<p>That’s because none of this is news to them. The NSA is doing what several congresses and two presidents have directed them to do. IMO the reason for the sparse attendance is that the Senators are aware that the public isn’t necessarily happy about this, and they don’t want to be seen on TV talking about it.</p>
<p>I thought I’d revive this discussion in view of yesterday’s revelations that the NSA has engaged in a massive, and largely successful, effort to defeat the encryption that is supposed to protect us from prying eyes, including the government’s. </p>
<p>Er, the NSA’s job is decryption. That’s what they were set up to do.</p>
<p>They do have a web site – [Welcome</a> to the National Security Agency - NSA/CSS](<a href=“http://www.nsa.gov/]Welcome”>http://www.nsa.gov/) – where you will find statements such as:</p>
<p>Just a couple of weeks ago, the opinion of a Fisa court judge was declassified after a year-long FOIA battle, in which the judge took the NSA to task for collecting tens of thousands of purely domestic emails (and for repeatedly lying about it to the court). Such collection is illegal under Section 702 of the Fisa Act, and is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I wonder what the judge would say about the NSA’s efforts to collect virtually every email, phone call, banking record, medical record, trade secret, and all those other things we believe are not the government’s business.</p>
<p>I think you’ve confused two very different issues – decryption and surveillance are two different things. The NY Times article you linked was about decryption, not surveillance.</p>
<p>Secrets always leads to lying however hard one may try not to. Long term national security is better achievd from being honest and open. If being secretive and lying is the way to go, Soviet Union will be thriving now. We already spend 1/3 of national budget to defence, take off our shoes at the airport, let them peak in our underware. If that isn’t enough to ensure natioanl security, they are going about it in a wrong way.</p>
<p>calmom, I know those are two different things. But what is the purpose of decrypting if not to surveil?</p>
<p>The Fisa judge was upset that NSA had obtained mere tens of thousands of wholly domestic emails, contrary to the law and contrary to NSA’s previous statements to the court. With widespread decryption, we now know that they’re obtaining, what, tens of trillions of emails? You don’t see the connection?</p>
<p>And you really don’t have a problem with the federal government being able to read every email you send? How would you feel about them opening every piece of mail you send? It’s exactly the same thing, except that they have the technology to do the former, quickly and easily and without your knowledge.</p>
<p>The NSA’s job is to surveil foreign targets, particularly those who are potential terrorists or foreign enemies. They are likely to to communicate using the same widely available encryption that everyone else uses, so of course they want a way to decrypt that data. Again, that is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. </p>
<p>Law enforcement also has every right to surveil Americans when they have a warrant – and the warrants also empower them to use whatever decryption technology they happen to have. </p>
<p>The federal government has the “ability” to arrest me tomorrow, confiscate my property, and put me in jail, as well as to get access to my email – all they need is evidence to establish probable cause that I’ve committed a federal crime, sufficient to support a warrant. I don’t worry because I’m not engaged in any crimes… but I certainly have known people who have committed crimes in my life. (Remember, I used to be a criminal defense lawyer). That they have the technology to do something to doesn’t mean that they are using that technology for any purposes beyond what they are authorized to do. </p>
<p>There is only one thing that I find really disturbing about the whole Snowden affair, and that is that the NSA was so sloppy in securing its own computers.</p>
<p>And email is not now and never has been a form of secure communication. You know what email service I use? Gmail.</p>
<p>Do you know how gmail works? Google gives users free email accounts so that they can use everyone’s email for data mining. Every blessed email you send or read is scanned by advertisers, who pay Google money for the privilege of sending their ads to people who might be interested in whatever it is they are selling. Where are all my emails stored? On Google’s servers. </p>
<p>Bottom line: the federal government is not reading my email. </p>
<p>The federal government does not track my daily movements… but Google does. (Or at least has the capacity. I’m pretty sure that if I run a Google search from my smartphone, Google can tell where I am at the time.)</p>
<p>I could go on, but I would assume you get the point.</p>
<p>IF, as you note, they can convince a judge that they have probable cause to believe that you committed a crime. Putting in place a dragnet which enables them to view EVERYONE’S email does not meet that standard. And if you believe that the NSA can be trusted to look ONLY at emails it’s supposed to look at, see the Fisa court opinion referenced above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This turns 200+ years of American history and jurisprudence on its head, as you are well aware. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Google is a private company, with whom I can choose to do business or not. Not so with the government. Also, Google has historically represented that their data is secure from any outside party, including the goverment. We now know the truth, which is that they have been cooperating with the NSA for years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have no earthly idea whether they are reading your email or not. It’s likely that they’re not. But they could, and without getting a warrant. That’s the problem.</p>
<p>You didn’t answer one question I posed: If you knew that the government could read your hard copy papers – mail, medical records, banking information – without your knowledge or consent, and without having to show probable cause – would you object to that?</p>
<p>That sounds a little tin foil hat-ish to me. Do you worry that the FBI can do the same thing? If an FBI agent decides he wants to bug your home while you’re away on vacation, who’s going to stop him? What about your local police? </p>
<p>You seem to be upset that the NSA has the capacity to break the law, which is silly because every entity has the capacity to break the law. The only things that keep federal agencies from breaking the law are external oversight and internal accountability, and there’s no reason to suspect the NSA has less of either than does the FBI or any other agency.</p>
<p>I completely understand that surveillance is an essential tool for law enforcement. I also understand that law enforcement can sometimes get overzealous about it, and needs to be carefully restricted by courts and laws. The problem here is the ease with which the NSA can gather massive amounts of intelligence on non-targets, combined with their demonstrated tendency to believe they needn’t worry too much about the law. Again, read the Fisa opinion.</p>