A
couple weeks back the Washington Post reported that, “The Obama
administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to
reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone
calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’
communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with
government officials and recently declassified material.
“In
addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to
retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html).
YES,
candidate Obama claimed to oppose “the Bush Surveillance State” (http://on.aol.com/video/flashback–obama-slams-bushs-surveillance-state-517814038),
but President Obama’s “Surveillance State” appears not only far more intrusive,
but even LESS targeted than his predecessor’s.
Those
lamenting for “privacy rights” are longing for bygone days. We live in a world
where your own in-home CCTV surveillance systems can you get you locked up
(witness Aaron Hernandez murder charges; (http://abcnews.go.com/US/aaron-hernandezs-cameras-capture-gun-minutes-shooting/story?id=19775235).
I don’t believe I know a single person (including a number who lament our
current dearth of privacy) who don’t have such systems!
When
we travel around town we are rarely ever very far away from some camera’s
glare…AND for the most part, that’s a very, VERY good thing! Too many crimes to
count have been solved by such video alone, like this, now infamous, Milburn,
NJ home invasion caught on a “Baby Cam” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKfcc2rM_xI).
As much as “the accused have rights,” including the right to privacy, I can
find no Constitutional guarantees that would afford this thug (Shawn Custis)
any such protections either inside another person’s home, or on public
thoroughfares.
We
all know this, so it’s up to the individual to adapt and act accordingly.
We
are all much better off with such surveillance cameras being so ubiquitous.
Now,
this IS different than government snooping among your emails and other
correspondences and I said at the time, that ANY law enforcement use of Patriot
Act provisions for ANY actions other than terrorism should be barred. I opposed
the TN police overreach using the Patriot Act’s provisions against the creation
of WMDs against a group busted for running a Meth lab (one of the byproducts of
Meth production can be phosgene gas).
I
support the NSA Surveillance programs. I supported them under Bush and I
support them today…with strict oversights.
For
that reason, it is hard for me to see Edward Snowden as either a “hero,” or a
“traitor.” He is a whistleblower and made the world aware of some glaring
abuses within America’s modern “Surveillance State.” He also put others at risk
by dumping tons of classified information.
It
is somewhat ironic that the SAME firm that vetted Ed Snowden also “vetted” the
deranged D.C. gunman Aaron Alexis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/aaron-alexis-background-checks).
That probably only proves that there will always be cracks in the system.
The
“Surveillance State” seems to be here to stay, mainly because individuals (ie.
homeowners) and businesses insist upon it for their own protection, local
governments see it as a means to both reduce traffic infractions (red light
cams) and raise revenues and the federal government sees it as vital in the
global “War on Terrorism.” With all that to gain, it seems completely unlikely
that America’s “Surveillance State” will even be scaled back much, let alone
effectively repealed.
JMK
No comments:
Post a Comment