Edward Snowden Q&A

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flounder

The fact there are no hurdles to the access of this data is the heart of the issue I think.

Umm ... says who?

edit to add: Wasn't it established up the thread a bit that accessing the data (by the government) is subject to judicial approval?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flounder

The fact there are no hurdles to the access of this data is the heart of the issue I think. What other data are they collecting that isn't subject to oversight?

Yeah - the thing that gets to me is that there's no practical hurdles to them accessing it after they collect it other than essentially their word that they won't.

Their promise not to do so doesn't really hold any weight with me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah - the thing that gets to me is that there's no practical hurdles to them accessing it after they collect it other than essentially their word that they won't.

Their promise not to do so doesn't really hold any weight with me.

There's no substantial practical hurdle to somebody stealing a bicycle out of my yard either ... except the risk of punishment for breaking one or more laws.

[molson]

What kind of hurdles would you suggest? Now that it's all public anyway, would it solve the problem if the same federal judge who would approve the FISC warrant approved a warrant in the course of his or her regular duties? Like any warrant, they couldn't be challenged before they're executed anyway (and they'd still be secret at least until then). And they couldn't even really be challenged afterwards except to fight a criminal charge.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's what confounds me about this whole "controversy".

Prism is a program that's been subjected to Executive, Congressional and Judicial oversight ... and yet people are still whining.

Seems to me that's about as good as governmental oversight is going to get. I'm honestly not sure what else a reasonable person could ask for.

[flounder]

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by flounder

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

I guess this where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just the collecting of the metadata constitutes surveillance. To me it doesn't become surveillance until you access the data. Just as having a room full of books doesn't mean you know their contents and have knowledge of what is in them. It isn't until you start to read them that there is any value to the contents. And has been discussed, the NSA hasn't been give carte blanche to use the metadata. They still have to get approval each time they go to access the data.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess this where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just the collecting of the metadata constitutes surveillance. To me it doesn't become surveillance until you access the data. Just as having a room full of books doesn't mean you know their contents and have knowledge of what is in them. It isn't until you start to read them that there is any value to the contents. And has been discussed, the NSA hasn't been give carte blanche to use the metadata. They still have to get approval each time they go to access the data.

I can see your point, and I might even agree if I was confident the data was used exactly as you are saying. However, the behavior of the government throughout this whole mess doesn't give me that confidence, and I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flounder

I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.

I'd go as far as to say it's unfortunate that it's necessary ... but I'd say failing to do utilize the abilities of Prism would be unconscionable negligence at best.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flounder

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

I'm not sure surveillance is the right term when they're collecting data from private companies. Government can get all kinds of information about you from third parties that wouldn't implicate the 4th amendment.

I think I see what you're arguing though, is that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from compelling mass collection of data from private companies, even if they don't ever actually access it.

And the government would say, damn right we need judicial approval to collect data about an individual, but we have no ability to even go down that road if the data is deleted by the time we have a real legal justification for it. And since that data is almost always deleted pretty regularly in the regular course of things, we have the right to to preserve it so that we can ever use that warrant power.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure surveillance is the right term when they're collecting data from private companies. Government can get all kinds of information about you from third parties that wouldn't implicate the 4th amendment.

I think I see what you're arguing though, is that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from compelling mass collection of data from private companies, even if they don't ever actually access it.

And the government would say, damn right we need judicial approval to collect data about an individual, but we have no ability to even go down that road if the data is deleted by the time we have a real legal justification for it. And since that data is almost always deleted pretty regularly in the regular course of things, we have the right to to preserve it so that we can ever use that warrant power.

That is the essential Catch-22 here. I'd feel better if there was some like...independent oversight that verified that they weren't accessing the data.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That is the essential Catch-22 here. I'd feel better if there was some like...independent oversight that verified that they weren't accessing the data.

And when it comes to domestic crimes, it's easy enough to say "too bad government," you have no right or duty to prosecute crimes where the only evidence of the crime disappears before you even know about it. And maybe that same general idea should apply to national security too. But at the very least, it's a completely different ballgame, because we're less content to just try to arrest the bad guys after the crime when it comes to terrorism. If we care at all about stopping them BEFORE terrorist acts happen, communications and spying and intelligence are the key. It's better than marching into some random middle eastern country, anyway. There's a million posts in this and the Obama thread about how national security is just an "excuse" to get this stuff. That "keeping us safe" is some phony pretense for the real motivation here. That's what I really disagree with, that kind of rhetoric. An excuse for what? What's the real goal? It makes perfect sense to me why this program is so important, and so effective, though I get the concerns and legal arguments against it too. But I see it as a really efficient tactic that has pretty low risk for abuse, especially when compared to other "war on terror" tactics. I just don't believe they'll use the data and say, funnel it to state law enforcement agencies to bust drug dealers, or people with subversive thoughts about government. They could do that, hypothetically, but government can do a lot of shit hypothetically.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Why don't you rethink your response with the understanding that I used to work in the intelligence community (under William Webster) and then worked in telecommunications (pre- and post- 9/11) due to my security clearance I obtained from the CIA. I am no longer an expert on such things, but I do know about a great deal of the wire tapping and data gathering because I know the guys who fucking programmed the switches.

So rethink your response and try again.

Why the fuck are guys that hold a compartmentalized security clearance telling the fucking phone guy anything? I smell bullshit.

[Dutch]

Oh wait...you said CIA...those guys are bunch self-important bufoons...so its possible they were blathering to impress. Still, I wouldn't believe their bullshit. Did they start off by ssying, "Dude, check this out...this is a no-shitter!"?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

And when it comes to domestic crimes, it's easy enough to say "too bad government," you have no right or duty to prosecute crimes where the only evidence of the crime disappears before you even know about it. And maybe that same general idea should apply to national security too. But at the very least, it's a completely different ballgame, because we're less content to just try to arrest the bad guys after the crime when it comes to terrorism. If we care at all about stopping them BEFORE terrorist acts happen, communications and spying and intelligence are the key. It's better than marching into some random middle eastern country, anyway. There's a million posts in this and the Obama thread about how national security is just an "excuse" to get this stuff. That "keeping us safe" is some phony pretense for the real motivation here. That's what I really disagree with, that kind of rhetoric. An excuse for what? What's the real goal? It makes perfect sense to me why this program is so important, and so effective, though I get the concerns and legal arguments against it too. But I see it as a really efficient tactic that has pretty low risk for abuse, especially when compared to other "war on terror" tactics. I just don't believe they'll use the data and say, funnel it to state law enforcement agencies to bust drug dealers, or people with subversive thoughts about government. They could do that, hypothetically, but government can do a lot of shit hypothetically.

Oh I agree, that's the Catch-22 about it.

[Dutch]

or people with subversive thoughts about government.

I've actually already mailed a letter to the government (I would've called but...you know) about Blackadar, he should get picked up any day for tax-evasion or something.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Why the fuck are guys that hold a compartmentalized security clearance telling the fucking phone guy anything? I smell bullshit.

Two different jobs, asswipe. If you smell bullshit, then it's time to take a shower.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Two different jobs, asswipe. If you smell bullshit, then it's time to take a shower.

Relax, I'm just trying to piss you off.

[SirFozzie]

Getting back to the main subject, man, it's getting worse the amount of international weight the US is trying to throw around, forcing the Bolivian President's plane to land in Austria because of unfounded rumors that Snowden was on the plane.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think the US should back WAY the fuck off on both their snooping and their pursuit of a whistleblower.

You're telling us "Trust Us, it's all right"

Nope. I don't trust you on this subject, and the fact that you're pursuing this horse long since the barn door was left open signals to me that there's a reason not to trust you on it.

[cody8200]

I'm of the mind that regardless how much terrorism possibly may be stopped by trudging on US citizen's rights, it isn't worth it. Someone mentioned that this may have all been done to the letter of the law. That just means the law needs to change.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by flounder

I can see your point, and I might even agree if I was confident the data was used exactly as you are saying. However, the behavior of the government throughout this whole mess doesn't give me that confidence, and I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.

The ironic thing is that there are larger blanket collections of data on Americans out there outside the government, and no one seems concerned. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, cable companies, credit card companies, so on and so forth have likely just as much if not more data on Americans than the government does. Hence, why the NSA is going to some of these companies and requesting their data.

Yet as much as people grouse about the government invasion of privacy, I'm not sure I can recall a single incident where government data fell into the wrong hands and caused a violation of a citizen. Yet it happens all the time when retailers lose track of credit card data and Internet companies fail to protect password data. The government has these data, and they seem to do a pretty good job protecting it.

At just about any company you do business with, there is someone making minimum wage that if they wanted to use your credit cards to buy concert tickets, screw with your credit rating or a hundred other crappy things. Snowden claims he can look in your inbox. So can Google. And until Snowden proves it, I think he may be bluffing.

Happens all the time, yet we're worried about the NSA, where it rarely if ever seems to happen.

[bob]

Can't remember who, but someone on here's state (South Carolina if I recall correctly) managed to expose his address, SSN, and other data to hackers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think the US should back WAY the fuck off on both their snooping and their pursuit of a whistleblower.

I doubt you're in the minority here ... but you're about as dead wrong on something as a human being can be.

Any country that takes that vile piece of shit in ought to be facing the end of diplomatic ties for openers ... and there isn't anything that amounts to "going to far" to deal with them.

[SirFozzie]

Well Jon, we agree to disagree, but then again, we do a lot of that, don't we?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Well Jon, we agree to disagree, but then again, we do a lot of that, don't we?

Yep.

And I'm sure how well we cope with that reality disappoints the crowd

edit to add: My original comment (hrm, intended comment) on topic was lengthier & much stronger. Phone rang so I figured "aw fuck it" and posted the Reader's Digest version instead.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep.

And I'm sure how well we cope with that reality disappoints the crowd

edit to add: My original comment (hrm, intended comment) on topic was lengthier & much stronger. Phone rang so I figured "aw fuck it" and posted the Reader's Digest version instead.

Please, if we ever let loose, one or both of us would be boxed and/or banned within the first five or six posts, I'm sure

[Young Drachma]

New Rumor of Snowden Flight Raises Tensions - NYTimes.com

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I doubt you're in the minority here ... but you're about as dead wrong on something as a human being can be.

Pretty much. Spying is, by nature, unethical, but it's a necessary evil. And that necessary evil comes at a price (citizen distrust). But it's that necessity part that makes counter-spying such a despicable trade that even our traditional rivals in Russia have no respect for such people. Because afterall, the Russians spy on others and they don't follow strict rules like we place on ourselves...they know what's up.

Any country that takes that vile piece of shit in ought to be facing the end of diplomatic ties for openers ... and there isn't anything that amounts to "going to far" to deal with them.

It's only fair. Ecuador already houses the wikileaks activist right? We are being fair by not going in and extracting him physically out of respect for their sovereignty...but there is no reason we should still give them money so long as that guy is there. Everything has a cost.

[panerd]

Seems like there are always two major talking points for why I shouldn't care about the spying...

1) If I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't care if they spy on me.
2) It stops countless terror attacks they just can't tell me about them because of national security. The government even testified it stopped dozens of attacks to support this point.

US senators rail against intelligence disclosures over NSA practices | World news | theguardian.com

Originally Posted by Guardian article about testimony from NSA Deputy director John Inglis

“The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”

I guess now it's "So what if they lied to our faces about point #2? Theres still point #1!" No real justification for doing it but for some strange reason the government still felt the need to lie to justify it, but I still don't need to worry because we are talking about terrorism and you shouldn't question anything that is done about terror.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Seems like there are always two major talking points for why I shouldn't care about the spying...

1) If I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't care if they spy on me.
2) It stops countless terror attacks they just can't tell me about them because of national security. The government even testified it stopped dozens of attacks to support this point.

For me the big one is #3 - nobody has identified a single tangible harm from this that isn't based on speculation about things progressing about 100 steps down a slippery slope. Like, that this program will obviously lead to federal agents breaking into my house in the middle of the night based on a Google search I made about fertilizer. Except for the cost, which is pretty minuscule compared to other government expenses and almost completely negligable when it comes to the defense budget as a whole (and like I've said, I'd rather the war on terror look like that than consist of military invasions.) For that reasons, it's difficult for me to give any shits at all about this v. the many government actions and omissions which cause current or imminent harm to us, or economy, our environment, etc.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

For me the big one is #3 - nobody has identified a single tangible harm from this that isn't based on speculation about things progressing about 100 steps down a slippery slope. Like, that this program will obviously lead to federal agents breaking into my house in the middle of the night based on a Google search I made about fertilizer. Except for the cost, which is pretty minuscule compared to other government stuff, and always completely non-existent when it comes to the defense budget (and like I've said, I'd rather the war on terror look like that than consist of military invasions.) For that reasons, it's difficult for me to give any shits at all about this v. the many government actions and omissions which cause current or imminent harm to us, or economy, our environment, etc.

So why not testify a few weeks ago with your point #3 instead of the untrue #2? Which at best was a huge error and quite possibly just a lie.

And to your point #3 would this not be exactly what you claim won't happen?

Be careful what you Google - Campaign for Liberty

To be completely honest I feel like the people in the article probably knew the government scrutiny they would receive and wanted this to happen but it certainly does answer your question of whether an American citizen "just searching the net" could get a visit from the feds. But again I guess the response from you is still "Not me, who cares?" Right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

So why not testify a few weeks ago with your point #3 instead of the untrue #2? Which at best was a huge error and quite possibly just a lie.

And to your point #3 would this not be exactly what you claim won't happen?

I don't know. You must have missed the part where I said, "to me".

I'm more upset about the fact that our government spends way more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and we get the absolute worst product in the Western world in exchange for all that money. That actually impacts the lives of millions. You can try to tell me my priorities are wrong and that I should only care about this NSA thing and nothing else, you're just not going to make me give two shits, sorry.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

To be completely honest I feel like the people in the article probably knew the government scrutiny they would receive and wanted this to happen but it certainly does answer your question of whether an American citizen "just searching the net" could get a visit from the feds. But again I guess the response from you is still "Not me, who cares?" Right?

This was actually exposed as hysterical bullshit. I can't believe they didn't do a retraction in the "Campaign for Liberty" newsite you get your info from.

Employer Tipped Off Police To Pressure Cooker And Backpack Searches, Not Google | TechCrunch

Clarification and update - open areas

Google Search pressure-cooker saga shows surveillance-fueled paranoia, mistrust.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know. You must have missed the part where I said, "to me".

I'm more upset about the fact that our government spends way more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and we get the absolute worst product in the Western world in exchange for all that money. You can try to tell me my priorities are wrong and that I should only care about this NSA thing and nothing else, you're just not going to make me give two shits, sorry.

So I give you a counter example of your point #3 of why this is no big deal and the best you can come up with is "Well I really don't give two shits"?

I guess I don't expect you to give two shits but I think the reason more people aren't outraged is they actually believe the program stopped 54 attacks or like you don't think an internet search will bring agents to their house. Maybe it they knew all the defenses of the program were untrue they might care?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

This was actually exposed as hysterical bullshit. I can't believe they didn't do a retraction in the "Campaign for Liberty" newsite you get your info from.

Employer Tipped Off Police To Pressure Cooker And Backpack Searches, Not Google | TechCrunch

Clarification and update - open areas

Google Search pressure-cooker saga shows surveillance-fueled paranoia, mistrust.

OK. So I will admit I believed the story (though I already said I had some questions about the author's intent) It is interesting how a minute ago you still didn't "give two shits" and now you feel the need to pull up like 3-4 google links saying the same thing to show how right you are. I will admit being wrong instead of "Well I just don't give a shit! So nah!"

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

OK. So I will admit I believed the story (though I already said I had some questions about the author's intent) It is interesting how a minute ago you still didn't "give two shits" and now you feel the need to pull up like 3-4 google links saying the same thing to show how right you are. I will admit being wrong instead of "Well I just don't give a shit! So nah!"

So in one post you criticize me for not responding, and then in the very next post your criticize me for responding. That's the type of logic and rational thinking that's going on in this discussion, which is part of what annoys me about it to the point where I don't care.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

So in one post you criticize me for not responding, and then in the very next post your criticize me for responding. That's the type of logic and rational thinking that's going on in this discussion, which is part of what annoys me about it to the point where I don't care.

No when you thought you might have been wrong you shrugged your shoulders and said you didn't give two shits. Then when you found out I was wrong you cared again. It's why that back and forth went like 15 pages in the Gronk thread. I will admit I was wrong, you obviously weren't going to. Anyways I care more about the fact that the government went from 54 terror attacks stopped when the NSA stuff was front page news to at most one now that it settled down. Obviously an error worthy of discussion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will admit I was wrong, you obviously weren't.

Your "admitting your wrong" involves an emphasis that I was actually the one who was wrong all along, on everything, including what I'm supposed to be most angry about in government. What did I say in the "Gronk thread" that was controversial?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Your "admitting your wrong" involves an emphasis that I was actually the one who was wrong all along, on everything. What did I say in the "Gronk thread" that was controversial?

Sentence #1 is just untrue. Sentence #2... just cluttered up a bunch of pages with a back and forth because neither of you could admit you were wrong.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sentence #1 is just untrue. Sentence #2... just cluttered up a bunch of pages with a back and forth because neither of you could admit you were wrong.

Sentence 1 is true. Read the post again, more than 50% of it is you throwing a tantrum and bringing it back it how I'm the one who is ultimately wrong, because I posted too many links or something, and that how I only cared because your main point was exposed as a lie.

In Sentence 2, neither of us "admitted we were wrong", because we were stating opinions, which unlike your main factual point here, has not been proven to be a lie. You've brought this thread up several times as my main FOFC sin but there were many other people posting in it. I imagine it went on for a long time because it was a major story and we were bored at work, sorry about that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Sentence 1 is true. Read the post again, more than 50% of it is you throwing a tantrum and bringing it back it how I'm the one who is ultimately wrong, because I posted too many links or something, and that how I only cared because your main point was exposed as a lie.

In Sentence 2, neither of us "admitted we were wrong", because we were stating opinions, which unlike your main factual point here, has not been proven to be a lie. You've brought this thread up several times as my main FOFC sin but there were many other people posting in it. I imagine it went on for a long time because it was a major story and we were bored at work, sorry about that.

Yawn. This is exactly what you did in the Gronk thread also and I saw how annoyed everyone was. (and I don't bring it up as a sin but why I don't want to engage in back and forth for 10 pages about some small point that you are still hurt about) I told you I was wrong and you can't just accept it but have to still keep talking about how you feel attacked.

[molson]

I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

Originally Posted by molson

I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

Uh-oh. Repeat posts. Molson is being mind-controlled by the government!

[molson]

One thing that's kind of interesting to me is how little backlash the House's vote not to de-fund the NSA got. Maybe people are just at the point where they've completely given up on Congress, but I think it changes the dynamic when something moves from being a secret executive program to one the legislature gives its approval to (unless there's some voting strategy angle I missed). But if this really is one of the more important issues in our country, it's definitely a lot easier to rally against elected legislators than it is against secret executive branch programs.

I mean, we can't get the Republicans to vote for anything, except this, which the Dems then block.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I mean, we can't get the Republicans to vote for anything, except this, which the Dems then block.

Um... more Dems voted for it than Repubs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Um... more Dems voted for it than Repubs.

True, they blocked it just in the sense that unlike a lot of legislation, the Dems could have gotten it through if not for the dissent within their party. Will those 83 Dems get any political backlash? It's just strange where public opinion on this is almost unanimous, to have that much dissent. This isn't something which can just be blamed on the other party. It's not every day that 41% of Republicans to agree to vote for something (at least something high profile) that the majority of Dems want to also vote for.

[JPhillips]

Blaming the party that voted in a greater percentage for the legislation is odd.

There are plenty of national security type Dems that won't vote for this and if it got to the Senate I'd be surprised if it managed forty votes, but the story here isn't that Dems decided to block a bill the GOP liked.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Blaming the party that voted in a greater percentage for the legislation is odd.

There are plenty of national security type Dems that won't vote for this and if it got to the Senate I'd be surprised if it managed forty votes, but the story here isn't that Dems decided to block a bill the GOP liked.

If 83 Dems voted against Obamacare that wouldn't have passed either. I guess it's semantics, as there had to be both significant Dem and Republican opposition for the funding thing to fail in the house.

It's just kind of amusing to me that Obama (who opposed the PATRIOT Act) has become the snoopiest pro-government surveillance president of all time, that almost half of elected dem representatives are right there with him, but there's no real political backlash to that because Republicans.

[JPhillips]

When Dems were in the majority that would make more sense. When Dems are in the minority and vote for legislation at a greater rate than the majority party, the fault doesn't fall on the Dems. There just weren't enough votes to pass what was a remarkably(for this congress) bipartisan amendment.

There's no political backlash because there is no alternative. Some of the Dems will get primaried, but most won't. At the end of the day you either sit things out or pick the best of what's available.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's no political backlash because there is no alternative. Some of the Dems will get primaried, but most won't. At the end of the day you either sit things out or pick the best of what's available.

There are alternatives in the other party who oppose NSA. Not a majority of them, but a significant number. Are there any Dems that would vote against their NSA-supporting Dem congressman and for a Republican that opposes it? Is this issue THAT important?