Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
Surprising absolutely no one, the Guardian reports that Keith Alexander was fully briefed and supportive of the GCHQ's plan to destroy Snowden-related computers at the Guardian's offices in London.
The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.
White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as "good news".
"The NSA wants to know everything we do? Fine, but only if We the People see everything the NSA does. The real problem with the current mass surveillance is asymmetry."
Now we all know that the NSA is not going to open its doors and reveal its secrets - that would be foolhardy in the extreme and seriously endanger the US and its citizens. And despite the sincerely-held views of many of our members and others elsewhere, from the outside there doesn't appear to be anything like a groundswell of dissent in the US regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA's activities.
However, perhaps by being a little more open it might begin to win back the trust of those who currently doubt that the NSA is working in their interests. What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power? What amount of spying on allies and partners would be acceptable while remembering that each time such activity is discovered it weakens the trust of the ally and can have serious repercussions for US business? Would clearly stating which terrorist plots had been thwarted by intelligence gathered, in part at least, by the NSA be enough? Or have we already passed the point of no return?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shortscreen on Saturday July 12 2014, @11:17PM
How to restore confidence in the NSA (or certain other executive branch agencies): identify all the fucktards who took an oath to protect the constitution but thought they were too important to actually follow it. Fire the low-level facilitators, prosecute the egregious offenders, and prosecute the higher ups, most especially those who knew damn well they were breaking the law and lied and abused their authority at every turn to hide their crimes.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:33AM
I agree, this is the biggest disconnect. Asymmetric power.
If you or I commit the trivial act of not wanting to give information (encryption keys for instance) we can be jailed while the Security Apparatus is largely free from blame. Clapper should be in jail, the employees who stalked partners should be on trial, police who misuse the terrorism laws should be dismissed.
Without due process there is only oppression, but one would be naive to assume this wasn't the purpose all along. Democracy is dead, long live Democracy.