Transparency (Update, Update II)

I'm starting to wonder if we ever had any, at least as far as the government is concerned. Somehow, the revelations of the activities of the NSA -- their scope and the almost complete lack of any meaningful oversight -- didn't really surprise me all that much. (I start to wonder how, in light of all that we've learned over the years about enemies lists, the cozy relationships of lobbyists and legislators, the activities of the Kochs and Adelsons -- not to mention their major tool, ALEC, I can still have any faith in the basic decency of human beings. But I do. I've always been like that.)

The president's speech on the NSA, to be quite honest, strikes me as more cosmetic than substantive. I do welcome the idea of increased transparency in the FISA court's activities (and in the area of the courts and secrecy, see this article by David Kurtz at TPM -- fascinating), but I think I'll withhold judgment until I see it in action.

As for the whole idea of having third parties serve as repositories for the data that NSA mines, are you kidding me? We don't have enough collusion between government and business as it is? What accountability are these "third parties" going to have, and to whom? And as for security, let me put it this way: would you want Microsoft responsible for the security of your personal information?

Update: In case you think I'm too cynical about the government and the religion of "secrets," see this post from Anne Laurie at Balloon Juice. The money quote:

… Twelve years after 9/11, who exactly is the U.S. at war with?

When I contacted the Pentagon to get an answer, a spokeswoman emailed back: “The list is classified and not for public release.”…

Update II: Here's a nice summary of the reactions to the president's speech, most of which I agree with. I think my favorite, though, is from Gawker:

"NSA Surveillance Is Awesome and Also Awful and Um... Yeah. USA!"