Wyden: If we don't...revise our surveillance laws now... all of us are going to regret it.

[Luminous Animal]

If you haven't already, go here and give Wyden your appreciation:
If you live in Oregon, you can contact his office through his website here:
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/contact

If you live elsewhere...

Washington D.C.
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510
tel [phone]
fax [phone]

Wyden interview with Ars Technica

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/two-years-later-senators-criticism-of-nsa-spying-sinks-in/

Ars: What about changes on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court? All the judges on it are appointed by one person, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Does that need to change?

Sen. Wyden: There is much about the FISA court that is anachronistic, and it needs to be updated. Their work back in the 1970s was garden variety stuff: they looked at government applications for wiretaps, and made judgments about probable cause. But 9/11 changed all of that. The FISA court [today] is a result of these take-your-breath away rulings—they said the Patriot Act could be used for bulk surveillance.

I know of no other judicial body that's so one-sided. The government lawyers lay out their arguments, and the court decides just on that.

Ars: It was Edward Snowden's leaks that brought this whole debate to the fore. Do you think at the end of the day, the leaks were a good thing?

Sen. Wyden: I have two statements on that. First, when there is criminal investigation underway, as there is here, I don't comment on the specifics of it.

But I do feel very strongly that the debate of the last eight weeks should have been started a long, long, long time ago by those who hold elected office, rather than by Edward Snowden.

Ars: Anything else you want to add?

Sen. Wyden: This is a unique time in our constitutional history. There's been a combination of dramatic changes in technology, and sweeping decisions from the FISA court. If we don't take the opportunity to revise our surveillance laws now—to show that security and liberty can go hand in hand—all of us are going to regret it.

And a link to another Wyden thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023374096

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Oh, come now. This is a gross overstatement.

Only the bottom 99.9% will regret it.

[Luminous Animal]

4. :)

[Life Long Dem]

2. I like this one answer

But I do feel very strongly that the debate of the last eight weeks should have been started a long, long, long time ago by those who hold elected office, rather than by Edward Snowden.

But instead Greenwald worshipers will be making this hyperbole scammer rich.

And he's right about one person appointing judges, that should change.

[Savannahmann]

3. Interesting.

Congress was prohibited under classification rules to expose the true extent of the intrusions into our privacy that were going on. Without public pressure, then all that they had to go on was the idea we would appreciate it if no further attacks came. The ends justified the means. Now, we're having debate on the issue because of that hyperbole scammer as you call him. So how can you like the statement that we should have had this discussion a long time ago, while detesting the source of the information we needed in order to debate.

Because if we had discussed it as a hypothetical, we would have been accused of spreading Conspiracy Theory. So which is it? Is the debate long over due, or should Snowden and Greenwald have kept their mouths shut. Because it is one or the other. Until we know at least the broad overview of the programs being used against us, we can't debate it intelligently. And if you do keep abreast of the more well considered CT, then you know that all of these programs are right in keeping with the capabilities of the US Government.

[Life Long Dem]

5. I said why

Because Greenwald is only wanting to line his pockets. Hyperbole works better when you have a book deal.

Like Wyden said... the debate should be with "those who hold elected office, rather than by Edward Snowden".

[Wilms]

6. In that case I hope he gets rich.

Did he steal your lunch money or something?

[frylock]

8. fucking a..

these people certainly don't begrudge the Clintons the mad coin they bring in for their speaking engagements, but heaven forbid that a writer would make money by writing books.

[frylock]

7. do you offer your goods and services for free?

Were Woodward and Bernstein looking to line their pockets when they exposed Watergate?

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. K&R

Cheers!

[kentuck]

10. Also, I would add...

When a country loses the trust of its people, it loses its legitimacy to govern.

[ProSense]

11. Another Wyden interview

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023381665

[Luminous Animal]

12. Thank you.