PRISM, as viewed by The Economist

[thewayne]

A very cogent take from conservatives in another country as to the PRISM et al surveillance state that was slid in to our country with little knowledge of the citizenry.

I especially liked the first comment: "...ONLY credible suspicion should drive surveillance."

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579455-governments-first-job-protect-its-citizens-should-be-based-informed-consent

Comments

[silveradept]

Credible suspicion should also mean that as much as can be conducted in the open court should be, so that even if the targets can't be identified or the exact methods disclosed, we at least have a record of "The government sought a warrant from the court to engage in spying on X number of people or institutions." Of course, as they've demonstrated, even having metadata can mean you learn a lot about what someone is doing...