Even if we are to believe former
The point is that the CIA or the
If this doesn't concern Liepman, then maybe he should read more people's emails; he can start with this letter.
I agree with Liepman and appreciate his informative, rational commentary on this issue.
What is so controversial about it is beyond me. As Liepman said, "The government isn't interested in your phone call with your aunt, unless she's a terrorist." I'm sure few would oppose the government's interception of communications pertaining to the accused Boston bomber.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about
Liepman forgets that J. Edgar Hoover maintained his
So yes, there is more junk than can be read, but there are private accounts of people in power that can be perused for the specific purpose of coercion and not for national security. The big issue is this: Who is watching the watchers?
I am one of those people Liepman describes as having "a deep-rooted distrust of government." However, I am not a "conspiracy buff." My distrust comes from having an understanding of history and how organizations work for their own preservation and aggrandizement.
Liepman frames the issue as a balance between privacy and security and concludes we should "err toward more secrets rather than fewer." I frame the issue as a balance between cost and benefit: Could we be as secure as we are now by spending less?
If we are spending, say, $1 billion a year to save a few lives from a terrorist threat, that money could save more lives elsewhere. Only by erring on the side of less secrecy will we ever know if we are getting much value for what we pay for.