I agree. I don't believe this report includes anything that could pose a legitimate threat to national security. If the NSA has begun militarizing the internet, the public has a right to know.
The obvious answer is that it becomes much harder for the NSA (and related entities) to do their job when their tactics and capabilities are known to the world. And yes, this is their job, and there's nothing wrong with it. Domestic spying is something that needs to be reigned in and tightly controlled, but to think that everyone should know everything is just naive and shows little understanding of how the real world actually operates.
The obvious answer is that it becomes much harder for the NSA (and related entities) to do their job when their tactics and capabilities are known to the world.
Harder as in how?
That handwavy excuse gets thrown around a lot, I have yet to hear someone back it up with anything tangible.
Domestic spying is something that needs to be reigned in and tightly controlled
Well, we tried with blind faith for a while. Turns out that didn't work all too well.
So, how do you propose we control something that we are not allowed to know anything about?
"Well, we tried with blind faith for a while. Turns out that didn't work all too well.
So, how do you propose we control something that we are not allowed to know anything about?"
Agreed, with the first sentence at least. Let's be real though; no incarnation of oversight is going to have you and I involved directly, nor should it. You cannot expect the populous to be sufficiently educated on the intricacies of foreign policy and global threats.
So my proposal would be for the lawmakers to propose a better form of oversight which includes strict provisions for surveillance, especially the domestic variety. These provisions also cannot hamstring the NSA or the like; there has to be balance.
The parent comes off as a proponent of opening up the floodgates. That's ridiculous and it will never happen (nor should it). You cannot have a system which A) allows for full disclosure, and B) does not weaken our ability to defend ourselves.
"You cannot expect the populous to be sufficiently educated on the intricacies of foreign policy and global threats.
So my proposal would be for the lawmakers to propose a better form of oversight which includes strict provisions for surveillance, especially the domestic variety. These provisions also cannot hamstring the NSA or the like; there has to be balance."
but then, if you and I (the "populous") aren't allowed to know what they are trying to achieve, or how they are doing it, how on earth are we supposed to have any faith in the oversight that "lawmakers" provide?
I cannot overstate how strongly I abhor the "you cannot expect the populous..." type arguments when used to continue keeping them in the dark about matters for which THEY HAVE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBIILITY.
if "the populous" is expected to select lawmakers based on the quality of the job they do, then "the populous" sure as HELL needs to have the information on the intricacies of foreign policy and global threats made available to them, and the response that their lawmakers support.
