Trust has been at the core of the U.S. approach to Internet policy for more than a decade and should not be squandered. While many intuitively understand why this must be preserved for human rights reasons, there are also vital economic concerns.
can transparency be institutionalized in an agency that's in the business of secrecy? Can NSA be made to understand that transparency is actually in its interest because the more the public knows, the more legitimacy the agency will have, the more leeway the public will give the agency?
Intelligence committee staffers have monthly meetings where they review footage of strikes, CIA intelligence reports and casualty assessments. There is no public evidence, though, that they have ever spoken to people who suffered injuries or lost family members in U.S. strikes, their counsel, or witnesses from the affected countries.
If the government is going to continue the practice of forcing private companies to hand over users’ private information in the name of national security, then the American public should have a right to know which companies are being asked and how often.
The road forward does not have to be one of either liberty or security. We can take steps to make our national security programs more transparent, accountable, and ultimately more effective.
President Obama gets the message: When the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court considers any issue presented for decision, including procedural rule, it hears only one side -- the government's. That strikes many as unfair.
As President Obama proposed a series of changes to reform the government's surveillance policies and programs, Democracy Now! speaks to Jennifer Hoelz...
The fact is that democracy cannot survive when the government conducts surveillance through secret interpretations of laws adjudicated by a secret court issuing secret decisions. The president began a process for transparency; now it is time for Congress to further that process.
President Obama's performance Friday was even less persuasive than his pretense of holding Wall Street accountable for the crimes that led to the economic meltdown.
With the conviction of Bradley Manning and asylum granted to Edward Snowden in Russia, it may be time to turn attention away from the controversy over their actions and toward the government -- specifically, the intelligence community.
It was a busy week in Washington, since all the congresscritters were eager to get out of town for their not-so-well-earned five weeks of vacation. It'll take awhile for the dust to settle, so let's take a look at some of what's been happening while it does.
I spoke with the Oregon Democrat about secrecy, intelligence, the Snowden case, and how to curb abuses without compromising national security.
"Logic may indeed be unshakeable, but it cannot withstand a man who is determined to live. Where was the judge he had never seen? Where was the High C...
So is Edward Snowden a hero or a creepy betrayer? The fact that he is huddled in a Moscow airport waiting for some country to take him in lends credence to the betrayer view. Since September 11, 2001, a lot of queasy liberals have cut the U.S. government a fair amount of slack when it comes to surveillance of potential terrorist plots. The attacks happened, after all. And more plots followed. Al-Qaeda is no paranoid fantasy. We can't have people with top-secret information making national policy, as free-lances. But as one detail after another has emerged in the wake of Snowden's initial disclosures, the weight of evidence keeps shifting to the hero side of the scale. Put aside for the moment Snowden's motives, or character defects, or awkward international flight from Hong Kong to Russia. History is likely to record him as something of a hero for the long overdue national debate that he has forced. Since Snowden, a largely intimidated press has begun doing its job, and the revelations are not pretty.
It is, of course, difficult to assess the performance of the FISA court, because its activities are secret. But with 30 years of experience, it is possible to offer some reflections and suggestions.
America's loss of credibility and prestige abroad as a champion of democratic values is not due to duplicitous and possibly illegal conduct of our government. Rather it is a consequence of the actions of the whistleblower.