Just because the data is at the NSA doesn't mean they can use it however they want, just like how Google would run into some problems if it tried to sell the contents of your e-mails to somebody.
I am not sure you are listening, what is happening around you.
This anger at the NSA should also be directed at the congressmen voting for these laws of large scope in the first place. Hopefully we can get rid of NSLs too. But the NSA is just doing the most it can with the tools we give it (which is what we expect). And rule of law is actually working, we just have some shitty laws.
It's working for whom? Presumably these laws require a little bit less privacy for a more secure country. I didn't see Boston bombings avoided. If the answer to this is please give us more privacy, to avoid this in the future, I'd say no.
It's working for whom? Presumably these laws require a little bit less privacy for a more secure country.
The fisa court is an example of laws working in our favor. Before the fisa court, the executive could basically do what it wanted wrt "terrorist/spy" suspects. It's only after Congress intervened that we got something that tries to strike a balance between the need to investigate sensitive subjects and the need to have somebody check executive privelege.
I didn't see Boston bombings avoided.
A patient at a hospital goes in for surgery and dies on the operating table. Is medicine useless?
You have absolutely no way of measuring how much security a set of laws has given us, short of going back in time and replaying the same universe without the laws. And even then, these events are so dependent on singular events that it's hard to say what would work.
A related argument is how only X people died in Boston, while 100X people died in car crashes in the past week. Except that the Boston bombings are a singular event, and it only takes one/two arrests to stop X people from dying. 100X car deaths is probably 50X different accidents, each due to varying causes. Of course we'll want to go after the "small big wins". It seems easier to tackle.
If you think that, as a society, we can stop a somewhat constant N bad things from happening, then it's only normal for us to run after the biggest bad things and try to stop that, even if there's X tiny problems, with X much larger than N, that are easier to deal with.
You have absolutely no way of measuring how much security a set of laws has given us.
Sure we do. Do you really think they wouldn't plaster the news of a thwarted terrorist attack everywhere? Whenever verifiable potential incidents are stopped, there is always breaking news about them, in great detail.
Comments
I am not sure you are listening, what is happening around you.
It's working for whom? Presumably these laws require a little bit less privacy for a more secure country. I didn't see Boston bombings avoided. If the answer to this is please give us more privacy, to avoid this in the future, I'd say no.
The fisa court is an example of laws working in our favor. Before the fisa court, the executive could basically do what it wanted wrt "terrorist/spy" suspects. It's only after Congress intervened that we got something that tries to strike a balance between the need to investigate sensitive subjects and the need to have somebody check executive privelege.
You have absolutely no way of measuring how much security a set of laws has given us, short of going back in time and replaying the same universe without the laws. And even then, these events are so dependent on singular events that it's hard to say what would work.
A related argument is how only X people died in Boston, while 100X people died in car crashes in the past week. Except that the Boston bombings are a singular event, and it only takes one/two arrests to stop X people from dying. 100X car deaths is probably 50X different accidents, each due to varying causes. Of course we'll want to go after the "small big wins". It seems easier to tackle.
If you think that, as a society, we can stop a somewhat constant N bad things from happening, then it's only normal for us to run after the biggest bad things and try to stop that, even if there's X tiny problems, with X much larger than N, that are easier to deal with.
Sure we do. Do you really think they wouldn't plaster the news of a thwarted terrorist attack everywhere? Whenever verifiable potential incidents are stopped, there is always breaking news about them, in great detail.