End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

What this editorial gets right is that the oversight regime for domestic surveillance is inadequate. What it misses, however, is that big piles of data are inevitable with the current trajectory of technology. It will not be possible to have the piles of data not collected. As others have written, the government surveillance agencies essentially saw what private industry was doing and said "I want a copy of that."

I think we need to rethink some things:

1. In the short term, one of the biggest changes that has to be addressed is the current court doctrine that privacy has not been violated if no people are actually looking at the data. Given that much of the surveillance is directed by automation, we need to recast that doctrine to include some of the automated analysis of the data. It's a thorny question, and one that will take some time and effort to get right, but there's no time like now to start.

2. We need more forceful and more transparent oversight of surveillance. There is a risk that the surveilled might change their tactics based on lessons from oversight reporting, but it seems clear at this point that the trade off is necessary. To quote the editorial: "The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security." Trade-offs are only worth making if you get something. Time to revisit the trade-off.

3. We need to address both the big piles of data in the government's hands and those in private hands. This is going to require rethinking ownership of the data, and probably moving the US more towards an EU-style privacy directive. Again, a longer process, but one that needs to start now.

4. As a country, we need to start toward a more rational view of terrorism risk. Plenty has been written about how disproportional our response has been. Time to rebalance the scales.

In the end, we're going to continue to have big piles of surveillance data as long as we continue our technology trajectory. We need to start figuring out how to work with it, rather than try to stop it.

The Ben Franklin quote is apropos here: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither."

While it's wildly misquoted on the interblags, you can't read out the word "essential." The point of the quote isn't that no trade-offs between freedom and safety are appropriate, but rather that we shouldn't trade away those freedoms that are "essential." It is debatable whether monitoring of the internet, a technology that didn't even exist for most of American history, is a trading off "essential" liberty, or whether its an "inessential" liberty.

Ben Franklin, like the other framers, realized that freedom versus security was a trade-off. Remember, the Constitution itself was a reaction to the Articles of Confederation, which created a government that turned out to be too weak to protect peoples' safety, both from external threats (Indians, European powers) and internal threats (domestic insurgents). The Constitution draw the safety versus freedom line a little closer to "safety" by creating a more powerful, more centralized federal government.

This balancing is also why the 4th amendment uses the wiggle word "unreasonable." Searches and seizures are okay, just not "unreasonable" ones. Well how do you decide what is "reasonable" versus "unreasonable?" You figure out how to appropriately trade-off freedom versus security! If the founding fathers didn't intend for us to engage in such balancing, they would've left out the word "unreasonable." No searches and seizures, even if necessary to solve a murder or kidnapping. After all, that would maximize freedom at some cost to security.

By extension, then, wiretaps are just fine, by anybody. All that data, entering and leaving your house, is not in your house, so it's fair game. So is opening mail (if it's in the post office it's not under your control, right?) Your car? It's on the street, so what if we attached GPS devices.

Those microphones and cameras in public places are there for your protection. We'll never abuse that, trust us. Oh never never never.

("Hey, this guy voted Replubricatic last election, stick him on the list, too. Hey, he gave money to my opponent!")

It's not your house, it's the bank's house. That's what a mortgage is.

People like predictability and the illusion of security. I've had conversations about the Snowden stuff that ended with the other conversant saying that they would always choose security every time, and if the government wanted watch everything they did then all the better.

Their entire worldview seemed to be framed on a false choice though - you can either have security and safety or you can be free of government intrusion. I fundamentally disagree with this, total government intrusion and surveillance is not security, nor is it safety, you simply move the danger from 'terrorists' to 'government agents'. Either way (to steal a line from the libertarians) men with guns and bombs might show up and ruin or end your life.