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: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:15AM
they took an oath to defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. by subverting the constitution or even simply standing idly by while its being undermined, they are breaking that oath; at worst, they are the domestic enemies that they're supposed to be defending the constitution from. clearly their word means nothing and they have zero integrity. their intentions dont matter; remember the saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and also that the ends do not justify the means.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday July 14 2014, @12:03AM
What you and the sibling posts are missing is that I was not defending the NSA nor its constituent employees and contractors. What I am saying is that, in their minds, they are doing what's right, and they are (generally) trustworthy people who are acting in good faith. Misguided, perhaps, but good faith nonetheless.
You must understand your adversary as well or better than they understand themselves. Understand the motivation; understand the rationalization. Understanding the problem well is the best way to go about fixing it.