3 ms·

> The NSA has committed no crimes. As an organization, they've acted within the bounds of the law and done exactly what they were supposed to do. This watchdog

> The NSA has committed no crimes. As an organization, they've acted within the bounds of the law and done exactly what they were supposed to do. This watchdog report is saying that the law is not in the interest of the people and it should be changed. But until that happens, the NSA is in the right to continue with business as usual. From the article, quoting the report: The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.” Now, you could mention that two out of the five representatives disagree with the idea that the program is illegal. That would be fair enough. Saying that the report finds nothing wrong law-wise with the program isn't. > This means that someone can't be charged with violating a law that was not in effect at the time of the person's action. ie, if the the speed limit is lowered to 50mph on Tuesday, you can't be ticketed for having driven 55mph on Monday. No doubt. But if you were to be caught red-handed doing warrantless wiretaps, on the other hand, retroactive immunity would automatically follow. > In general, it's bad for business. It's difficult to plan for the future when a relatively small group of citizens can change how things work in a short time period. I don't know what ordinary US citizens think about having their privacy violated and have the head of the NSA lie about their activities. You may well be right about them not caring, it's certainly the case here in Europe. But saying that changing the law would "harm business" is grotesque. I'm pretty sure you'll be hard-pressed to find any support for the activities of the NSA in the US IT sector, short of security/defense suppliers, who bloody well know which side of the bread is buttered. The rest is scared of losing non-US customers and of the EU implementing stringent laws about transferring data outside of the EU borders.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Now, you could mention that two out of the five representatives disagree with the idea that the program is illegal. That would be fair enough. Not based on the article, which said they rejected the majority's conclusion that the program was illegal because they believed that legality should have been left to the courts and not addressed by the board, which does not mean that they disagreed with the board's assessment on legality. (I'd argue that it suggests, but does not mean, that they did not like the fact that the board reached the conclusion, but even then could not actually argue against it.)
- mercurial 13y ago
  It suggests strongly that Ms. Brand disagreed: Ms. Brand wrote that while the legal question was “difficult,” the government’s legal theory was “at least a reasonable reading, made in good faith by numerous officials in two administrations of different parties.” But alright, you win this one.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Now, you could mention that two out of the five representatives disagree with the idea that the program is illegal. That would be fair enough. Not based on the article, which said they rejected the majority's conclusion that the program was illegal because they believed that legality should have been left to the courts and not addressed by the board, which does not mean that they disagreed with the board's assessment on legality. (I'd argue that it suggests, but does not mean, that they did not like the fact that the board reached the conclusion, but even then could not actually argue against it.)

mercurial 13y ago
It suggests strongly that Ms. Brand disagreed: Ms. Brand wrote that while the legal question was “difficult,” the government’s legal theory was “at least a reasonable reading, made in good faith by numerous officials in two administrations of different parties.” But alright, you win this one.