Judge Deals a Blow to N.S.A. Data Collection Program
Due to the nature of such surveillance - there is little oversight over what is actually being done. Which means there is no promise <i>anything</i> is being done. As a citizen, is there any way for me to know for certain or must I have faith my government is working how it claims to work? I'll explain...<p>[Begin conspiracy theory]If a judge marks it unconstitutional or not or forbids them from doing it doesn't necessarily mean that the NSA stops. That only works if you have faith in your government.<p>A government set to maintain its own power, after being outed by a whistleblower, would seek to save face. Have judges "ban acts of surveillance" and distribute that knowledge to the general public while secretly maintaining the actions behind the curtains. With a smaller, more loyal/contained group to prevent future whistleblowers. [/End conspiracy theory]<p>If it is found that the NSA continued to keep/records phone records after being "forbidden from doing so" - <i>who</i> would be held responsible? Would it be the head of the NSA? Head of the specific surveillance department in charge of the program? How would they be "punished"? How would the government insure it doesn't happen again? Who provides oversight of the NSA, <i>outside</i> of the NSA?