And that whole PRISM thing, pulling in data (somehow, under some circumstances, through some mechanism) from various only providers, from Microsoft to Google to Apple to Facebook … same questions. Was it a massive fishing expedition? A grotesque violation of rights? A tightly monitored and necessary weapon against terrorists?
The problem is, we don't know. Despite hints and tips, and some broad and not-well-defined powers granted by some federal laws, along with some cynical judgments of human behavior — desite all that, We, the People, didn't know about these programs. Heck, we still don't, beyond what's been leaked. For the pols on both sides of the aisle (and in the White House) to get huffy about why we would mistrust the government and its motivations in what it's doing, the fact that we were kept in the dark demonstrates why we have that mistrust. (Cases of government abuse of domestic surveillance in the past doesn't hurt, either).
These may be critically necessary programs, and they may be operated by paragons of lawfulness, overseen by legislators and judges of the highest moral rectitude. But that's all hush-hush, mustn't bother the hoi-polloi with all that because, well, they just wouldn't understand.
Make us understand. And, yeah, let's avoid ruining our super-seekrit strategies against the Bad Guys, but, really, if I were a terrorist plotter, I'd already be assuming all of this were true, so knowing that these programs are occurring is not, per se, a security threat, no matter how much that dude at the Pentagon fulminates about it.
Secrecy is rarely if ever permanent. And it's the biggest way to lose trust, whether in a personal relationship, a professional one, or in how a government serves its citizenry.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
In defending these programs President Obama said: “In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance,”
And in that statement lay the problem: We can't actually look at the details because they're top secret. I'm willing to be persuaded that this is the best possible way to do things, but you can't persuade me with cries of "just trust us!" Because even if I trust you, you won't always be in power and I may trust the next Administration even less than I'm trusting you now.
So, please, share with us the details. Explain to us what is involved and why and what oversights are in place and perhaps we won't spaz about it. Sure, there'll always be some folks who won't like the government ever looking at anything ever, but it won't be the majority of us if we know what's going on and why.
Obama defends digital spying: “I think we’ve struck the right balance”
“You can’t have 100% security” and “100% privacy, and also zero inconvenience.”
The dude at the Pentagon I refer to is …
'Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the disclosure of an Internet surveillance program "reprehensible" and said it risks Americans' security. He said a leak that revealed a program to collect phone records would affect how America's enemies behave and make it harder to understand their intentions. "The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation," Clapper said in an unusual late-night statement.'
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/intelligence-chief-blasts-nsa-document-leaks
No, Jimmy. Not really.
This over-classification of everything needs to stop. It's watering down what is and isn't important.
One problem, +Jon Weber, is that to someone in Security/Intelligence, everything is important. That's their job. What we need is more people in a position and with a will to push back against that. Instead, classification is too easily turned from "Keep it from our enemies" to "Keep it from people who might make it embarrassing for us to be doing this."