SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:43PM
from the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste dept.
from the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste dept.
A U.S. senator plans to introduce legislation that would delay the end of the bulk collection of phone metadata by the National Security Agency to Jan. 31, 2017, in the wake of security concerns after the terror attacks last Friday in Paris.
Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, believes that the termination of the program, scheduled for month-end under the USA Freedom Act, "takes us from a constitutional, legal, and proven NSA collection architecture to an untested, hypothetical one that will be less effective."
The transition will happen in less than two weeks, at a time when the threat level for the U.S. is "incredibly high," he said Tuesday.
The obvious answer to doing something that doesn't work is to do more of that something.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
In Wake of Paris Attacks, Legislation Aims to Extend NSA Program
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Don't steal... the IRS hates competition!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:54PM
The main problem with mass surveillance is that it violates our fundamental liberties and the constitution, not merely that it doesn't work. If your problem with mass surveillance is simply that it doesn't work, then you must not value freedom. If the government discovers a way to make massive surveillance work, then you will become an enemy to freedom as you have no choice but to support the now-effective mass surveillance. Be concerned with much greater things than mere effectiveness.
Exactly. Arguing that surveillance doesn't work grants the premise that if it did, it might be something worthwhile for the government to impose. By granting that point, you're weakening your argument. The exception is when someone makes a statement about how effective it is, and you can point out that it's a lie.
You see the same kinds of debates about torture and about how "effective" it is. My argument in this case continues to be a moral one, and I'll debate on those terms.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]