Well the NSA's activities have strong bipartisan support (at least as long as as the public doesn't have a great idea about what it does). No member of the intelligence committees has changed their position as a result of these recent disclosures. Both republicans and democrats have rushed to defend the NSA.

The problem isn't a rogue agency that doesn't have oversight. The problem is the law that allows the NSA to do just that. Take section 215 of the patriot act for example(it allows the government to obtain business records aka the verizon phone provision ); it is written in a way that makes it laughably easy to use for almost any use at all. The FBI doesn't even have to go to the FISA court but can choose any magistrate judge they want. The only restriction is "that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Wonderful......

> Both republicans and democrats have rushed to defend the NSA.

In terms of realpolitik, that only makes sense. Politicians will defend anyone that they think might have the dirt on them. Intelligence apparatuses in all ages exist to control the political class.

Hoover's reign at the FBI is a history of political control via intel.

Senator Select Committee on Intelligence members Mark Udall and Ron Wyden may not have changed their opinions, but these leaks have changed what they can say about it, and that's not exactly complementary, e.g. try this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=senator+wyden+nsa

You're reading far too much into what I said, which was pointing out, at least based on the excerpts you quoted, that you hadn't made the case they were "not bound or beholden the US Constitution or law" back then.

Which you aren't as of yet denying, since you're only replying to asides on details you didn't address that are either relevant today (enabling legislation that's been passed since then) or relevant for all this period (power of the purse, and of course what the Congress did last year is hardly relevant to what they'll do this year after all these revelations, or in 2015 after the next round of elections, etc.).

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate but I'd gently suggest that you worry less about what I think and more about the lawless agency that appears to have untoward power over our lives.

I'm not talking about what you think but what you've said in this discussion, or rather haven't said, that "you hadn't made the case" the NSA is lawless.

Which I think is a very important point: if they are subject to the rule of law, we have a variety of legal means to deal with them, some of which I've outlined.

If they are truly lawless, our options shrink down to the unpalatable choices of avoiding getting stomped on (which neither of us chose, given our participation in this discussion) or by definition extra-legal action. I'm not going to suggest that's what you're saying, but if you truly do believe they're lawless, do you have any ideas for action vs. "worry" and other forms of inaction?

> "you hadn't made the case" the NSA is lawless.

I don't need to. Their actions define them. They're not acting lawfully so therefore they must be lawless.

I have my own methods for keeping a low profile on the net. I wish I felt comfortable sharing them in a public forum, but I don't.

Please email me. My contact is in my profile

> I have my own methods for keeping a low profile on the net.

The Five Rules of surviving today's total surveillance information personal property cleptocracy:

1) Don't think.

2) If you think, don't speak.

3) If you think, and speak, don't write.

4) If you think, speak, and write, don't sign.

5) If you think, speak, write and sign, be prepared to escape to Hong Kong.