4 ms·

The Church Committee succeeded pretty well; the reforms held for a number of years. These kinds of checks on state power require regular maintenance. What we n

The Church Committee succeeded pretty well; the reforms held for a number of years. These kinds of checks on state power require regular maintenance. What we need is a modern Church Committee, not to throw up our hands at the political system entirely.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Accompanying one of his later document releases, Snowden himself said: In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables it to monitor virtually all message traffic. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything — telephone conversations, email messages, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return. Oh, wait, no, those words weren't from accused traitor Edward Snowden in 2014, they were from Senator Frank Church in 1975, recast slightly in modern terms to avoid premature discharge of irony. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee ) Sounds like they "succeeded pretty well" to me, too. Succeeded in predicting the future. What, in your opinion, will be different this time around?
- idlewords 12y ago
  You can't expect reforms made in the seventies to constrain intelligence agencies indefinitely. The Church Committee imposed real, effective limits on domestic surveillance that it took the best part of three decades to weasel out of. Why not do it again, and do it more regularly? You seem to be arguing that because the Church Committee didn't fix the problem of government overreach once and for all, it accomplished nothing.
  - DINKDINK 12y ago
    Why is constantly maintaining political agreements a superior solution to building crypto solutions that can't be broken (economically)
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      Because political power can make certain technologies illegal, or constrain their implementation. For example, encryption is not much use if the law mandates that the government gets a copy of every private key. This was really proposed in the 1990s and thankfully defeated through political pressure.
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      Because humans are always the weakest link in any security mechanism. In the context of the government spying on you, it doesn't matter if you encrypt all your communication. The government can still force you (and/or your friends and loved ones) to give them what they want, and do it in a way that is completely secret (e.g. gag orders). When viewed in this light, encryption is simply an inconvenience for them.
    - tokenadult 12y ago
      To have the best defense of our freedoms, we need both. We need to be vigilant in the political system and in the courts to protect our rights, and we need to be using the best technical means--and developing better technical means--to protect our privacy not only from overreaching governments but also from careless private businesses and common criminals.
DennisP 12y ago
We do need that. We also need to get as many people as possible using strong encryption. The less useful mass surveillance is to the government, the easier it will be to get the political reforms we want.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Accompanying one of his later document releases, Snowden himself said: In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables it to monitor virtually all message traffic. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything — telephone conversations, email messages, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return. Oh, wait, no, those words weren't from accused traitor Edward Snowden in 2014, they were from Senator Frank Church in 1975, recast slightly in modern terms to avoid premature discharge of irony. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee ) Sounds like they "succeeded pretty well" to me, too. Succeeded in predicting the future. What, in your opinion, will be different this time around?

idlewords 12y ago
You can't expect reforms made in the seventies to constrain intelligence agencies indefinitely. The Church Committee imposed real, effective limits on domestic surveillance that it took the best part of three decades to weasel out of. Why not do it again, and do it more regularly? You seem to be arguing that because the Church Committee didn't fix the problem of government overreach once and for all, it accomplished nothing.
- DINKDINK 12y ago
  Why is constantly maintaining political agreements a superior solution to building crypto solutions that can't be broken (economically)
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Because political power can make certain technologies illegal, or constrain their implementation. For example, encryption is not much use if the law mandates that the government gets a copy of every private key. This was really proposed in the 1990s and thankfully defeated through political pressure.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    Because humans are always the weakest link in any security mechanism. In the context of the government spying on you, it doesn't matter if you encrypt all your communication. The government can still force you (and/or your friends and loved ones) to give them what they want, and do it in a way that is completely secret (e.g. gag orders). When viewed in this light, encryption is simply an inconvenience for them.
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    To have the best defense of our freedoms, we need both. We need to be vigilant in the political system and in the courts to protect our rights, and we need to be using the best technical means--and developing better technical means--to protect our privacy not only from overreaching governments but also from careless private businesses and common criminals.

DennisP 12y ago

We do need that. We also need to get as many people as possible using strong encryption. The less useful mass surveillance is to the government, the easier it will be to get the political reforms we want.