Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable

from the good-people-sometimes-do-bad-things dept

Thu, Aug 22nd 2013 1:48pm — Mike Masnick

Jennifer Granick, a well known (and brilliant) civil liberties fighter (currently at Stanford) recently co-wrote an article with Chris Sprigman about why the NSA's surveillance efforts were almost certainly both illegal and unconstitutional. Just a few weeks later, she got to have dinner with NSA boss Keith Alexander, which she's now written about. As you might imagine, it appears that they didn't agree on very much about the NSA's surveillance efforts. Basically, Alexander more or less argues that the NSA has to do what it does to "protect Americans" and that the agency is filled with good people who don't want to invade the privacy of Americans.

I have no doubt that Gen. Alexander loves this country as much as I do, or that his primary motivation is to protect our nation from terrorist attacks. “Never again,” he said over dinner. But it may be that our deep differences stem from a fundamental disagreement about human nature. I think Gen. Alexander believes that history is made by great individuals standing against evil. I believe that brave people can make a difference, but that larger inexorable forces are often more important: history, economics, political and social systems, the environment. So I believe that power corrupts and that good people will do bad things when a system is poorly designed, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. More than once, my dinner companions felt the need to reassure the DIRNSA that none of us thought he was a bad man, but that we thought the surveillance policies and practices were bad, and that eventually, inevitably, those policies and practices would lead to abuse.

She goes on to note that the NSA's (and the administration's) further defense of the efforts have only made her point even stronger (contrary to General Alexander's promise to Granick that the upcoming revelations would show that the NSA's actions were perfectly reasonable). As she notes later in the piece, the history of abuses is well known, even if Alexander likes to ignore it:

Of course, we see mission creep – once you build the mousetrap of surveillance infrastructure, they will come for the data. First it was counterterrorism, then it was drug investigations, then it was IRS audits. Next it will be for copyright infringement.

And of course, there also will be both “inadvertent” and intentional abuse, inevitable but difficult to discover. Bored analysts do things like spy on women using surveillance cameras and listen to American GIs overseas having phone sex with their loved ones back home. Or an FBI agent may investigate strange but not unlawful emails on behalf of a family friend, leading to a sex scandal that brings down the Director of the CIA. These surveillance tools and information databases may one day end up in the hands of a J. Edgar Hoover and a President demanding embarrassing information about her political opponents, information that, in an age of mass surveillance, the government most assuredly will have somewhere in its treasure trove.

There's a reason we make it hard for the government to spy on people. We know that the temptation to abuse such powers will be strong and abuse will inevitably occur. That's the nature of a free society. And it's a problem when people like General Alexander think that the best way to "protect" a free society is to take away the very factors that make it one.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: abuse of power, jennifer granick, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

The problem I have with this is the argument that NSA spying should be stopped because abuses are inevitable. It's an empirical argument of the facts. But such a debate is meaningless.

NSA spying should not be stopped because it might one day be abused. NSA spying should be stopped because it is necessarily wrong. That's the end of the argument. It does not go past that.

It doesn't matter if the NSA actually stops a terrorist attack or not. It doesn't matter if the NSA never ever abuses the system. It's wrong. It must be stopped. Period.

—Ima Fish

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:00pm

The problem I have with this is the argument that NSA spying should be stopped because abuses are inevitable. It's an empirical argument of the facts. But such a debate is meaningless.

NSA spying should not be stopped because it might one day be abused. NSA spying should be stopped because it is necessarily wrong. That's the end of the argument. It does not go past that.

It doesn't matter if the NSA actually stops a terrorist attack or not. It doesn't matter if the NSA never ever abuses the system. It's wrong. It must be stopped. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lorpius Prime (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:10pm
  
  No, it's not enough to say "NSA spying is wrong". You have to have an explanation of why it's wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sorrykb (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re:
    Lorpius Prime wrote:
    No, it's not enough to say "NSA spying is wrong". You have to have an explanation of why it's wrong.
    
    Amendment IV:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Monkey (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:53pm
      
      Re: Re:
      And although that right there should be END OF STORY, it's always hand-waived or out-and-out ignored.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lorpius Prime (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:58pm
      
      The Fourth Amendment probably makes the NSA's policies unconstitutional in the United States, but it's not a reason they're wrong in any kind of ethical sense. If I said that the Fourth Amendment ought to be repealed, what would you say to convince me that was a bad idea? If another country wanted to replicate the NSA's program, why would they be wrong?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sorrykb (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re:
        Lorpius Prime:
        If another country wanted to replicate the NSA's program, why would they be wrong?
        
        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. - Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lorpius Prime (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:07pm
        
        You really shouldn't make a habit of falling back on existing laws as moral justifications. Why should anyone care what the UDHR says? What makes it good?
        
        We have the power both to change old laws and create new ones, and we must always keep in mind the reasons for laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sorrykb (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re:
        Such treaties are a result of the moral justification, not the origin of it. The rights are moral rights, but laws can provide a remedy -- a framework and a system for redress -- for those whose rights have been violated.
        
        Now, you could say again: "Well, where did this right come from?" You can keep moving the goalposts with each response, coming back to the question of why do we have human rights?
        
        Which is a long philosophical discussion, but for me it comes back to an understanding by human beings of what is just. It's not static by any means (See "evolving standards of decency".), but is rooted in the right to physical integrity -- a belief in the inherent dignity of human beings.
        
        Where does that come from? That's a VERY long discussion, and I don't think we know the answer yet, but most creatures (human and otherwise) have some sense of fair and unfair, and know when they've been wronged.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lorpius Prime (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:58pm
        
        My point is not to drag anyone into a deep argument about the nature of rights themselves. Rather it's that the first comment here, Ima Fish saying that you shouldn't have to highlight the potential abuses of NSA spying but only say that they're intrinsically wrong, is a terrible argument. If the entirety of your position consists of "this is wrong", it leaves you totally unequipped to oppose someone who responds "nuh uh, it's perfectly fine!".
        
        It is critically important to have genuine, rational reasons for opposing things, and the potential for abuse is a strong reason that the NSA's programs. Without reasons like that, we're no better than children stamping our feet and saying "I just don't like it!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:55pm
        
        What makes it bad?
        UDHR and the US Constitution protect us against intrusions into our private lives. Since privacy is more an emotional and psychological issue than a rational one, it's difficult to argue against government surveillance on purely rational grounds.
        
        After all: Why is it wrong for me to go into your house and go through the contents of your bedroom closet (without taking anything)? Why is it wrong to climb up a tree to look into your daughter's bedroom? Why is it wrong to tap your phone line and record everything you say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lorpius Prime (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:08pm
        
        Just because an issue is emotional or psychological does not mean that it cannot be approached rationally. As humans, we share common values of fairness, peace, and happiness, and so we craft our laws to promote and defend those values. If a policy is objectively harmful to one or more of those psychological goods, then we have a rational reason to consider abandoning or proscribing that policy.
        
        The reason that we outlaw unwarranted investigations and arrests in the United States is because of the genuine suffering they cause to the individuals targeted by such actions, because they contravenes our principles of treating everyone equally under the law, and because they allow people or institutions in positions of power to abuse their power for their own benefit rather than that of the public they're supposed to serve.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re:
        "The reason that we outlaw unwarranted investigations and arrests in the United States is because of the genuine suffering they cause to the individuals targeted by such actions, because they contravenes our principles of treating everyone equally under the law, and because they allow people or institutions in positions of power to abuse their power for their own benefit rather than that of the public they're supposed to serve."
        
        Suffering concerns emotions and human psychology. As for "our principles of treating everyone equally under the law", what is the rational basis for such principles? And why should we care if people abuse power for their own benefit?
        
        We could ask "why" forever and never arrive at a satisfactory answer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - out_of_the_blue, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re:
        @ "The Fourth Amendment probably makes the NSA's policies unconstitutional in the United States, but it's not a reason they're wrong in any kind of ethical sense."
        
        It's an impressive contradiction you wrote there, I assume due to mere ignorance.
        
        Unconstitutional means all of "unlawful", "immoral", "wrong", and "unethical". The US Constitution is not, as foreigners may believe, a limitation on the people, but upon the gov't that we've authorized and instituted.
        
        In the (former) US of A, the people are sovereign: that means quite literally that WE'RE the law of the land (with full but not arbitrary powers because all laws must respect the rights of every person equally): gov't officials are mere servants who are bound in their every official act by law. Therefore any unconstitutional act by one of our servants is automatically a crime; it's unnecessary to bother with mere ethics, because the criminals should be thrown in jail. -- I recognize that's not how works at present, but unless you have the ideals and the notion of individual sovereignty clear, you're never going to get liberty -- and especially not by relying on "good" people, because there are none who won't go mad with power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:32am
        
        Re: Re:
        Voted insightful. Good point, well made, with a minimum of snark. Keep it up, Blue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:32pm
      
      Re: Re:
      Even if it weren't in our Consistution it is in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights treaty signed by the US in 1948.
      
      Article 12.
      
      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
      
      http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
      
      Not only do we have the US government violating the 4th amendment but we have it violating an international treaty that they are a signer of.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sorrykb (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re:
        The UDHR was "proclaimed" and doesn't have the legal standing of a treaty (although it has pretty good moral standing), but as it happens the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which has been signed and ratified by a majority of the countries of the world) borrowed Article 12 of the UDHR for its Article 17.
        Article 17
        
        1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
        
        2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 6:17am
      
      Re: Re:
      i'm certain there is a secret executive signing statement, or secret law, or secret court, who has ruled Amendment IV inoperable, citizen...
      
      otherwise, they are ALL complicit in violating one of our more sacrosanct rights...
      
      hmmm...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - another mike (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re:
    NSA spying is wrong because, in spite of the circular logic, IT'S WRONG!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sorrykb (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:03pm
      
      Re: Re:
      NSA spying is wrong because, in spite of the circular logic, IT'S WRONG!
      
      Works for me.
      
      In other words:
      
      We hold these truths to be self-evident.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re:
        oh dude/dudette, that was beautiful...
        
        i think we all should remind ourselves that there was an ongoing tussle between -at least- two schools of thought when the constitution was aborning...
        
        1. that *of course* all men (some exceptions apply) are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, blah, blah, blah; and it wasn't necessary -because it was 'self-evident'- to enumerate ALL the natural rights all men had vested in them by the act of being born...
        
        (sort of like how copyright automatically adheres upon creation in a fixed medium; so your 'natural/all rights' are engendered upon birth)
        
        2. and another faction that thought: unless we explicitly spell them out, and make the observing and defense of these bedrock rights the overarching priority of ALL the branches of government, despots and tyrannical majorities WILL (not 'might') impinge upon -if not repudiate- those 'natural rights'...
        
        these days, there's no bare minimum rights for me and thee...
        
        secret laws, secret charges, secret judges, secret courts, secret verdicts, secret non-verdicts, secret jails, secret prisoners, secret torture...
        
        um, didn't we determine these actions were -like- double plus bad, in -like- the dark ages ? ? ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:01pm

General Alexander just won't get it. It's his job not to get it. He's staked his whole career on not getting it. Hell, the abuses Granick mentioned are probably the Generals end-game goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Postulator (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:30am
  
  Re:
  Two words: cognitive dissonance.
  
  The human mind has an enormous capacity to persuade itself that what it is doing is right and proper and anyone who objects must be crazy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:15pm

I'm with Ima Fish on this one.

It is not about terrorism. Nothing in the Constitutions nor the Bill Of Rights guarantees your safety. Any claims that it's about safety is a red herring.

What those two items do, is promise you the right to live your life reasonably as you see fit without unnecessary government intrusion.

For the every day citizen, being spied upon is not necessary. We do not have gangs of terrorists roaming the countryside. IEDs are not going off everywhere people gather. There is no justification for this level of spying on the American people. The terrorists are overseas, not here.

Even if they were here, the government's efforts on actually limiting the damage is horrid and still does not support this level of spying. It is time to take a serious pair of scissors to all this security apparatus starting with the NSA and going right on down through DHS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:17pm

What's the full list of identifier types
"identifier � such as a telephone number"

They keep using that example (sometimes they add email address). I'd like to know the full list of types of identifiers that they can query on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re: What's the full list of identifier types
  I expect many are the usual suspects. Name, addresses, date of birth, area codes, phone numbers, email addresses, country of origin, applicable government id numbers, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:28pm

"never again" is unrealistic and naive
Of course there will be more terrorist attacks. Of course some of those will succeed. Of course some of us will die.

That's the price. I'm willing to pay it, even if it's me, even if it's those I love the most. I don't want to...but if it's what must be risked, then so be it.

But I won't pay the price of turning the US into a surveillance state. It's madness. And it won't work, because there will STILL be more terrorist attacks and some of them will STILL succeed and some of us will STILL die. We gain nothing. We lose everything we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re: "never again" is unrealistic and naive
  Of course "never again" is unrealistic.
  
  All this 4th amendment shattering surveillance power they have and yet the Boston bombing still occurred. There will be many more attacks, even if they put a police officer in every house in this country.
  
  Everyone must push back against this abuse. Starting yesterday.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beech, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:56pm
    
    Re: Re: "never again" is unrealistic and naive
    Ever read/watched "The Great Escape"? I feel that if a rag-tag group of POWs in a Nazi prison camp can dig three huge tunnels under the fence while at the same time manufacturing imitation civilian/Nazi soldier uniforms and papers, maps, and compasses, all from scratch under the noses of highly trained and highly suspicious guards...then a determined group of humans can achieve ANYTHING. Even terrorism in a surveillance state with a cop in every home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 10:25pm
  
  Re: "never again" is unrealistic and naive
  This is also my point. People are so scared of terrorists that they are willing to give up who they are to protect themselves from this almost impossible scenario that you will be hit by an attack.
  I say almost impossible because actually you should be more scared of lightning, cars, boats, planes, eating, flying with a kite, wine corks, drinking water, walking etc. than terrorists... it is so insane what has become of our society because of something that is more like the boogeyman under the bed than an actual threat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - art guerrilla (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re: "never again" is unrealistic and naive
    thank you...
    
    here is the essential point:
    
    IF you are 'free', you are free to fuck up...
    
    IF you are not free to fuck up, you are not 'free'...
    
    along with eternal vigilance, that is the price of true freedom, not some fascistic, perversion of freedom made 'safe' that this neo world order is trying to emplace...
    
    (and -yes- spellbot, i am insisting that emplace is a valid word...* and if it isn't, i just neologized a good one... and -yes- i insist neologized is a real word too... i admit i made up spellbot, but that should be a real word too... in fact, it is now...)
    
    * what's that ? oh, thank you merriam-webster for telling me emplace is a valid word...
    damn stupid spellbots...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed Allen, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:34pm

If NSA spying continues the terrorists have achieved their objective
Destroying freedoms to "protect Americans" won't work.

Terrorists want to destroy our "way of life" so instead we destroy it before they do ?

Why should we ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:50pm

did the NSA king have a food tester
usually kings are paranoid of being offed.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:53pm

@3 WHY THE NSA IS WRONG
why the nsa is wrong really simply put:

PEEPING TOMS GET THERE LIGHTS PUNCHED OUT....WHY should we treat the NSA peeping on you and i and others any differently.....

its a deviant behavior. and they are trying everything to justify it....its sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:04pm

The only time you can't trade freedom for safety is when you don't have any to give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  We could trade every single shred of freedom we enjoy in this country and, in the end, we still wouldn't have complete safety. What kind of life is that, that you can't be completely safe yet have no freedom to live the type of life you choose? That's not what I want.
  
  Patrick Henry was right when he said "Give me liberty or give me death." The founding fathers were right to construct our constitution and bill of rights the way they did. They all had experience living under the thumb of oppressive old-world governments. The rights we enjoy now, which are enumerated in that document, are there for a reason. Not because the authors were just trying to be wordy or to fill up space. Those rights are there because they knew if they didn't put them in there, the type of country and government they were trying to form here would soon revert to the oppressive governments they were fleeing.
  
  In my opinion, we fight now against the abuse they seem all too willing to foist on us or we'll long regret it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - art guerrilla (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    ahhhh...
    
    but IF 'we' traded away every single freedom, WE wouldn't be safer (um, that really isn't important to the puppetmasters); but certain uber klasses think *they* would be safer in a scare-mongered, locked-down, full-surveillance society...
    
    and we know which gets priority: the whims of the 1%, or the needs of the 99%...
    we know...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:13pm

Learning from history and becoming 'wiser' has never been a strong point for the human race.

Therefore, the human race is destined to repeat history over, and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HappyBlogFriend (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:14pm

Bored analysts do things like spy on women using surveillance cameras and listen to American GIs overseas having phone sex with their loved ones back home. Or an FBI agent may investigate strange but not unlawful emails on behalf of a family friend, leading to a sex scandal that brings down the Director of the CIA.
It's about time someone made a list of these known abuses. Over time, it will only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:22pm

Merely a version of "it's okay if people I think are okay do it".
Lawful gov't must have clear bright moral lines and follow them rigidly. That's why the US was designed as a gov't of laws, not of men. You can't just naively trust people who claim their motives are good and pure, because that inevitably leads to mission creep: any minorly facile mind can make up plausible excuses.

Grannick, whatever her own motives, whatever her own level of goodness and wish to see the country free, has clearly fallen for the excuses of a self-proclaimed "good" man who routinely breaks the law and does evil.

The gov't we have is the absolutely predictable result of cultural trends as worsened by intentional manipulation. And it's not going to get better by having dinner with corrupt people in power and trying to persuade them that they're going wrong: they're WAY past reasonable. You don't get put in charge of NSA because your intentions are good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:34am
  
  Re: Merely a version of "it's okay if people I think are okay do it".
  Have another insightful vote, Blue. You're on a roll!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:35pm

Congratulations ootb, no report vote from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:38pm

"These surveillance tools and information databases may one day end up in the hands of a J. Edgar Hoover and a President demanding embarrassing information about her political opponents"

Anyone else catch the her used in that sentence?

Well played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:35am
  
  Re:
  Well spotted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 4:45am
  
  Re:
  The 'her' used in that sentence is referring to a hypothetical future president, not J. Edgar Hoover, and the female speaker is just using the pronoun of her own gender for said hypothetical person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 3:55pm

I think Gen. Alexander believes that history is made by great individuals standing against evil.

Gen. Alexander needs to brush up on his classics. Particularly Nietzsche.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  uh huh
  
  our gummint is PREDICATED upon NOT depending upon 'great men' (or women), but a SYSTEM of governance which -when FOLLOWED- could offer a fair amount of self-correction (checks and balances), self-inspection (transparency); as well as correction and inspection from the *OUTSIDE* (voting, oversight by media proxies, etc), which has completely failed...
  
  all the parties involved, the branches of gummint, media, military-industrial complex, etc, are overwhelmingly influenced -if not owned by- huge corporate entities which have more rights than mere people...
  
  the system has been broken and corrupted...
  
  the perps have control of the gummint, and have dismantled the means of accountability, and changed the laws making their illegal/immoral acts allowable (if not admirable); and the lives of us 99% have become criminalized...
  
  we've become rats backed into an inescapable corner of a maze of secret laws and kafkaesque bureaucracy...
  
  will the rats bite back ? ? ?
  .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 22 Aug 2013 @ 8:30pm

Who is keeping who safe?
All these government chappies should take note of the relevant Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episodes 11 and 12 from season 4 (1995-1996)

Homefront & Paradise Lost

How prophetic for today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 8:58pm

So I believe that power corrupts and that good people will do bad things when a system is poorly designed, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

We know that the temptation to abuse such powers will be strong and abuse will inevitably occur.

Agree 100%, and you see it everywhere, even here on TD with the power of censorship being used and abused routinely.

I am sure Masnick might even agree was he "holds this post for MODERATION" for a couple of days so it's lost in the noise and a couple of pages behind.

Or a well meaning TD commenter will "REPORT" it because it's contents although free speech, is not something he agrees with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 4:30am

So I believe that power corrupts and that good people will do bad things when a system is poorly designed, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

We have this saying here: "Hell is full of good intentions."

What seems to be a good thing for you may not be for the person sitting next to you. If the catholic church could make their dogma into law condoms would be forbidden, sex would be for procreation only. Catholics may agree and see no problem with that. But they are less than 1/6 of the world. A portion of the people may agree that the Government should be their kids nanny but I disagree, many parents disagree because they want to be the ones being the parents, not some shitty politician. The list goes far. I'm not cynical enough to believe all bad laws introduced are a fruit of bad intentions. But good intentions don't automatically translate in actions that are good for everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:23pm

These surveillance tools and information databases may one day end up in the hands of a J. Edgar Hoover and a President demanding embarrassing information about her political opponents, information that, in an age of mass surveillance, the government most assuredly will have somewhere in its treasure trove.

The HER she is obviously referencing is Hillary Clinton the appointed successor to Barack Hussein Obama.

Hillary' J. Edger will be James B. Comey.

Already Obama is doing what Jennifer Granick alludes can be done with the massive intel gathered on Americans. Hillary will take it to the last level in her fight against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerrymiah, 24 Aug 2013 @ 1:07pm

Keith Alexander on the NSA Leaks
She goes on to note that the NSA's (and the administration's) further defense of the efforts have only made her point even stronger (contrary to General Alexander's promise to Granick that the upcoming revelations would show that the NSA's actions were perfectly reasonable). As she notes later in the piece, the history of abuses is well known, even if Alexander likes to ignore it.

This seems to indicate that Keith Alexander will have his own leaks to reinforce the NSA's actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]