“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:
Imagining a Legal Basis for Obama's Overseas Assassinations
Surveillance State? Washington Post Explains It ... Not!
By Global Standards, The US Education Bureaucracy Gets the Most Money With Mediocre Results
The Vlad and Donald Show – A Glorious Blow for Peace
Should insider trading be legal? Insiders say yes
Benghazi: Who Cares?
6 Insidious Ways Surveillance Changes the Way We Think and Act
The Military Industrial Complex’s Assault on Liberty
Peter Schiff: US Could Be On A Gold Standard Within Two Years
The World’s Central Banks Blink
Jacob Hornberger: Duterte’s Murder Model is the U.S. Government
Are You Ready for This Coming Disaster?
Bravo Britain
Doug Casey: The Gold Crash Is Not What Either Bulls or Bears Are Telling You
U.S. Officials Are Above the Law of Nations and Ordinary Laws