The debate on the scale of NSA surveillance is like your homes furnace where its time to crank it up while its as cold outside as the cold turkey leftover on the following days of Thanksgiving. Googles Executive Chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt simply said its Outrageous where, ...(NSA) collected the phone records of every phone call of 320 million people in order to identify roughly 300 people who might be a risk. abcnews.go/blogs/business/2013/11/google-chairman-says-nsa-spying-allegations-outrageous/ Is the NSA gone too far? Is the NSA over the top? Where is the line of POLICE - DO NOT CROSS? I do see that there are need to protect our nation, but theres also a need to protect privacy of the average Joe and Mrs. Joe, who are just your average Americans. When its gone too far, the sense of NSA actually protecting Americans and National interest dissipates into thin air because the overboard kind of scale of surveillance outweighs the benefit of protecting. Its like in Microeconomics 101, where the maximizing return comes with the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. Where theres the 3-phases: Increasing Returns with the curve going up; DIMINISHING RETURNS with the curve almost reaching its peak to either a plateau or a slight decreasing rate and if anything further - its DECREASING RETURNS. -- In my point of view, its a matter of time that the advancement to a rapid downward slope might happen if the scale continues to grow out of proportion. Unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or e-mails of friendly presidents and prime ministers. Senator Dianne Feinstein usatoday/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/nsa-uproar-reforms-church-committee/3314203/ Furthermore, maybe Im a little naive on this one. If you think of how our legal system works where one is innocent unless proven guilty. To the entire process of law enforcement should have probable cause to further investigate, where the DA establishes a motive, then in courts to battle it out with clear and convincing evidence on defense and plaintiff -- Shouldnt the NSA should somewhat follow a similar system? Back to second paragraph of Googles Eric Schmidts point is that are the NSA going completely the opposite in the order of how one is proven guilty of a crime? Instead of pin-pointing and narrowing on probable suspects with a probable cause, is the NSA using a large fishing boats to catch the entire sea full of fishes but to only put the fishes back into sea because theyre looking for lobsters on the bottom of the sea, where they shouldve used cages and check periodically. In addition, does it mean that NSA is trying to establish motive by large scale monitoring every single evidence, which shouldnt be presented until its on trial? Are we going slightly overboard and moving toward a system thats the other way round - youre guilty unless youre proven innocent. Does this PROMOTE law enforcement agencies, in someways, be a little judgmental with RACIAL PROFILING, to STOP-n-FRISK, to DISCRIMINATION?
Posted on: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:18:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015