> a well-thought-out weakness can easily be worth [a lot]
Indeed, but my point is, in addition to be worth a lot, it's difficult to implement, and it's very fragile. Every time they use it, they gamble its secrecy, hence its effectiveness. So they won't use it for petty reasons, only for genuine national security matters.
The problem isn't that NSA works on ensuring national security: it's that the scope of what they consider national security, and thus justifies extra-legal measures in their eyes, grows unreasonably, becoming a threat to the robustness of democracy.
A spy agency's ideal environment is totalitarian, not democratic. For a starter, they're scared of free speech and accountability. There must be counter-powers, cancelling their natural tendency to push towards totalitarianism (this is in no way specific to the USA).
> If they decide they don't like you there are all sorts of other ways [than courts] they can screw with you.
Yes, but those ways don't scale. You can screw with a couple of people you dislike, but not with hundreds or thousands of people simultaneously.
The problem isn't NSA. It's the President(s) and Congress who define the scope. Call me naive, but I think that most of the folks at NSA, even many of the leaders, are patriots who believe that they are protecting their country.
If you believe that politicians control the bureaucracy rather than the other way around, then I respectfully disagree.
Bureaucrats have expertize, inertia, the ability to sabotage many things, long term stable positions, and care about how things actually are, rather than how they look to the average voter. In many cases, including this one IMO, politicians have the appearance of control, but very little actual latitude in practice.
For better or worse, I'm intimately familiar with the strange working of bureaucracies. Obama's presidency is a textbook example of a politician being consumed by intertia.
That said, politically originated policy turned the FISA Court into a Star Chamber making Supreme Court type decisions, and broadened the scope of NSA's role from spying on the Russians to spying on humanity.
Politicians can curtail those activities as well, either by making explicit policy changes, or by defunding things strategically. It requires courage.
Indeed, but my point is, in addition to be worth a lot, it's difficult to implement, and it's very fragile. Every time they use it, they gamble its secrecy, hence its effectiveness. So they won't use it for petty reasons, only for genuine national security matters.
The problem isn't that NSA works on ensuring national security: it's that the scope of what they consider national security, and thus justifies extra-legal measures in their eyes, grows unreasonably, becoming a threat to the robustness of democracy.
A spy agency's ideal environment is totalitarian, not democratic. For a starter, they're scared of free speech and accountability. There must be counter-powers, cancelling their natural tendency to push towards totalitarianism (this is in no way specific to the USA).
> If they decide they don't like you there are all sorts of other ways [than courts] they can screw with you.
Yes, but those ways don't scale. You can screw with a couple of people you dislike, but not with hundreds or thousands of people simultaneously.