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: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:03AM
the problem with direct democracy is that its literally mob rules. if, for example, all of the non-whites pooled all their voting power and achieved a majority over whites, they could then indiscriminately punish caucasians without recourse, institutionalizing whats often called "reverse discrimination" (though its just regular ol' discrimination). if a majority suddenly decided that all heterosexual married couples should be taxed 99% or jailed, then that would be law.
direct democracy is a terrible thing, it really is, especially on large scales. what would probably work better is a random-selection representation republic - each area's representatives are randomly chosen from the eligible, and making people ineligible needs to be difficult, otherwise if somebody is "too good" all you'd have to do is slide a baggie of coke under their door and call the cops, boom instant felon and they're no longer eligible. it defeats the purpose if people can be made ineligible so easily and fraudulently. and while i'm talking about ideal, the unbiased use of research and the scientific method should be required for forming new laws too. sadly, i'll never see anything like that in my life.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:20PM
Hi, I live in South Africa. Having voted for the abolition of apartheid, I am now the victim of race-based legislation now labeled affirmative action. The problem of majoritarianism is a real one. I guess I will have to take my tax-paying ass to a place where my ability to be promoted does not depend on the colour of my skin.