2 ms·

> lawful I think you need to be careful how you ask that question. Lawful may not necessarily what is right, or what is in line with what freedoms citizens exp

> lawful I think you need to be careful how you ask that question. Lawful may not necessarily what is right, or what is in line with what freedoms citizens expect to carry. I'm not American, but I think you should approach this issue first by asking if it's moral, then if it's lawful, and then if it works in practice as it is written in law.

aeturnum 13y ago
I'm an American, and I think it needs to be approached in exactly the opposite way. Obviously everyone has their own opinions about the people who implemented the current pervasive surveillance system, but their legal culpability has to be the first question. Platonic discussions about how the ideal version of America would run are nice, but they're not very useful if a huge section of the stakeholders (members of the intelligence community who may or may not be guilty) have a lot of motivation to exercise their fifth amendment rights. Once it's clear what the law is now, and who (if anyone) has violated it in the intelligence community, people will be freed to speak to law makers and officials and others. Once we understand where we are - who & what we listen to, how we use it, who we share it with, and why people thought we should (and could, under the law & the constitution), then we can have a conversation about how to move forward. Which of those goals cross lines that we don't want to cross as a country? Which of them are the right idea in the wrong place? Etc. People cannot engage in that kind of conversation with legal action hanging over their head (nor do we want people who will be convicted of gross ethical breaches speaking without that known).