This is part of the purpose behind the separation of powers between
executive, legislative and judicial.
William Pitt wrote "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of
those who possess it" . As such constraints
are needed and in place.
We expect politician to cheat,lie,be stupid and self serving. Because
we like people who tell us what we
want to hear and most of us vote for people that we like. The do not
have to be wise, or even competent.
Personally I think most of the fault currently lies with the Judicial
side. These laws were enacted as a
knee jerk reaction to an event. I can understand the passions of people
at that time because I shared them,
however the courts are supposed to be a bulwark against this very kind
of rash action.
These men and women are supposed to be well educated in the fundamental
concepts that constructed our republic
and appointed to terms that prevent them from worrying about the
political whims of the time.
Sam
On 2013-09-06 10:55, Royce Williams wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Naslund, Steve <snasl...@medline.com>
wrote:
[snip]
1. We vote in a new executive branch every four years. They
control and
appoint the NSA director. Vote them out if you don't like how they
run
things. Do you think a President wants to maintain power? Of course
they
do and they will change a policy that will get them tossed out (if
enough
people actually care).
2. The Congress passes the laws that govern telecom and
intelligence
gathering. They also have the power to impeach and/or prosecute the
executive branch for misdeeds. They will pass any law or do whatever
it
takes to keep themselves in power. Again this requires a lot of
public
pressure.
Historically speaking, I'm not convinced that a pure political
solution
will ever work, other than on the surface. The need for surveillance
transcends both administrations and political parties. Once the
newly
elected are presented with the intel available at that level, even
their
approach to handling the flow of information and their social
interaction
have to change in order to function.
Daniel Ellsberg's attempt to explain this to Kissinger is insightful.
It's
a pretty quick read, with many layers of important observations.
(It's
Mother Jones, but this content is apolitical):
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge
I think that Schneier's got it right. The solution has to be both
technical and political, and must optimize for two functions: catch
the bad
guys, while protecting the rights of the good guys.
When the time comes for the political choices to be made, the good
technical choices must be the only ones available.
Security engineering must pave the way to the high road -- so that
it's the
only road to get there.
Royce