U.S. President Obama to 'rebalance' NSA surveillance program, but is that enough?

President Obama announces adjustments to NSA surveillance program

President Barack Obama announced changes to the large-scale electronic surveillance program that has been undertaken by the NSA (National Security Agency) in an effort to make the program more transparent. Calling it a "rebalancing" of the program, the President announced that the government will be taking steps to make sure that the program isn't being abused and is applied narrowly.

These steps include a review of the program in relation to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which concerns the collection of phone data. Additionally, the President announced the creation of a board of outside experts to review the surveillance technologies of the United States. The President did not address any data collection outside of phone calls.

The companies involved in the surveillance efforts had have already called for greater transparency in the program. Many of them had previously denied direct participation in the surveillance.Technology leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, recently met with President Obama to express their concerns over the program.

Granted, this only applies to U.S. programs, the ones getting all the attention lately, but if you're in the U.S. and have been concerned by the programs and allegations about the programs, does the "rebalancing" make you feel any better, and if not, what would?

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is a news reporter for iMore. He's also chilling out and having a sandwich.

More Posts

 

5
loading...
4037
loading...
26
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

Nintendo won't make games for Apple, so what about game controllers?

Next up →

How to secure and encrypt your OS X Mail messages with GPGMail 2

There are 2 comments. Add yours.

kch50428 says:

The answer to the headline question is, "No.".

Gazoobee says:

There should be no warrantless spying period. The US got by without that sort of thing for over 200 years. For it to be acceptable now, you have to make the argument (and many do of course) that the world is somehow "different" today and that these differences justify not caring about the constitution. I have yet to see a valid argument in that vein.

There was actually *more* terrorism in the 1970's for instance, *more* people died from it each year and it did *more* damage calculated in dollars. Yet no one suggested to abrogate the constitution back then. People simply dealt with the fact that terrorists kill people sometimes.

It's literally trading freedom for safety and it doesn't do *anything* to address the root causes of the terrorism in the first place.