|Image from ESL.culips.|
It is tempting to suggest that the underlying goal is to achieve the right “balance” between the two forms of security. The suggestion has an important element of truth. But some safeguards are not subject to balancing at all. In a free society, public officials should never engage in surveillance in order to punish [jump]Nevertheless, said Richard Clarke on NPR's On the Media, "The president was very pleased by the report." Me too, honestly. I am enthusiastic about taking control of the telephony metadata collection out of the hands of the NSA—as you know I don't believe the Obama administration has been misusing it in the way the Cheney administration may have done, but I'm not confident they haven't misused it at all, and I think it would be better not to tempt them. Also of course some kind of Cheneys will be back in the White House one day. Also especially glad for the recommendations to the FBI on warrantless National Security Letters and the associated gag orders, which I find a lot more frightening than anything I've yet heard about telephone and Internet spying.
their political enemies; to restrict freedom of speech or religion; to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent; to help their preferred companies or industries; to provide domestic companies with an unfair competitive advantage; or to benefit or burden members of groups defined in terms of religion, ethnicity, race, and gender.
It's nice, anyway, to see the universe-of-discourse space opening up to accommodate those who kind of like the president and distrust the national intelligence establishment at the same time. Listen to the Clarke interview if you get a chance.
|Image via How to Live Live Without Choking.|