Re: Reactions to reported NSA PRISM program

["Flynn, Gary - flynngn" <flynngn () JMU EDU>]

<personal opinion> 

I think if anyone expects the government to foil terrorism plots, such
monitoring is necessary. There is certainly a substantial risk of abuse
and scope creep but I don't see any realistic option. If terrorists are
allowed to leverage today's technology unimpeded, there will be larger and
more coordinated attacks. When something happens, people will ask "why
didn't you know about that?".

Our society is extremely vulnerable. If you cannot fix the
vulnerabilities, you have to monitor and detect. Our freedom is our
vulnerability so I don't think anyone wants to "fix" that. Some privacy
may have to be sacrificed to preserve freedom.

Scope creep is probably the primary threat. "We must monitor threats to
the American way of life and our economy. We will add the following to the
definition of terrorist - tobacco smugglers, DMCA violators, gun
collectors, spam senders, and people who don't curb their dogs".

There is a large gray area in the middle where I'm sure there will be
constant disagreement and worries about who will watch the watchers.

I don't like it. But I think it is necessary.

</personal opinion>



On 6/7/13 9:02 AM, "Kevin Halgren" <kevin.halgren () WASHBURN EDU> wrote:

> For those of you already using Google or Microsoft cloud e-mail
> solutions, I'll be curious to hear the reactions on your campuses to
> this news.
>
> I believe the tech companies are telling the truth when they say they
> don't provide direct backdoor access into their systems and that the
> PRISM presentation may overstate the cooperation and capabilities of the
> system, however that doesn't preclude the government from abusing
> existing systems and capabilities e.g. those under CALEA lawful
> intercept capabilities.
>
> Kevin
>
> -- 
> Kevin Halgren
> Assistant Director - Systems and Network Services
> Washburn University
> (785) 670-2341
> kevin.halgren () washburn edu

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: