I don't think you'd need to silence a whistle-blower. With Snowden we learned that most citizens and medias don't care.
Greenwald, Gellman, and Poitras were awarded the Pulitzer for their coverage, and my elderly parents now know who Edward Snowden is and what the NSA was up to (even though they vehemently label him a traitor).
The lack of an immediate change in government policy != people not caring.
What matters is our generation, and the generations after us. Edward Snowden, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, and others have made the information available so we can know the truth, and act accordingly. People are now able able to choose, rationally, based on factual evidence, what side of history to be on. The true revolution begins in people's minds, after all. We are in a position to choose between an enlightenment and a dark age.
Correction. What the NSA is up to. So far nothing has changed. The Utah data center is still up. Another massive data center is being built in Maryland. May I remind you, these are for content, not metadata [1]. There are no limits to their spying.
Everybody's looking for technology solutions but so far nothing has changed politically. And with the way things are going, it never will because the power and blackmail potential of these agencies are just too great.
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec1... (skip to 3:50)
In the end, the people at the NSA still have a job to do (because people crave security), and whether or not you agree with their methods, will do whatever they think is necessary (within the bounds of the law, as they interpret it) to protect the country. If we take away the tools that Snowden exposed, do you really believe they will stop coming up with new surveillance methods? They will still manage to find ways to do their job, which you probably would not agree with either, but we would feel more secure knowing they're out there doing it. It's part of the social contract that we have with the government.
Like Snowden, I used to be a part of this community, and I would echo his early comments on how almost all the people he worked with did care about making the world better and were generally good people. These people are our family, friends, and neighbors. We vilify these agencies, but what I think Snowden is really trying to expose is how the entire system is set up in such a way that creates these incentives for national leadership and agencies to do these things. That system changed dramatically after 9/11, but I believe (and I'm sure Snowden believes) the system can be brought back to a more balanced state, it just has to be done slowly.
So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for.
You're right. Rapid change without direction only causes destabilization, and destabilization, whether it's politically or economically, is not something the US or EU could withstand well currently, and would potentially drastically weaken our joint position in the short-medium term internationally.
No one is calling for revolution.
>In the end, the people at the NSA still have a job to do... It's part of the social contract that we have with the government.
What they've done seems to be the opposite of our social contract with our government. I'm pretty sure that's the reason people are upset.
As Snowden said in the interview, people would not be ok with, for example, the government making a list of everything in your home and in your papers just in case it could be useful for a later investigation. The unwarranted seizure aspect of "collect everything" appears to contradict the citizenry's expectations.
I don't question the intelligence community's intentions. I'm sure it's full of good people, just like the rest of the country. But practices seem to have evolved to be plainly unconstitutional, and it's very concerning that thoughtful IC insiders like yourself don't appear to appreciate that the situation is untenable. Immediate change to these practices is exactly what's called for.
Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of social contract theory. I, for one, do not agree willingly to any contract with any government, but that doesn't change their belief that they have a right to their authority over me.
How long do we wait before we strike immediate from that statement, and then set the != to ==?
Your statement assumes the people caring will result in change in government policy. I'm doubting those two things are connected anymore.
At some point, a tipping point will be reached. See my comment above about slow change. It's frustrating that things are not happening faster, but that's why we have elections every 2 years. Unless you believe that mechanism is broken too, in which case we have bigger problems to worry about.
Obama was supposed to reverse Bush's policies. Instead he enhanced them. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The gerrymandering, the first past the post voting system, the electoral college, the two-party system, the two-party media, all the special interest groups, the corporations, the bribing, I mean, the campaign contributions... The system is fundamentally broken.
Democracy doesn't scale. I doubt a country as big as the United States will ever be truly democratic.
Now, the reason why the Snowden revelation is significant is because the constitution is directly being violated (namely the 4th amendment, Bill of Rights). It could be argued that some of the problems you listed are also violations of the constitution (namely campaign contributions and corporations being defined as people), and I would probably agree with you, but we can't just throw it all away because it makes us unhappy.
I'm optimistic because the constitution has been violated throughout the history of this country many times before, and the result has always been reversion to the mean (either through a constitutional amendment or the violating act became irrelevant over time). Ironically, two of my favorite presidents - Lincoln and Obama - were two of the biggest violators. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson that the candidate's promises matter less than the era they come into and the system they represent.
Oh, I don't doubt this. I just wonder if the "meant to" part means representing the will of the people and acting with the interest of the general public in mind.