Beware Politicians saying trust me

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the Independent 0n 13th June following an article by the Columnist Steve Richards.

Dear Sir,
             Has Steve Richards become an apologist for authoritarianism? (Whistleblowers are more often enemies of liberty than friends of it - Voices 13th June 2013). For democracy to survive the citizen should adopt a sceptical stance in relation to claims by politicians and others that NSA operations (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) were within the law and did not monitor the on line activities of Americans. The latter was proven false within 48 hours of President Obama's assertion as the US Government confirmed that it had requested millions of phone records from Verizon to include call duration, location and the numbers of both parties on individual calls. This can only be a pre-cursor to actual monitoring so the words uttered are our old friend the distinction without a difference. The increasing use of the Act can be seen from the following numbers of approved court orders under the FISA:
2009       1329
2011       1745
2012       1856
In that 4 year period only one application was declined.
Having shown that the claim that the FISA did not apply to Americans is false then surely the wording of the Act and the requirement for court orders provide protection for the individual. However that only applies to the USA - no such protection exists elsewhere and the Act (FISA) permits the NSA to investigate any foreign country where it believes US foreign policy interests may be affected. What about the rights of UK and European citizens? Are we a lesser breed?
Steve Richards is also being disingenuous where he states that much of the information about PRISM could have been discerned from publicly available sources followed by thoughtful analysis. Yet it is also claimed that this disclosure has seriously compromised activities via NSA/GCHQ/PRISM. I do not believe that actual or potential terrorists will have missed that!!
As to unintended consequences these are inevitable as would be the case should a Communications Data Bill be enacted in this country. My experience and history show that it is the nature of these bureaucracies to deepen and broaden their activities only to be pulled back after a crisis e.g wrongful imprisonment (remember the Birmingham "bombers").
Yes we do need to be protected against terrorist activities and yes there is a great deal of apathy. That does not mean that elected politicians should simply patronise their electorate by saying leave it to us but should actively engage in a debate about the acceptable balance between security and privacy.


Resources used:
Channel 4 News 10th June interview with Casper Bowden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22878591
13th June 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22839609
13th June 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-usa-security-eu-idUSBRE95A0K920130611
Independent 13th June 2013
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42d8613a-d378-11e2...
p.s. See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_1.html  (published 8th July 2013)