What To Do With the Surveillance State

It is obvious that federal surveillance programs have gone beyond what the American people (not a high bar) and what they are comfortable with.  The President's announcement that he would seek reforms of the programs revealed by Snowden is proof of that. Not that I believe him, nor believe that it will solve the problem.  Zerohedge makes excellent has of the President's position:

Obama On NSA Spying: "I Would Be Concerned Too, If I Weren't Inside The Government" 
In what is as close to saying 'trust us, we're from the government,' as it gets; President Obama's traitor-identifying, blame-pointing, cover-your-assing speech on Friday has done nothing to end the supposedly "critical NSA counter-terrorism tool," from being used on American citizens. 

The President's proposals do not really change the fundamental problem with the program; surveillance is being conducted on U.S. citizens without warrants or probable cause.  Further, "incidental collection," data collected on other than the primary target, is being used to launch other investigations.

What should be done?  The issue is that we need to spy on foreigners as part of maintaining national security.  However, because the likes of Al-Qaeda have learned good operational security, the national security apparatus finds it convenient to collect information from American telecomms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  But it is the nature of computer systems that it is harder to delete information than it is to retain it.  Once a private citizen's information is in the system, even if unrelated to terrorism, court order or secret actions by law enforcement can cause it to be retrieved.  Further, given the way the IRS scandal has gone down, how can we be sure that this information won't be used for political repression?  Oh yeah, the President is just so darned smart and dedicated; maybe he should just be President for life, because no one else will protect our rights like he does.

But I digress.  These programs have to be shut down until there is both oversight and technical means to ensure that incidental collections and unauthorized collections are not happening or are deleted when they do.  We will have to fund an independent judiciary that has the technical means to do so and have periodic reviews, to the Supreme Court if necessary.

These programs didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, so their efficacy is in doubt.  Their damage to liberty is not.

What You Should Be Reading:

• Dean shows that any conservative blogger has a better grasp on the U.S. Constitution than Barack Obama as the President creates a new branch of government Big Business.  Happy with that, 99%ers?
• Best headline on the latest Filner saga: Filner Magically Cured Of The Pervs In Less Than Two Weeks at RedState.
• IRS targets small businesses for under-reporting income based on comparing credit card receipts to overall sales.
• Is China doomed?  I think so.  ZeroHedge examines the debate.  ZeroHedge has all sorts of information and perspective I don't see anywhere else, often spot on.

Faux Outrage over Faux Outrage

So the political blogs and talking heads are up in arms over the negative tone of the campaign. So what? Here is why it won't change. Obama and his surrogates have no record to tout. If they were proud of his accomplishments, they would be trumpeting the signature achievement of the ACA. But even if you are a liberal, you must admit that the President's campaign has made little of the issue. With the economy in bad shape, and Obama unwilling to defend the ACA, the only campaign strategy left is to attack Romney.

For his part, Romney must counter-attack, first, because he can't allow Obama to define him in a negative light. Second, the nasty campaign redounds to Romney's advantage; because Obama loses his "likeability," a key advantage he has retained until now. By ratcheting up the rhetoric, as well as pointing out how nasty the Obama campaign's attack have become, he attacks the President's strength.

Personally, I won't lose a wink of sleep. Some of the scurrilous attacks on Romney get me angry, but ultimately, they have been a boon; because they have been shown to be so false. The demonstrably false accusation that Romney killed that worker's wife has been thoroughly debunked and hurt the President. Mark Halperin is quoted in Politico today:

Based on what happened last night, the president’s team is stunned that the president would be accused of engaging in a campaign of hate. Mitt Romney used the word ‘hate’. I think he meant it. I think the president’s team was very stung by it.

Halperin is a political analyst for Time. Stung? Really? Please grow up, and maybe you shouldn't coordinate attacks like accusing your opponent of killing people. If that's not hateful, what is?

Expect the nastiness to continue, until such time as it looks like a loser for one side or the other. If one side stops and the other side sees the negative attacks stop being effective, the tone might change, but don't count on it.

Virginia Postrel suggests another way in which the tone might change. She recalls Ross Perot's 30 minute informercials on the economy and federal budget from 1992 that drew big audiences. She thinks that Paul Ryan is telegenic and articulate enough to pull off something like that. I agree, and given the grave nature of the threats to our long term economic prospects, people would pay attention. She closes with:

The American public is in the appropriately desperate frame of mind for a serious policy discussion. The Ryan pick suggests that Romney might be willing to offer one. The alternative is three more months of sniping about tax returns and college transcripts (not to mention how dogs are treated) -- attacks on the candidates’ identities rather than their ideas. The times demand better.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can count on it.