3 ms·
And what about the remaining 7 billion law-abiding souls on the planet? I resonate with the intent of this article but how come protecting only an Americans' pr
by monsterix 13y ago
And what about the remaining 7 billion law-abiding souls on the planet? I resonate with the intent of this article but how come protecting only an Americans' privacy be of concern to this voice on NYT? I believe this approach is not only insular (apart from being stupid) but also destined to fail.
If I were to run dragnet, I'd accept protecting the interest and privacy of all Americans back home, but strike a deal with GCHQ or some other Government agency and provide them with all the tools and tech to snoop on my fellow citizens. No legal hassles, no constitutional violation. Cost? Well that could be worked out given the advantage the data gives me to remain in power.
- guiambros 13y agoThis is an OpEd piece, not "The NYTimes opinion". Besides, the authors are US senators, and have been historically fighting against the NSA broad data collection. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, all Democrats, are United States senators.
- danenania 13y agoThis is true, but if we can't even keep the NSA from poring through the communications of citizens, what hope do we have of limiting them internationally? We must begin with the practically achievable steps even if they are insufficient.
- 7952 13y agoThe cat is out of the bag now. There are enough bad actors in the world to assume that monitoring will continue indefinitely regardless of what the NSA does. This threat can only be mitigated by developing new protocols and technology. The sad thing is that the NSA could have helped society secure itself years ago. Instead they left vulnerabilities unpatched and the public open to attack.
- aaronem 13y agoThe government of the United States is responsible, however imperfectly, to the people of the United States, not to those of the planet entire.