So far, I haven't said anything about the NSA scandal...

[Archae]

Because I've been trying to get actual facts.

But...

As to this Snowden guy?
It bothers me that he gave NSA secrets to the Chinese about how we check into their hacking.
It bugs me that he's running away from everyone, including his long-time girlfriend.

The NSA?
In a way it bothers me that they are collecting lists of who telephoned or e-mailed whom.
(That much I do know.)
But in a way it doesn't, *IF* they actually are locating terrorists, Al-Qaeda, far-right, whatever.

The GOP is pissing me off as always, yelling and screaming about this, but *ONLY* because it's a democrat who's in charge.
If a republican was in charge like Bush? "Oh that's different!"

I think we are going to see investigations, and a few people will end up resigning.

[geckosfeet]

1. It bothers me that the NSA is collecting internet and phone traffic data.

These data collection programs create an unsettled sensation deep within. The devils bargain that incremental surrender of constitutional amendments is justified by (claiming) improvements in public and national security.

Snowdens disclosure is another issue. This young mans life is ruined. He may be extradited. He may be caught. He may be disappeared. The best we can hope for I think, is a fair trial for him.

But I do not think he disclosed that much. I feel that the extent and detail of the NSA data collection is far more extensive than what Snowden was able to disclose. Not that I expect a full disclosure to see the light of day, but that's what I think. No. I have no hard data. The NSA has it.

But here is the rub - the data collection it has been going on for years, publicly expanded in very high profile way under the Bush and the Cheney creatures. It bothered me back then and it bothers me now.

Is it in fact worth the trade off? Are we safer? Are those who would harm us less safe? Are we surrendering a constitutional cornerstones for safety and security? If the majority position (here on DU) on the second amendment is any indication, then I would have to come to this conclusion: Yes. Reasonable and measured compromises are acceptable if there is a chance that they will increase public safety and national security.

Then again, I wonder how amendments written when single shot firearms and the printed page were the height of technology should be applied today. The huge increase in effectiveness, efficiency and potential uses of semi-automatic firearms and cell phones and computers bring along huge responsibilities for the users. These technologies can be used in ways that the constitutional authors could never have imagined. But the authors were considering the 1700's equivalent of national security. Those concerns were the same. The tools and technologies were different, and I am not at all sure how much bearing that should have on the question of legitimacy of the NSA data collection programs.

So here are two questions.

1. Are the programs effective in deterring attacks on Americans. Have these been documented and can they be disclosed?


2. If they are effective in deterring attacks, are we ready to incrementally surrender constitutional amendments for the improvements in public safety and national security?