Things have changed dramatically since the constitution was conceived. Nobody predicted the internet, WMDs (which could easily be smuggled into the country, they're not just movie fiction), and other nations having spying capabilities.
My main thought is that the US must stay ahead of other nations intelligence agencies. Other than protecting myself, my family, and the country I don't really have a good reason for this though.
> My main thought is that the US must stay ahead of other nations intelligence agencies.
The solution to this is to make surveillance hard for everybody. Pass laws and build technologies that make bulk surveillance not only prohibited but impractical regardless of third party lawlessness. The goal is not to thwart only the NSA, that barely accomplishes anything. You also have to thwart China, Russia, organized crime, malicious corporations, etc.
How does preventing the NSA from looking at traffic crossing an internet backbone serve to thwart China, Russia, organized crime, malicious corporations, etc.? If anything, I'd think it would give them an advantage.
(Note that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limits on what the NSA can do, only that stopping other malicious actors isn't applicable in this case)
> How does preventing the NSA from looking at traffic crossing an internet backbone serve to thwart China, Russia, organized crime, malicious corporations, etc.?
Because it gets the NSA and its budget out of the "make security worse" business and puts them back full in the "make security better" business. Because if they aren't allowed to do it then they won't want anyone else to be able to do it either.
I'd argue that sorry state of internet security is almost entirely the result of bad coding practices/protocol design, and the private sector in general neither has the will to fix it nor wants the NSA to assist in fixing it. In fact, as it stands right now, NSA isn't even responsible for fixing public sector network security issues - what little responsibility the government takes for that largely falls on DHS and NIST. According to their web page[1], NSA is responsible for securing classified government networks. Killing off their intelligence component isn't going to make the internet safer for US citizens.
Or as another example, consider what happens when the NSA discovers a security vulnerability in a common crypto library. If the NSA is allowed to use it for surveillance then they will do that instead of disclosing it, meanwhile the vulnerability persists in the wild just waiting for someone even worse to discover it. You can imagine the epic fail if the Chinese government got hold of Heartbleed six months before the OpenSSL maintainers.
> Things have changed dramatically since the constitution was conceived.
If this is true, why aren't all the NSA apologists trying to promote a constitutional amendment? The drafters of the constitution knew that the original document wouldn't be sufficient for the changing needs in the future, and gave a very clear method to modify tour "highest law".
While I suspect I wouldn't agree with such an amendment, I would certainly give the argument for it a full hearing and debate. Given how mixed attitudes are, it's hard to predict how successful such a proposal would be in practice.
What I do know, for now, is that trying to subvert the constitution's guarantees in an attempt to skip the necessary amendment with "vigilante justice" is at a minimum a violation of some people's oath to defend the constitution. At worst, trying to subvert the constitution (and the guarantees it provides) might even qualify as sedition. Reality is probably somewhere between those points, of course.
I personally think this is a perverse view, leading to weird contradictions like the "Third Party Doctrine".
Given the history of US intelligence agencies (COINTELPRO, SHAMROCK, etc), my main thought is that they're a bigger threat to me, my family and my country than just about anything else.
My main thought is that the US must stay ahead of other nations intelligence agencies. Other than protecting myself, my family, and the country I don't really have a good reason for this though.