If you don't understand this, there is something severely wrong with your moral compass.
-Milan Kundera
I think this form of societal corruption is one of the greatest and most insidious evils a government can undertake. You should read some accounts by people who have lived under similar monitoring regimes.
Now, to counter what you said - you're reaching by claiming the NSA "secretly stores and analyzes" the private communications of everyone on the planet. One interpretation of the materials originally leaked purports this, but there is also data contesting this view which is equally valid. Again - the echo chamber and bias allows you to just unilaterally suppose the NSA is capable of retrieving all data everywhere, but you're not examining counter evidence.
X-Keyscore allows email and web content surveillance, yes, but it isn't even practical to mine all data at once - it is much more practical (and probable) that this allows for finding and assembling an entry point to see where you should really begin looking in depth as an NSA analyst[1]. But, no, your traffic is not being viewed universally or entirely without someone at least believing there's a reason.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa...
Objectivity is a logical illusion.
As to my feelings for whether or not the NSA should be preserved vs. destroyed entirely - yes, I could see how personal experience could skew this. I, thankfully, haven't had such interference in my life.
But I also want to point out I'm not protecting the NSA's PRISM et al. programs. I think they're too strong, and too obscured. But I do believe the NSA can replace them with more functional, transparent tools that will achieve the same goals. I also believe people are being swayed by big headlines and pathos arguments that prevent them from examining the NSA critically instead of passionately - I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it seem.
You're assuming that I haven't actually done my homework and am making an off-the-cuff statement based upon media exposure, when the facts of this matter are that I have done my homework on this topic.
(Obama on domestic surveillance, 2007) http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A
(Why we don't trust the government) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_tru...
(The Terrorism Delusion) http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pd...
As the facts are, and looking at the situation objectively, the sustained reaction to the 9/11 incident is uncalled for, especially when the US has gone through previous decades which had seen exponentially more terrorist (lots of bombs) activity on US soil than any time since, yet back then the government didn't overreact and implement such excessive measures as we see today, in commercial airports where passengers are treated like criminals in a prison, in our electronic communications, and our financial records.
I, personally, have never called for the abolition of the NSA, but rather would like to see less intrusive measures employed instead of what they're doing now.
Where is the probable cause for the interception, collection, and storage of my electronic communications? Where is the probable cause showing that I might be a terrorist?
There are conditions which are supposed to be met when the government wants to violate my 4th Amendment rights, and to add an exception for "National Security," where no exception exists, equates to denial of civil rights, so when it's done on as massive a scale as we see case now it's a gross breach of the public trust and people have a right to voice their displeasure with the actions of their government.
To simply sweep this under the rug would be the most unpatriotic thing you could do, and justifying this obviously unpopular program by citing terrorism is disingenuous when viewed from a chronological perspective.
WHINES ABOUT BEING THE TARGET OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK
I said "ridiculous" because it was a narrow, misinformed comment that failed to properly encapsulate the entire subject at hand. It wasn't representative of what's really going on in the political theater between Russia and the United States right now, e.g. no consideration of Russia's motives, positive impact of the NSA, how Russia would be hypocritical to endorse press freedom and citizen privacy, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, nothing about his comment was obvious - if you continue on through the thread, you can clearly see how my rebuttal dissects the entire view that Russia "gets" anything very sufficiently.
Then you go on to confuse the sentiments of one Russian for the policies of an entire nation?
Who's being ridiculous here?
After reading the article on Crowdturfing [1], I can no longer assume that everyone posting here is acting in good faith.
If you find it difficult to see why this is morally abhorrent, I'm just not sure what to say you to you, as I think it would be quite apparent to the average 9 year old that deliberately spying on people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion is wrong.
Really...? Come on now, that's totally unbacked by any analysis of history. I agree with you on the immorality, but hyperbole like that doesn't advance your case very well.
I'll grant that if you include science fiction novels, there are a few contenders.
All totalitarian regimes used broad surveillance, but not all countries that have overly broad surveillance programs are totalitarian. What's missing is the desire for total control of many different aspects of life and political activity.
However, I think that there is a great danger that "total information awareness" leads to an ever greater desire for total control. That desire may even come from the people and have superficial democratic legitimacy. If everyone knows that the government knows everything, the people will demand control over many things that other people do.
An unabashedly totalitarian regime would spy on all its subjects, all the time, through every available channel. It would keep the details of its spying as secret as it can, while letting everyone know they're being watched. It looks like we have most of this, minus 'unabashedly': they claim they drop particular cases where they learn the people they're spying on are citizens within the borders who don't fit a long list of exceptions (crypto, etc.); and they're trying to hide the extent of spying. (On the other hand I don't consider secret courts to weigh much against the label 'totalitarian': the Soviets had that kind of thing, too.)
It could be unparalleled in either nature or extent. In nature, automated data mining is pretty new; in extent, the previous paradigm case, the Stasi, falls laughably short in some ways, while still far ahead in others (informers).
I think the quote isn't unreasonable, though it's loose.
1) Prevent people on the forum from using it as a buzzword to make points devoid of strong, reasoned arguments,
2) Prevent people from believing the NSA should be burned to the ground and disbanded entirely, when it does serve a very useful purpose.
Historically, there have been far worse totalitarian measures. To give one that is relevant to privacy and this particular issue: consider that in the KGB, the secret police could raid your home at any time without a warrant, and when you picked up the phone an operator immediately told you what you said would be recorded. Oh, sure you knew about it. That makes it so much better, I suppose, even though it was far more reaching than what the NSA is currently doing.
I want it very well understood that while the excesses of the agency should be corrected, and Americans should be entitled to privacy, we can't allow ourselves to just attack things passionately because the NSA scandal tells us to. That, and we should maintain a historical perspective so we understand how bad things are and we don't freak out as if it's the worst thing ever, when far worse things have happened in previous generations.
A level of outrage is appropriate - losing sensibility in debates is not.