EDWARD SNOWDEN WAS RIGHT
May. 26th, 2015 12:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogOr, “Everyone was for the Patriot Act until they were against it.”
ITEM: A federal appeals court ruled that the NSA surveillance program revealed by Edward Snowden is in fact illegal.
Which I mention because it doesn’t seem to have gotten a lot of coverage, and yet it’s a fairly big deal – not least because it means Snowden actually made public an activity by the US govt that has now been found to be with no legal justification.
No wonder John Kerry wants him in jail.
Anyway, I thought this was worth relaying now that Congress is arguing over Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which is about to expire (again). The odds of an extension don’t look so good right now. And you can apparently thank Rand Paul for that. Yes, that Rand Paul.
On the other hand, reform efforts have also failed to go through, though there’s debate even among privacy/civil liberties groups whether that’s a good thing. The USA Freedom Act (where do they come up with these names?) would legalize mass surveillance in ways that would admittedly stick some oversight on these processes.
The question is, is that the best we can do? And can we really trust the NSA/FBI to interpret the law correctly? There were supposed to be safeguards against abuse in the Patriot Act too, and pretty much every federal law enforcement/intelligence agency the US either found ways around them or just flat out ignored them.
Anyway, as the debate continues, you might want to read these:
1. Some detail on the Snowden ruling, which – again – involves a court basically vindicating Snowden’s decision to make the NSA abuses public.
2. More importantly, this blog post from Bruce Schneier which points out that Section 215 is actually the least of our worries when it comes to epic govt surveillance.
Which is saying something. The Patriot Act was a dumb and horrible idea. But it’s only one part of a much larger surveillance apparatus that isn’t being debated publicly. If the Patriot Act were repealed this week, it wouldn’t really make that much of a difference now.
Even if you don’t care about the privacy angle, the other aspect here is the effectiveness of all this surveillance. Some have argued that wholesale surveillance is a worthwhile tradeoff for stopping terrorism. But there’s already sufficient evidence showing that it’s not very effective at all, and that claims to the contrary rarely if ever hold up under scrutiny.
Oh well, it’s too late now. Which makes this post pointless, of course. But I’m posting it anyway so when they ask later whose side I was on, it’ll be on my permanent record.
Add it to the file,
This is dF
ITEM: A federal appeals court ruled that the NSA surveillance program revealed by Edward Snowden is in fact illegal.
Which I mention because it doesn’t seem to have gotten a lot of coverage, and yet it’s a fairly big deal – not least because it means Snowden actually made public an activity by the US govt that has now been found to be with no legal justification.
No wonder John Kerry wants him in jail.
Anyway, I thought this was worth relaying now that Congress is arguing over Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which is about to expire (again). The odds of an extension don’t look so good right now. And you can apparently thank Rand Paul for that. Yes, that Rand Paul.
On the other hand, reform efforts have also failed to go through, though there’s debate even among privacy/civil liberties groups whether that’s a good thing. The USA Freedom Act (where do they come up with these names?) would legalize mass surveillance in ways that would admittedly stick some oversight on these processes.
The question is, is that the best we can do? And can we really trust the NSA/FBI to interpret the law correctly? There were supposed to be safeguards against abuse in the Patriot Act too, and pretty much every federal law enforcement/intelligence agency the US either found ways around them or just flat out ignored them.
Anyway, as the debate continues, you might want to read these:
1. Some detail on the Snowden ruling, which – again – involves a court basically vindicating Snowden’s decision to make the NSA abuses public.
2. More importantly, this blog post from Bruce Schneier which points out that Section 215 is actually the least of our worries when it comes to epic govt surveillance.
Which is saying something. The Patriot Act was a dumb and horrible idea. But it’s only one part of a much larger surveillance apparatus that isn’t being debated publicly. If the Patriot Act were repealed this week, it wouldn’t really make that much of a difference now.
Even if you don’t care about the privacy angle, the other aspect here is the effectiveness of all this surveillance. Some have argued that wholesale surveillance is a worthwhile tradeoff for stopping terrorism. But there’s already sufficient evidence showing that it’s not very effective at all, and that claims to the contrary rarely if ever hold up under scrutiny.
Oh well, it’s too late now. Which makes this post pointless, of course. But I’m posting it anyway so when they ask later whose side I was on, it’ll be on my permanent record.
Add it to the file,
This is dF
