Skimming the article I see no mention of COINTELPRO, of which these programs are no doubt a continuation of at least spiritually. This would make sense given that this is the NY Times, and bringing up COINTELPRO would perhaps force them to admit racial/xenophobic dimensions and roots to these recent revelations (e.g. the USG's history of targeting civil rights and anti-war activism), instead of white guys fighting for other white guys' iPad Privacy..
>Swartz argued that it was sometimes necessary to break the rules that required obedience to the system in order to avoid systemic evil.
That paragraph would have been a perfect place in which to touch on the Church Committee and its origins. Does the author even know about it?
Honestly, most people with social power and influence don't seem to care about the revelations because they don't. They have nothing on the line -- their rights will never be threatened, nor will government programs like the endless War on Terror ever affect them (in ways that they will understand; "blowback" is evidently too intricate of a concept for most). Could that be because they're white men? Perish the thought
>Swartz argued that it was sometimes necessary to break the rules that required obedience to the system in order to avoid systemic evil.
That paragraph would have been a perfect place in which to touch on the Church Committee and its origins. Does the author even know about it?
Honestly, most people with social power and influence don't seem to care about the revelations because they don't. They have nothing on the line -- their rights will never be threatened, nor will government programs like the endless War on Terror ever affect them (in ways that they will understand; "blowback" is evidently too intricate of a concept for most). Could that be because they're white men? Perish the thought