The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

Fri Sep 6 15:04:58 UTC 2013

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 <SNaslund at 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