[3327]

Honestly, I'll start by saying I am a democrat so before the full flak of the HN community peppers me.

Rule contraction at times of relative piece and expansion at times of duress are never effective. Expanding surveillance after 9/11 with sweeping judicial reforms and due process, and vice versa (in today's case) contracting or attempting to contract is also not a good idea. Yes there are many problems, but think of it from a impact and policy perspective. What happens after if there is a terrorist event? Then do we expand again because perhaps someone yells out "not enough oversight or data?". Although many here are PRO reform, the pattern contraction/expansion is not the way to go about national security policy.

[ibejoeb]

I'm not peppering you because your political leanings, but because I have no idea what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that there is never a good time to change our current state of mass surveillance.

What pattern of expansion and contraction are you talking about? I know the expansion part, but I certainly don't know what the last contraction was.

What due process are you talking about? These policies were effected unilaterally, in secret.

What is a good way "to go about national security policy" if not by working within the legislative framework? Are you saying that there is no legislative solution?

What if there is a terrorist event now? How much more data can we collect?

My position is that it is never too early to examine the effects--the consequences--of any legislation. This particular incident has lingered secretly for well over a decade, and that is oppressive. Regardless of wordsmithing and mental gymnastics, these programs are clearly out of line with the spirit of American civil liberties and need to be checked.

[brazzy]

I think s/he's saying that policy should not be determined as a knee-jerk Reaktion to current events, either way.

[ericcumbee]

For what it's worth I am Republican (or a Republican Affiliated Libertarian might be a more apt description) I am active in the local GOP and sit on the county party executive committee.

The serpentine flow of the amount of power given to the executive branch or government in general is nothing new. There was an overstep with the patriot act, and according to Rep. Sensenbrenner (the author of patriot act) the executive branch under Bush and Obama exceeded the authority of the patriot act.

I think ultimately these types of powers need a congressional kill switch. Much like under the war powers act. The Congress through a concurrent resolution can remove the executive's authority under these acts.

[bobsil1]

Congress is a client of mass spying. It will not rein it in in any meaningful way.

[bobsil1]

This whole frame is wrong. Mass domestic spying is about domestic political advantage, not terrorism.