Slashdot Mirror
US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets
Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"
From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
Do politicians follow the law?
No good deed goes unpunished.
How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings
What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
So you really mean breaking the constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional rights are binary, you have them or you do not.
Not that I disagree with the main point of your post, but in practice constitutional rights are rarely as black and white as you seem to think.
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.
Personally I don't think anyone should be aspiring to a justice system that rigidly enforces the letter of law without any regards to the spirit of the law. All that does is encourage people to go searching for loopholes in the language, since you'll never be able to codify the law so perfectly that it won't require any interpretation.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
They did little more than slap the NSA in it's fingers saying "naughty boy!" while at the same time condoning the appalling concept of secret courts.
"We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold