SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK
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".
A Compromise with the NSA
"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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:06AM
What we do is NONE OF THEIR GODDAMN BUSINESS! Most especially if I were an American. If I were an American and up to no good, what I do is only the business of the civilian police forces after they've gotten probable cause to have me watched. The NSA, like the CIA, is not supposed to be operating that way. The rest of the world, fine, just be careful that you don't wind up burning diplomatic capital and the trust that American industries have with everyone else while you're at it. People are already refusing to buy American networking gear thanks to the NSA's meddling, and this is threatening to Balkanise the Internet. If you Americans think that the cost of having the rest of the world distrust you and refuse to do business with you is not too high when set against the threats the NSA is supposedly protecting you against, that's your call as a country. Frankly, from where I sit, you'd be better off being more finely focused.
To restore trust is a hard thing, and what needs to happen for starters is that the people involved in gross violations of the Constitution be executed as traitors to their country, as they have arguably levied war against the United States by making a mockery of every principle it has stood for. I'd like to the heads of liars like Keith Alexander whose contempt for the Constitution seems to know no bounds roll off the guillotine, or at the very least strapped into a chair with a lethal cocktail of poisons flowing into their veins. The rule of law must be restored upon these institutions first for trust to even BEGIN to be restored.