“What Barack Obama, Mike Rogers, Peter King, and their ilk mean when they tell us that ‘we’ need to find the right balance between security and privacy is that they will dictate to us what the alleged balance will be. We will have no real say in the matter, and they can be counted on to find the balance on the ‘security’ side of the spectrum as suits their interests. Of course, our rulers can’t really set things to the security side of the spectrum because the game is rigged. When we give up privacy — or, rather, when our rulers take it — we don’t get security in return; we get a more intrusive state, which means we get more insecurity.”
Related posts:
Bill Bonner: Gold 2.0
Never Mind the Wall—They’re Building Warehouses for Immigrant Children
Two FBI officials say the state of forensics is fine. Here’s why they’re wrong.
Glenn Greenwald: The Boston bombing produces familiar and revealing reactions
Now They Want Your Passwords
Noninterventionism Is the Only Cure for America’s Foreign Policy Woes
Chained CPI: Diet COLA for Social Security
Criminals do not need guns
Can Obama Control Syrian Outcomes?
Ron Paul: The VA Scandal is Just the Tip of the Military Abuse Iceberg
Jacob Hornberger: The Banality of Evil in the War on Drugs
'King Would've Marched on Obama'
“Gun Control for the Children?” Sorry, No Sale.
Jacob Hornberger: Let Puerto Go
Jim Rogers on the EU, the U S election, and the next big investment opportunity
