When it comes to abuse of people, my concerns are that: a) by the time something becomes evident to the average Joe it'll be too late or too ingrained ("what's the big deal? This has been going on for years") to roll-back; and b) the incremental erosion of Constitutional rights becomes so subtle -- we can live with a little infringement here and a little erosion there -- that one day we may wake to realize we effectively have very few of them left ...

One of the most interesting and essential aspects about the American Experiment we've been running for the past couple centuries is the balance between freedom and security: what risks we're willing to accept in exchange for the freedoms we enjoy. What's good about these recent various leaks is they have increased awareness, at least a little bit, about how that balance has become skewed, and is continuing to skew, towards a less-free state in favor of a attempt to provide "100% security." (Some would suggest that it's far less about actual security and far more about government amassing power and control, but I'll leave that for another post ;-) ... In the best of all worlds this would lead to a real national discussion on where that balance should truly lie -- in today's low-information/high entertainment distraction environment, I have my doubts as to wether that discussion will really take place ...

Another aspect of the US experiment is the question of how far to trust the government in a system developed pretty much explicitly on the notion that governments cannot be trusted. On a practical level there of course has to be a certain amount of trust or the system won't work at all. But "just trust us, safeguards are in place and everything's fine" is pretty much as anti-American an attitude as you can get.

Are these recent revelations enough to motivate the populace to demand accountability from their government and to demand a restoration of lost liberties and rights? Or are we on an inexorable path where the populace is apathetic enough in their relative comfort and distraction -- or alternatively, in their dealing with the increasing wealth imbalance and just trying to make ends meet -- to not really care?

Well, the risks of today are quite a bit more extreme than when this American Experiment began. And in turn security is a different animal today than it was back then. Not that we — as a people — should become desensitized to the shift in the balance of privacy and security, but context and the reality of the global political environment can't be ignored either.

I think exposure/awareness and the resulting debate are important — especially for the long term. But I still think there are short term issues that need to be dealt with now so they're out of the way and can't distract from the long term. Right now, it's flipped, and we're letting a broader and more future-centric issue distract us from things that need to be and can be fixed now. Jobs and economic wellness today, please — and accountability a wee bit later and permanently thereafter.

Bill Maher summed it up last Friday: when the Framers of the Constitution limited government intrusion for privacy rights, security considerations did not include nukes. When an entire city can be obliterated in seconds, an archive of metadata for reference to connect the dots and prevent such a thing seems like a national security necessity they might have considered.

That's pretty much my point. While there has to be a national discussion, and a better way to use the tools, I can live with "It sucks a little less than root canal."

<--kliker

The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that a free and open society is less and less possible in the face of increasing weapons technology: Think of a worst-case possible scenario and eliminate rights and freedoms in order to prepare for it -- as technology and capability increase, rights and freedoms decrease.

Yes, some bad people could set off a nuke somewhere. The question is how likely is that really? And to what extent are we willing to sacrifice rights and liberties to reduce (note I didn't say eliminate) that possibility, even if (as I suspect) it's rather low to begin with?

Obviously if we want to retain a semblance of what this society has been based upon, there's a balance to be struck between those ideals and the security environment that surrounds us. The question is where is that balance and where do we draw that line? And as technology and weapons capability advance, how do we prevent ourselves changing inexorably from a freedom-oriented state to one solely focused on security?

That was the justification for Big Brother's regime, as I recall. Perpetual war calls for perpetual nosiness.

There are many taking sides in this debate that collection of metadata is the tryannical Big Brother regime. (These people need to get a grip.) I've heard a half-dozen pundits on TV just today claiming Obama is using this metadata to attack his political enemies. Most of these very loud idiots consider Obama the enemy of the nation … and so it goes.

I am not saying that Obama, or Bush back in the day for that matter, uses the data for any nefarious reason. But heaped up data will fester, I can almost guarantee it..

Funny...
This same discussion came up once before...
...when the question of 'citizens allowing their
bags to be rifled-through in Sub-Way Stations'...

Some member claimed they'd allow it in exchange
for the assurance "...that there wouldn't a bomb
under the seat in front of them"

My remark at the time was, "I'll take my chances!"
I still stand behind that remark.


..and so it goes.
~ Kurt Vonegut Jr.