Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Friday, 24 January 2014 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)5. End the Phone Data Sweeps
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/opinion/end-the-phone-data-sweeps.html
Once again, a thorough and independent analysis of the governments dragnet surveillance of Americans phone records has found the bulk data collection to be illegal and probably unconstitutional. Just as troubling, the program was found to be virtually useless at stopping terrorism, raising the obvious question: Why does President Obama insist on continuing a costly, legally dubious program when his own appointees repeatedly find that it doesnt work?
In a 238-page report issued Thursday afternoon, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a five-member independent agency, called on the White House to end the phone-data collection program, for both constitutional and practical reasons. The boards report follows a Dec. 16 ruling by Federal District Judge Richard Leon that the program was almost certainly unconstitutional and that the government had not identified a single instance in which it actually stopped an imminent attack.
Two days later, a panel of legal and intelligence experts convened by Mr. Obama after the disclosures by Edward Snowden echoed those conclusions in its own comprehensive report, which said the data sweep was not essential to preventing attacks and called for its end.
The growing agreement among those who have studied the program closely makes it imperative that the administration, along with the programs defenders in Congress, explain why such intrusive mass surveillance is necessary at all. If Mr. Obama knows something that contradicts what he has now been told by two panels, a federal judge and multiple members of Congress, he should tell the American people now. Otherwise, he is in essence asking for their blind faith, which is precisely what he warned against during his speech last week on the future of government surveillance.
Given the unique power of the state, Mr. Obama said, it is not enough for leaders to say: trust us, we wont abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached.
Once again, a thorough and independent analysis of the governments dragnet surveillance of Americans phone records has found the bulk data collection to be illegal and probably unconstitutional. Just as troubling, the program was found to be virtually useless at stopping terrorism, raising the obvious question: Why does President Obama insist on continuing a costly, legally dubious program when his own appointees repeatedly find that it doesnt work?
In a 238-page report issued Thursday afternoon, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a five-member independent agency, called on the White House to end the phone-data collection program, for both constitutional and practical reasons. The boards report follows a Dec. 16 ruling by Federal District Judge Richard Leon that the program was almost certainly unconstitutional and that the government had not identified a single instance in which it actually stopped an imminent attack.
Two days later, a panel of legal and intelligence experts convened by Mr. Obama after the disclosures by Edward Snowden echoed those conclusions in its own comprehensive report, which said the data sweep was not essential to preventing attacks and called for its end.
The growing agreement among those who have studied the program closely makes it imperative that the administration, along with the programs defenders in Congress, explain why such intrusive mass surveillance is necessary at all. If Mr. Obama knows something that contradicts what he has now been told by two panels, a federal judge and multiple members of Congress, he should tell the American people now. Otherwise, he is in essence asking for their blind faith, which is precisely what he warned against during his speech last week on the future of government surveillance.
Given the unique power of the state, Mr. Obama said, it is not enough for leaders to say: trust us, we wont abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Surveillance and Scandal Time-Tested Weapons for U.S. Global Power By Alfred McCoy
Demeter
Jan 2014
#6
It hasn't gottten any easier, either. And DEFINITELY not any fairer or equitable.
Demeter
Jan 2014
#22