Why Obama Can't Undo the Surveillance Society, but We Can
President Obama, taking a smart political tack in the uproar following several explosive disclosures on NSA domestic spying practices, said he was all in favor of a vigorous public debatethat it would be a healthy thing. But calling for a public debate is one thing; actually doing anything to facilitate a truly open discussion, much less acting on what such a discussion might reveal, is quite another.
Today, the New York Times, in a news/analysis article, essentially declared that there was no hope for any kind of restraint of growing government spying on the public. Not if it is up to the peoples representatives.
The Times noted that secrecy rules will prevent robust and open discussion in Congress. It also pointed out that Republicans will mostly stay in line with their traditional allies in the intelligence servicesand that Democrats will too, both because they will want to show they did the right thing in voting to authorize the Patriot Act and other relevant legislation, and because during this round, the leader is Obama, a Democrat.
But thats just the beginning of the difficulties in the way of achieving reform of our incipient surveillance state. The Times goes on to say:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/11/why-obama-cannot-undo-the-surveillance-society-but-we-can/
RainDog
(28,784 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)The Surveillance State is in full, bipartisan bloom.
Just because we've been repeatedly lied to about it, does not make it "new."
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
tavalon
(27,985 posts)creon
(1,183 posts)Most of what they have is 'worthless crap'.
"information' that has no intelligence value.
What little there is of intelligence value is hidden in a sea of 'worthless crap'.
That is a good reason NOT to collect the data.