe." People will believe whatever spin fits better with their pre-existing point of view.
• mullingitover 13y ago
  That'll get them to pay attention, especially considering all the efforts they've made to stimulate the employment market during this session. Oh wait[1]... [1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/congress-has-passed-13-laws-this-year-none-of-them-have-to-do-with-jobs-20130607 http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/congress-has...
• diafygi 13y ago
  This is probably the most effective way to turn politicians around on the issue. As sad as it may be, a "jobs vs. security" debate is much more competitive in politics than "4th amendment vs. security" debate. The more times you can fit "NSA" and "job-killing" into the same sentence, the more politicians will start to question it.
• ascendant2323 13y ago
  Hear hear. It hurts the _job creators_, the only people who matter!