Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens.
If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.
In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.
Exactly. This is the cost of being a free society. You can not and should not rely on the government to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. Security is first and foremost a responsibility of the people. The role of a government of a free society(regarding security) is to enable it's populous to defend itself, not necessarily do it for them. This is why the second amendment refers to a "militia" instead of a government ran military. Unfortunately, America has truly lost it's way and I don't know if things can be fixed at this point.
I honestly fail to see how monitoring telecommunication metadata is an infringement of rights. The government has not stopped you from taking any action. I agree that it COULD be used for evil, but that's not a very convincing argument. Many technologies we enjoy and rely on enable evil acts.
These books don't tell me how the government analyzing communication metadata is an infringement of rights.
"Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"
If the government buys a ham sandwich, people will complain too. The balance is having principles and sticking to them until the people get rid of you.
The US voted against this crap in 2008. The new administration doubled down on it. Where is the balance?
> Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.
That's an inane justification for destroying our constitution. If people complain either way, but only one way destroys the constitution, why choose the worse one? Why would people complain if gov't prevents an attack? That makes no sense. I'm not sure you can call it "preventing an attack" when it's the gov't that is attacking us.
> Where is the balance?
There is no balance. The gov't is off the rails when it comes to expanding their budget and justifying expending law enforcement powers for the miniscule chance of a terrorist attack.
I saw a comment last week on HN that mentioned how incompetent and generally stupid FBI agents are, and cited as evidence failure to prevent the Boston marathon bombing.
People are blame crazy these days, they have to find someone at fault. Every single thing that happens recently from a Tornado to a bombing has 24 hour media asking who to blame.
This is one of the most important points in the wake of this scandal. Be pragmatic, and look at the incentive system. The truth is, not only will most citizens never find out mass spying programs like this, but a great number won't even care, because they have "nothing to hide". However, there is a massive negative reaction to acts of terrorism.
If we want this to change, we will first have to, as a people, seriously disincentives these actions from politicians—which is hard to do, considering neither major party has been the "better" one on this issue—but perhaps more importantly, we must understand that there is only so much government can do to keep you safe, if you want to keep your liberty. The sense of entitlement to both has to go.
I agree it's a complex problem, but there's a middle ground between "doing nothing" and this.
And maybe even the NSA's work is in our best interests (and maybe not), but it seems disingenuous and perhaps flat-out wrong for the president to have campaigned on this specific issue, and do the exact opposite.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe President Obama has "merely" continued the Bush-era policies and programs. Maybe they've extended, but that's because the initatives have matured and the technology has improved.
To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped.
Playing devil's advocate, somewhat, but there indeed lies the rub.
It's far past the time when Obama's apologists make references and comparisons to Bush. On the one hand we hear things to contrast him from Bush -- now it's that he's no worse or different than Bush.
I'm curious what the phrase "initatives have matured and the technology has improved" means. More comprehensive spying? Quicker retrieval? Increased complicity by firms accumulating personal data?
> To build from the original comment: What if President Obama had ceased these programs, and a (preventable) terrorist attack occurred, that otherwise could have been stopped.
Glad they stopped the bombing that would otherwise occurred in Boston during Boston marathon! You may have not heard because government does not like to say they did a good job, but thanks to spying on all americans they stopped that plot made by 2 Chechnyas to kill 3 Americans and amputate legs of 20 others by using bombs in pressure cookers. Good job, well done. Power to the government!
The job of President is almost certainly one of those things that you don't fully understand until you have to do it, but Candidate Obama probably should have been a little more circumspect in his rhetoric.
Especially when he'd already had to decide (rightly, IMHO) to support telecom immunity for "warrantless wiretapping" as a Senator.
> For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said.
As I said, regardless of whether wiretaps are justified, why did he choose to campaign on this issue? Why bother making these claims to the American public?
Protect citizens in every way possible that doesn't encroach civil liberties. In those areas where civil liberties require that we be left vulnerable, citizens should be expected to protect themselves.
You think the main problem, with either terrorist murder, or government invasion of privacy and oppression... is "people complaining"? The main goal is to avoid people complaining, and it's a dilemma because it's not clear how to do that?
Due process. It is fully OK for them to go after the bad guys if they do it the right way. The right way isn't blanket spying just in case it is useful.
What if the data was obfuscated? You still could do analysis on trends without linking anything back to a specific phone number. If you see something suspicious, then you could obtain a warrant and only then have the phone companies reveal which numbers are actually in contact with each other.
Where is the balance?