The Administration's Definition of "Limited"

Why does it not surprise me that the Administration has a very different view on what constitutes "limited" surveillance than I do?

Without the context, this article on the NSA eavesdropping program from yesterday's Washington Post would just be fascinating, outlining as it does some of the technical capabilities and practices of the NSA (in that regard, the merest tip of the iceberg I am sure). However, given the context, it is truly terrifying. It turns out there are no legal or policy-based limits on the eavesdropping program. The only limits are those posed by the capabilities of the 38,000 NSA employees and the computers they use. And even those "limits" are far, far smaller than anyone reading this blog would ever suspect.

It would be nice to believe that the Supreme Court -- or the law in general -- could put this genie back in the bottle. But that is a like counting on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to control the spread of nuclear weapons. However much we might wish it were otherwise, the whole notion of a "private" communication, even among citizens, has become simply quaint. We have but two choices: quit communicating or accept the fact that the Government is probably intercepting the communication. The only battle worth fighting now is the one over what the government can do with the information it collects.

Long live the poisonous tree!