[cJ0th]

> "I personally want to live in a world where reasonable people and companies would say, 'You know what? Under the rule of law, and with the right oversight and a warrant, communications can be listened to when it's needed to protect us.'"

Yes well, I don't. But hey – why not facilitate foreign actors spying on our companies so that we may or may not catch any terrorists?

[retox]

>Under the rule of law

This is a meme that is coming from the top. Expect to see this phrase a lot more in articles and from talking heads on the topic. They aren't even very subtle about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Encryption+%22rule+of+law%22...

[jarym]

I would if it meant:

1. The rule of law has not been compromised (snowdon has shown it has already)

2. warrants are issued by a proper judiciary (not the likes of FISA)

3. Oversight that protected citizens privacy rights (let's all laugh at this one since it requires Snowdon to show us that oversight just doesn't exist)

So, agree with you :)

[curun1r]

Also important:

- warrants should have explicit expiration dates...no more indefinite intercepts. - cooperating companies should be able to publicly say anything as soon as the warrant expires. The gag orders are what have allowed the scope of monitoring to be hidden from public scrutiny and that scrutiny is what's needed to keep surveillance to reasonable levels.