Why keep an expensive, illegal, invasive, spy program that doesn’t even work?
1 min read
President Obama's support for NSA's domestic spying program prompted a critic to say: "Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: 'trust us, we won't abuse the data we collect.'"
President Obama’s support for NSA’s domestic spying program prompted a critic to say: “Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: ‘trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect.'”
Oh wait, that wasn’t a critic speaking – it was Obama himself! He was trying to shush critics by insisting that the threadbare slipcover of reforms he was throwing over the massive spy machine should satisfy us that all is well, so please, people, just go back to sleep.
Enjoying Hightower? How about a weekly email that gives you the full scoop?
Less than a week later, however, a blaring alarm went off in Washington, shattering any drowsiness that Obama had hoped to induce. The alert came from a small, little-known federal agency called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, set up by Congress back in 2007 to be an independent monitor of the spook establishment’s privacy infringements. In a stunningly-blunt, 238-page report, the five-member panel of legal experts concluded that NSA’s bulk data collection is illegal, probably unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments, a serious, ongoing threat to Americans’ privacy and liberties – and essentially useless at stopping terrorist acts.
“As a result,” wrote the board’s majority, “the board recommends that the government end the program.”
Especially telling is the finding that NSA’s invasive phone sweeps is an ineffectual anti-terrorism tool. The agency and its apologists keep claiming – without any proof – that total vacuuming of domestic communications is necessary to prevent the next 9-11 attack. But the privacy panel did an in-depth analysis of this repeated assertion, and wrote: “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference.”