[DanielBMarkham]

You point out the excellent reasons for politicians not taking any action -- who wants to be the guy that changed the rules so the next 9-11 could happen? But my point is more along the lines of happy-talk: red meat to throw at some energetic segment of the population to get them to donate and come out and vote.

We see this same pattern on many issues, take for instance welfare for Republicans. They'll talk up their objections, including making all sorts of nuanced arguments, but at the end of the day nobody is going to vote to throw grandma off a cliff.

I'd be ten bucks we same some of this same crap with security. Somebody will make impassioned, reasoned speeches -- probably explaining things just as you have done, and making a case for something that sounds great but is more of a marketing blurb than anything else. Maybe it'll be "peace through reasonable security" or something. (Be assured that it will be heavily poll-tested.)

But in the end, it'll just be more whitewashing. My curiosity is just how banal and pandering the politicians will get. From a rhetorical and philosophical viewpoint alone, it's always interesting to watch these verbal and policy gymnastics. What'll be the catchphrase? Will the tech community come out and support a politician even when it's blatantly obvious he or she is just beating a pinata and isn't serious about real change? I suspect so.

[_greim_]

Maybe. I'll also be curious to see if politicians will go against surveillance in their campaign speeches.

Although the cynical side of me asks, if a politician goes against the surveillance state, who has both the motive and opportunity to sabotage that politician's career? Answer: the surveillance state.