Hillary Clinton, Surveillance, Russia, NSA

[biocrat]

Hillary Clinton becomes indignant when she is subject of surveillance. She had this to say at the last debate about her exposed emails.

"But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions.”

She’s upset about espionage against Americans by the Russians? But what the NSA does is okay? She differentiates between foreign spying on Americans and the NSA. She thinks the NSA is American? Actually it’s more like a foreign, alien enterprise than not in that it is operating outside Constitutional imperatives.

The NSA surveillance apparatus is an abomination. It is absolutely un-American, un-Constitutional and unnecessary. The very technology it employs for its nefarious spying naturally gravitates toward decentralization and is itself an argument against the existence of the Boundless Informant. It was that very technology that gave one person the ability to archive and publish NSA files.

Nothing about government should be boundless except perhaps its limitations.

The electronic/information technology misused by NSA for its massive surveillance could be utilized in a more effective, less expensive, less intrusive way through a decentralized system.

Localities could set up their own systems for identifying suspicious communications in their own jurisdictions. All communications contained within a specific locale could be ignored. That is, phone calls, emails and texts from local residents to other local residents would as a rule be deemed uninteresting for national security purposes.

Computer programs could be devised to examine whole histories of local communications by particular parties and determine any unusual deviations from long term trends. Communications to other countries could be singled out for a closer look.

So, certain communications could be flagged by the program and pertinent information could be brought to the attention of the personnel monitoring the system. A stringent filtering process inherent in the program would provide, say, only particular overseas phone numbers to be checked out by the authorities. If a number connects to a suspicious party the authorities could then avail themselves of the rest of the information regarding that particular call and scrutinize all other communications in regard to the local number in question.

All local surveillance systems would be linked to all other local systems and so to a national data base of pertinent information from every locality where all kinds of cross indexing and cross checking could be implemented. So, all localities would be alerted to a suspect phone number and could scan for involvement with respect to any of their local numbers.

Generally, a locality would be a county. However, in sparsely populated areas a locality might be the whole state. In densely populated cities precincts or burroughs could be the designated localities. Each locality would be set up for optimal surveillance as well as optimal privacy. Any information that was gathered that proved to be benign as far as national security was concerned would be purged from the system.

Do you wonder like I do why something like such a program has not been suggested by any politician, think tank or any organization interested in preserving our Constitutional rights?

Meanwhile it is of vital importance that surveillance remains a two way street.

Of course, Wikileaks could become an instrument for the benefit of certain factions over others rather than generally interested in transparency across the board. And it would be better if their were at least two Wikileaks operations.

Another thing to consider here is the advent of quantum computers and their ability to produce absolutely secure encryption.

If I am a member of the ruling class I would want to commandeer quantum technology for the sole use by the ruling class so they could communicate without worries about being compromised and the rest of us would remain easy marks.

Would that be possible?

I'm not sure, but we do need to be extremely vigilant about safe guarding our freedom and privacy rights. But I don't see that happening and our rights continue to be trashed. And, as of now, we might be beyond the point of no return.