Next, if you’ve read carefully you know that I’ve saved my criticism not for this data dump, which I do indeed support, but for the all-enveloping secrecy that prevents proper civilian oversight of the FISA court.
This is called being disingenuous. The problem has two halves: (A) the data, and (B) controls over the data.
Simon is calling everyone foolish because he thinks the problem is B, not A. He completely fails to acknowledge that the problem is A+B, and if haven't won on B, we have to fight to defend A.
I don't mind an NSA with all data and no abuse/breaches. But that's not going to happen!
I don't care if the NSA is completely independent and covert, if they don't have any data to analyze!
And from what I know of human nature, I know where I want to plant my defenses. Just like the people who wrote the Constitution, I prefer to limit the power of the government officials, not give them unlimited trust.
Comments
Simon wrote in the comments section on his post:
This is called being disingenuous. The problem has two halves: (A) the data, and (B) controls over the data.
Simon is calling everyone foolish because he thinks the problem is B, not A. He completely fails to acknowledge that the problem is A+B, and if haven't won on B, we have to fight to defend A.
I don't mind an NSA with all data and no abuse/breaches. But that's not going to happen!
I don't care if the NSA is completely independent and covert, if they don't have any data to analyze!
And from what I know of human nature, I know where I want to plant my defenses. Just like the people who wrote the Constitution, I prefer to limit the power of the government officials, not give them unlimited trust.
I know this is frowned upon, but I wanted to commend you on crafting such an eloquent rebuttal.