3 ms·

This is how I see it. NSA gonna NSA. NSA gonna maximize the amount of NSA it does. This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. It is quite

by Rapzid 12y ago

This is how I see it. NSA gonna NSA. NSA gonna maximize the amount of NSA it does. This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. It is quite literally the point of congressional oversight; to keep things from getting out of control. To ensure the US citizen's and the US's ideals and interests are being served in organizations who have every incentive to pursue their own self-interests. However 9/11 happened and they were able to capitalize big time on fear. Our intelligence community does way to much serving its own interests under the guise of serving US interests IMHO. However, I believe it is ALSO dangerous to have all this information as pointed out by the OP. Again, this is why we are supposed to have congressional oversight and why transparency and secret courts are such hot issues.

coldtea 12y ago
>This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).
- kevinnk 12y ago
  > In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. In this context what exactly would that entail?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    If you mean "in the context on secret spying on citizens what would that entail" then the answer is that not all contexts are appropriate for a democracy. Those who are not should be altered to fit democratic procedures or be abolished. If spying needed to happen, the procedures should be open and transparent. All the stuff Snowden brought forward, should have been released officially in advance. But before of that, the democratic thing for such a mass offense against privacy would be a referendum: "We need to massively track you, including such and such information and sources. Yes / No". Furthermore, nothing secret should go on that's not explicitly voted, e.g. absolutely no sharing of the data meant for national security with police departments to head-start a case against a citizen etc. No indefinite storage of those items either. Delete them with a rolling delete every few years or so.

by Rapzid 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).

kevinnk 12y ago
> In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. In this context what exactly would that entail?
- coldtea 12y ago
  If you mean "in the context on secret spying on citizens what would that entail" then the answer is that not all contexts are appropriate for a democracy. Those who are not should be altered to fit democratic procedures or be abolished. If spying needed to happen, the procedures should be open and transparent. All the stuff Snowden brought forward, should have been released officially in advance. But before of that, the democratic thing for such a mass offense against privacy would be a referendum: "We need to massively track you, including such and such information and sources. Yes / No". Furthermore, nothing secret should go on that's not explicitly voted, e.g. absolutely no sharing of the data meant for national security with police departments to head-start a case against a citizen etc. No indefinite storage of those items either. Delete them with a rolling delete every few years or so.