Print publication: Friday, June 14
I support Sen. Ron Wyden's efforts to rein in the excesses of the
of JAE (just about everybody). According to Wyden's website, he testified before Congress that he learned from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence "that it was 'not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the' FISA Amendments Act."
When thousands of people like Edward Snowden are hired and lavishly paid by private contractors and then given access to the electronic communications of JAE, no wonder it's tough to come up with hard numbers about this sort of spying.
Congress would better serve our country by reining in the intelligence-gathering excesses allowed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the USA Patriot Act than it would by punishing Snowden for giving us a peek at what goes on behind our national security state's curtain.
PHILIP HORNIK
Southwest Portland
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
With this fundamental principle, it is difficult to understand how the current universal Internet surveillance system and the secret FISA court that permits it -- which receives little scrutiny from Congress -- can exist.
By essentially placing every citizen's Internet records under surveillance, the government assumes that we are all potential terrorists. This is bound to have a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights, especially on voices of dissent.
Rather than making us more secure, this system places us all in danger, especially when the surveillance can be accessed by private contractors who are not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, but whose allegiance is to the profitability of the corporations for whom they work.
JONATHAN MERRITT
Northwest Portland
Submit a letter
us at
. Please limit your letter to 150 words and include your home address and phone number for verification. You can also
Post
at
, the Oregonian's online community opinion hub.
Edward Snowden's recent leak and acknowledgement of the National Security Agency surveillance program creates a real dilemma. I don't doubt that he violated his employment contract, and perhaps several laws, but the idea the he was exposing a secret is a stretch.
There are 535 members of Congress, the president's staff, and thousands of employees and contractors, all who knew or could easily access this information, as well as records of bills passed and funding for this surveillance. It is difficult to imagine that not a dribble of information about this huge program made it into the public eye.
Even so, assuming this is news to many, the actual content of what was leaked is minimal, akin to saying the Central Intelligence Agency has spies in foreign countries. The politicians' argument in favor can be summarized as, "this information can help us catch bad guys, so that makes it good." Of course, there are a number of forms of snooping and spying that could also catch bad guys, but most are illegal.
It seems to me that Snowden's biggest crime is that he embarrassed our government and weakened public perception. I am more offended that he got paid $200,000 per year while working in Hawaii.
RON MILLER
Hillsboro
Liberals and social democrats will never learn what our Founders and authors of the Constitution, many of whom wanted no central government at all, feared most:
You cannot build a monstrous federal government and then hope to control it, much less hope that it will control itself.
LOUIS SARGENT
Northwest Portland
Letter writer Glenn Koehrsen of Mulino (June 12) wonders "why no one seems to be concerned that the private sector is monitoring all private Internet traffic."
Please let me explain in the simplest of terms, which everyone should understand:
The private sector cannot intimidate you, indict you, try you in a court of law, imprison you with or without charges, or even execute you. The government can.
LEE RICHEY
Tualatin
I don't mind having all my media mined -- being the 12-Facebook-"friends" kind of person that I am.
I mind that Sen. Ron Wyden was blatantly lied to when asked if U.S. citizen surveillance was happening. And yes, people, we have it on tape.
DEE DUDEK
Southeast Portland
I'm intrigued by a consistent paradox in American conservatism, which the National Security Agency leak is the latest example of.
Conservatives are both our biggest political proponents of freedom from government intrusion and the biggest supporters of a surveillance state.
Conservatives: Help me understand this.
SEAN COYLE
Vancouver
Using classic doublespeak, David Brooks reasons that Edward Snowden "betrayed the privacy of us all" by exposing the National Security Agency's invasion of our privacy ("Snowden contributes to our growing distrust," June 12). He accuses Snowden, not the NSA, of contributing to our growing distrust of government.
Brooks warns, "If federal security agencies can't do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods."
Now that blast of cynicism is a revelation that truly will contribute to our growing distrust of government.
JOHN DUMAS
Gresham
The National Security Agency leaker should have kept his mouth shut. He should have remained loyal to his obligations and to his oaths to keep information secret.
And he should have remained loyal to our government.
BRANDON KATRENA
Happy Valley
Ad Choices 