Before everyone rushes to the flag button because the author is biased (he is), consider that this article discusses a historical context I've seen missing from

Before everyone rushes to the flag button because the author is biased (he is), consider that this article discusses a historical context I've seen missing from a lot of the NSA analysis. I find this article, even in its breathless hyperbole, more informative than the latest "what the NSA is capable of" version. It shows a historical continuity with the actions intelligence agencies pursue, and what happened when people tried to stop them (right or wrong). No, this article is not the rational enquiry I wish it were. But as someone who is conflicted about NSA activities, I found it shaped my perspective more than most submissions I've read. Yes, everyone mentions that telegraphs entering and exiting the country were tapped, but I was unaware that in the 70s they were already mining for keywords, not calling it eavesdropping, and refusing to show up for Congressional inquiries. When I saw Clapper's now infamous testimony, I assumed it was a new, emboldened post-9/11 intelligence community that surpassed the Cold War era. I'm not sure that's the case now. There's also an argument to be made by those in favor of NSA activities: we've managed to have an NSA with extraordinary power that defies Congress for a long time, but we still haven't seen too many secret police. Ultimately, it focuses the debate to some degree not on NSA goals (which have historically been to collect as much relevant information as possible, and resist Congressional oversight with vigor), but on how much easier it now is to collect that information.