Does the public outcry over surveillance lead to Congress making better or worse decisions?

[Recursion]

I'm still torn on this.

To be clear: we would not be having a national conversation on surveillance without Snowden and Greenwald. There's no way around that fact. Congresspeople to whom it is an important issue have been trying for years and failing. Sometimes it takes the big story.

That still leaves a lot of open questions. Would Wyden have introduced his bill without Snowden? Why or why not? Would Obama still support it without Snowden? Why or why not? Where would the GOP be if Snowden hadn't leaked?

The fact that Congress is finally doing something after wringing its hands for 5 years may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing if the current Congress ends up writing a worse law than what we have now.

Snowden's motives have always been opaque to me, and I don't particularly care whether his motives were noble or not. Will this Congress acting now, under these conditions, make things better or worse? That's the question we should care about.

[last1standing]

1. Considering they weren't making any decisions about surveillance before this...

I'd say better.

Congress should carefully consider the events that have taken place and formulate a law that not only ensures the abuses that have taken place are made explicitly illegal and design proper oversight to see that they don't, but should also consider other possible abuses that could happen and allot for them as well.

Do I think that will happen? Probably not, but that wouldn't likely have been the case even under the best of circumstances. They will likely put forth a compromise that gives some protections but omits others. We will then scream and pull our hair out that the bill wasn't good enough - as we should. That's our job, really. Activists exist to put pressure on politicians to create laws that fit our political ideals. We understand that we won't get everything we want but we also understand we'd get even less if we didn't exert that pressure in the first place.

Regardless, the bill will also be stuffed with pork for Kentucky. That's become an axiom of politics.

[Recursion]

2. It's pretty easy to imagine a worse situation than we have now

And, knowing Congress, that will be one of the options they will look into.

[last1standing]

3. But should we allow our fear to stop us from working toward a solution?

If Congress freaks out and passes something monstrous like the Patriot Act, then yes, it could be worse. I don't see that happening with something of this nature but I suppose it is possible.

On the other hand, if we do nothing the problem remains and will actually get worse. When an entity that has abused power finds they can do so with impunity they will abuse that power even more. If we were taught any lesson from the bush years, that should be the one.

So do we continue the status quo or take the chance that things could get worse? I'll take the risk as the status quo is unacceptable to me. I will try to make sure my voice is heard in support of the things I believe will make the bill better and hope that others who think like me do the same thing. After that, I have to let Congress do its job.

And I'll get pissed when McConnell gets another billion or so funneled into Kentucky. I always do.

[1awake]

4. Politicians of all stripes seem to wonder off course without pressure.

I think they forget that they were voted in to do specific things that the people want, and instead tend to think of themselves as a person of power who does what they want.

Regardless of how a person feels about Snowden or GG, the revelations from them have been a huge positive. Maybe not for politicians, secrecy, or surveillance, but for the general public as a whole.

[Recursion]

5. Only if change is necessarily a good thing

It's not. What if the result is to simply say, "fine, for security purposes we will read whatever communications we please"?

[1awake]

6. How would that be different than now? n/t

[Recursion]

7. And this is why it helps to pay attention

That's very different from now.

[1awake]

10. Then let's agree to disagree. n/t

[HereSince1628]

8. Depends, if you think driving the security state further out of sight is better or worse

I can't say which way it will go, but I rather suspect the ultimate decisions will facilitate greater opacity.

[Recursion]

9. Why do you suspect that? (nt)

[HereSince1628]

11. It's the pattern of the known history of the security agencies.

Knowledge is power...secret knowledge is the stuff of political blackmail and thereby the stuff of real power.

The sort of thing that changes a newly elected president's positions on security issues 90 degrees.

If you haven't dipped into that history I suggest reading about J. Edgar Hoover's use of the FBI to grey-mail multiple presidents.

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. +1

[MrSlayer]

13. It does nothing at all.

Since when does congress give fuck one about what the people want?