[KaiserPro]

Theres a difference between as an intelligence organisation having access to data, and "someone in power is angry because they watched a TV advert, I want to see what they know"

but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.

[pureagave]

For most of my life I also used to think there was a difference between the two. But now I realized they are actually just the same.

[KaiserPro]

I understand the disillusionment. The gutting of the US machinery of state is disheartening to see.

[dijit]

it’s all just people at the end of the day.

Without oversight, abuse is inevitable.

You have two choices:

* Limit the damage that a person can do- IE; don’t aggregate everything in the hands of one person.

* Tonnes of oversight into who accesses the data and why.

In theory the US chooses the latter, but only for nationals and the snowden leaks were proving that this was basically just a rubber stamp and constantly was bypassed on technicalities..

.. outside of the US, there’s no legal framework to protect your data from US authorities, no matter who they are, at all.

[shreddit]

They couldn’t be more different. One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. The other one will do it in public because he can and doesn’t like your name.

[lmm]

> One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone.

When it's secret, how can you ever check? Even if it was just because the person on top or in the middle had a personal judge, they'll always say it was for legitimate spying purposes and no-one has any way to call them out.

[Waterluvian]

Which of these is meant to represent the current regime in power in the U.S.?

[statguy]

does it matter if you are the one on the receiving end?