Are you actually implying that information gathered by security services has been used to derail someone's presidential campaign, even in the era of the worst of such abuses? Because that's what the OP is worried about, ostensibly. And it's silly.
These sorts of comments absolutely infuriate me. Just because we can't point to an instance where we know someone's presidential campaign has been thwarted doesn't mean we should ignore the possibility. If you wait for proof of malfeasance before taking a stand you are by definition always playing catch-up and praying for the next Snowden to bring you up to speed.
The only way to prevent tragic abuses of power is to be proactive. We cannot wait for abuses to occur, we must be constantly vigilant in recognizing potential abuses and stopping them before they occur (just imagine how effective network security would be if it were entirely reactive instead of proactive).
The world got a wake-up call with the Snowden revelations. But anyone with some technical know-how and foresight knew much of what he revealed was happening already (although I'm sure even the most forward thinking technologist was surprised at some of the revelations). I would hope the era of "but where's the proof" would be over when it comes to protecting ourselves from oppressive surveillance powers.
The only way to secure this country from domestic enemies in perpetuity is to make sure such detrimental abuses cannot occur, ever. Waiting until proof is revealed is far too late. And absolutely never trust anyone with unchecked power.
Your argument is also brain-dead in that the amount of information available was minuscule compared to now (thus avenues for abuse and relevant information was proportionately minuscule). The fact that it didn't happen in the era of the largest (known) abuses says absolutely nothing about the likelihood of it happening going forward.
If you wait for proof of malfeasance before taking a stand you are by definition always playing catch-up
And if you string together conspiracies without a shred of evidence to support them, you are by definition making shit up whole cloth. This puts you in the same irrational company as Alex Jones, Art Bell, etc , etc.
The existence of bad actors absolutely does not mean that we abandon all critical thinking and logic and rationality. There is precisely as much evidence that the NSA is blackmailing presidential candidates as there is evidence that there is a camera in my underwear drawer or that chemtrails exist.
>The existence of bad actors absolutely does not mean that we abandon all critical thinking and logic and rationality.
Rationality is not equivalent to empiricism, as you seem to be implying.
>There is precisely as much evidence that the NSA is blackmailing presidential candidates as there is evidence that there is a camera in my underwear drawer or that chemtrails exist.
But the plausibility of the two are incomparable. Given what we know about human nature and the information available, and the abuses already made public, it is a legitimate fear. This combined with the immense gravity of such abuses, a rational consideration of the facts indicates that we take proactive measures to prevent it.
You say chemtrails are implausible? We already know that the TLA's have experimented with mind control agents, ala MKULTRA (though under different circumstances) and probably other still-secret programs, so using the rubric you just described, chemtrails are also a legitimate fear.
Not really. Think of it in terms of the number of assumptions necessary for each scenario to be true. For the case of spying, the only assumption necessary is that there will eventually be a confluence of opportunity for malfeasance and someone inclined towards unethical behavior. What is the probability that these two events occur simultaneously eventually? Very high indeed. A highly plausible scenario would be simply an analyst looking up information against a political candidate they don't like and leaking personal information they find to sink a campaign. The fact that analysts have spied on romantic interests shows that opportunity and disposition has already occurred. The plausible scenarios only get more sinister from there.
When it comes to chemtrails, a whole string of highly improbable assumptions are necessary for it to be true. The probability of these two cases are not comparable.
Technically we do release silver iodine (and other stuff) into clouds for weather modification. So there is some fact in the idea, but passenger aircraft are not actively spreading anything.
Clearly, but the fact they infuriate you doesn't change my rebuttal of the OP's point. Which you still haven't addressed, short of telling me how it infuriates you. I understand you're infuriated.
Eliot Spitzer absolutely had Presidential ambitions, and certainly had ambitions for other elected office for positions other than the Presidency. He resigned as governor, and likely derailed any hope for future political office.
"The investigation of Spitzer was reportedly initiated after North Fork Bank reported suspicious transactions to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as required by the Bank Secrecy Act, which was enhanced by Patriot Act provisions, enacted to combat terrorist activity such as money-laundering."
Replace "president" with any political position, even ones outside of the US.
I'm not actually worried about MY presidential campaign. But if there is a close race, there is always the "we have the candidates ebay/amazon browsing history from 2009" or "those text messages he/she sent to their secretary" option that could dramatically change history.
The potential for abuse is too great to not have limits on data-retention.
If a sperm tainted dress stored on a closet for a couple years can do a lot of damage, imagine a full-take database stored for a couple decades or maybe even a couple centuries.
How would anyone know if they had done so? The point is they CAN exercise this kind of power, and they can do so in ways that can't be traced back to them. So who knows if they've done it? Who knows if they will? The fact that they could is the problem. Even that shadowy hypothetical threat gives them enormous (anti-democratic) power.
In fact, the very possibility will presumably weight upon anyone considering a political career, and as such these powers will likely have an effect whether or not they are actually used.
