NSA Surveillance

Mister Fernando Reinares's opinions are that there is a need of gathering intelligence on terrorist organizations to be effective in combating them and that for that purpose there is a need to have specialized branches of law enforcement. There is no distinction in bsh1's use of that opinion between sources of the information needed to be gathered or special powers that need to be given to anti-terror units to circumvent normal privacy provisions in the law. Therefore the use of complaints from citizens as starting points for intelligence gathering as opposed to complete recording of all conversations are useful for what mister Reinares had in mind. Having highly trained law enforcement branches to act on that classically gathered information is also quite enough for mister Reinares's analysis. No need to swim in an ocean of information that is useless because of inefficiency and give branches of law enforcement special powers to circumvent privacy laws to reach the security end point that mister Reinared had in mind. Mister John Carafano is the vice president of the conservative think tank organization named The Heritage Foundation[1]. In the Wikipedia page about the foundation we find out that it provided many ideas from which Ronald Reagan drew to form his policy during his presidency. We also find out that the same think tank has been accused by Sen. Orrin Hatch to be wrong about urging legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise. The conclusion is that The Heritage Foundation is an entity involved in politics and not objective research as even a fellow republican senator as mister Hatch finds it to be. Regarding U.K.'s Daily Mail, I find that it has just reprinted an NSA press release instead of finding the press release to be a series of thrust worthy facts. Furthermore there is a minimal amount of capability for the NSA employees to do investigation on the material that NSA has gathered. The NSA's admission that it only sifts through small percentages of the intelligence that it captures shows that the captured information can be too much of a good thing. Therefore we see the dots collecting and gathering dust in the NSA cloud waiting to be connected by analysts that have too much info on their hands as it stands. That is not even counting the same analysts interest in sifting through special matters like their spouse's whereabouts and communications[3]. That is When they are not doing something more[4]. I find it odd to use mister David Osmond's commentary on the matter since he is the former director of the British equivalent of the NSA. Therefore he is politically involved in the debate that has ensued in the press. And we find a second opposing opinion in that same BBC article that quotes mister Osmond that has the same general philosophy of what mister Schneier's opinions have been in the matter over the many blog posts that I have read over time. No need to give law enforcement special powers to defeat terrorist plots they are not efficient against in the first place. Finally we go to the type of oversight that the US presidency and the Congress claim is in place to protect the human rights of the citizens. To see what this is all about I would go to an interview of mister Bruce Schneier that appeared on a security related website and pick the following quote: 'We hear about secret rulings made by secret judges in secret courts. Just this past week we heard about a ruling by a secret judge that was so secret that she couldn"t tell the other secret judges about the secret ruling. These things feel fundamentally un-American.' Which is in the same vein with the secret definition of common words that the NSA has used to present to the public what it does[6]. So no public oversight of what is claimed to be a court of law and no visibility in how the people appointed to be judges got there or perform in their duties in their post. A far cry from the way the usual judicial system works with the Supreme Court as the final and public applicant of justice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://blogs.wsj.com... [4] https://www.schneier.com... see the quote 'who else might have stolen secrets before Snowden' [5] http://privacy-pc.com... [6] http://www.slate.com...