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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:42AM
> The problem is that it creates a system that attracts untrustworthy people.
That is part of the problem, but it is far from the only problem. It isn't even necessarily the main problem.
There is a saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Absolute power doesn't just attract the corrupt - it lets simple ignorance crush the powerless.
There is an example that every american should be aware of, its called "the white man's burden" [wikipedia.org] which, summed up, is that the people in charge know what's best. Its a doctrine rooted in good intentions but history has shown the results are generally destructive because being in charge actually breeds ignorance about the lives of the people who are not in charge. And that is why concentration of power is dangerous even in the hands of the most well intentioned.