The former head of the NSA asserted that one can't know whether spying is legitimate or not unless one knows all the details about it.<\/p>\n
Reuters <\/p>\n
Is state surveillance a legitimate defense of our freedoms? The question was put to Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, during a debate Friday evening in Toronto. Alan Dershowitz joined him to argue the affirmative. Glenn Greenwald and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued against the resolution. <\/p>\n
No One Opposes All Surveillance: False Equivalence on the NSA <\/p>\n
Going in, I expected to disagree with Hayden, who presided over the NSA's illegal program of warrantless wiretapping in the years after the September 11 attacks. But I want to emphatically agree with the very first remarks he made in the debate. <\/p>\n
\"State surveillance is a legitimate defense of our freedoms,\" he said, restating the resolution. \"Well, we all know the answer to that. It depends. And it depends on facts.\" <\/p>\n
He quickly clarified: <\/p>\n
It depends on the totality of circumstances in which we find ourselves. What kind of surveillance? For what kind of purposes? In what kind of state of danger? <\/p>\n
And that's why facts matter. <\/p>\n
In having this debate, in trying to decide whether this surveillance is a legitimate defense of our freedoms, we really need to know exactly what this surveillance is. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post:<\/p>\n
Michael Hayden's Unwitting Case Against Secret Surveillance<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The former head of the NSA asserted that one can't know whether spying is legitimate or not unless one knows all the details about it. Reuters Is state surveillance a legitimate defense of our freedoms? Continue reading