Frequent references in this and previous threads to the Kris paper do not, in my opinion, show how useless that paper is in really accessing the societal dangers of communications monitoring. Although it is interesting to understand that the government's key argument for modernizing FISA (communications have moved from radio to fiber) is much exaggerated, and that the House version of the modernization bill (RESTORE) is not acceptable to NSA (really!), there is essentially no mention of what has happened to information processing capabilities over the last thirty years. What you can get out the information is what counts.

Perhaps the most fundamental way to judge the increase in information processing capability is Moore's law: the number of active elements on an integrated circuit chip doubles about every two years. The simplest interpretation of this is that processing ability increases at about the same rate, or about 30,000 times in 30 years. A whole lot of other things have to improve in order to make this happen, but they have. You can edit movies on your pc now; in 1980 you could only move a simple object around the screen and perform simple computations. I think that 30,000 is a gross underestimate of the actual increase considering actual improvements in connecting things together.

No matter which version of FISA modernization passes, horrifyingly effective misuse of the capability is inevitable. The only way this can be prevented is by independent monitoring of the collection and analysis process. This might be impossible to achieve, in which case we are pretty much done for. But certainly the first step is to vote nearly all of current guys out of office and put intense pressure on the next bunch.

With enough control over all types of information transfer and storage, a particularly nasty group that has gained power would be able to turn enough of the opposition party in subtle and not so subtle ways so that there remains only the appearance of a functioning democracy. Is that just the plot of bad movie?

I do not think so, this time around. The current bunch will slither off into the sunset. They have lost their support through too much short term greed. But when the Rockford cycle next swings to the right, it could be different. The new ones will need to be smart, and first build a cadre deep into the agency that matters.

That is the likely response to a democratic victory in the presidential race and increase in "majorities" in the house and senate. Fight that passivity. There are many laws that will need to be changed, FISA not the least of them. The two repug reflexes, change the laws so they cannot use them against us, and keep them for us to use next time, will need to be played with great skill. Think Harry and Nancy are up to it? No? Then who do we want, and how?

I think of bottled water as a soft drink with the bad stuff removed.

Drinking a soft drink is very much like voting republican against your own interests. Drinking bottled water is sometimes necessary for survival in an airport.

So you are saying that Krugman's careful analyses are somehow the equivalent of Coulter's rants?

There are people on the right who reject Coulter and some who respect Krugman, even if disagreeing with everything he says. But there is no symmetry.

Dried blueberries are delightful; my oldest daughter brought me some from England for Christmas. By the way, I grew up mostly in Maryland, in what was country at the time, near DC. There was a spring in the back yard and wonderful well water. Water has not been so good again.

Also, once written into law this way, it's not possible to change next Congress, is it? ie revoke immunity next session?

Doubtful. I haven't researched it, but I would think that once Congress grants immunity, trying to undo it would have constitutional implications.

I believe that immunity removes the only direct way for a group of citizens to find out what actually happened, that is, through the information resulting from the lawsuits. But it does not seem to mean that the legislature, given a significant change in its composition and sufficient prodding, is prohibited from investigating. Or does the immunity clause somehow extend to that as well?

It seems to me that the very basis for even considering warrantless surveillance is wrong.

That may be, but it is not the issue. It is, rather, what classes of communication can the NSA take at will, that is, everything, and subject to intensive analysis. Under the FISA version that is currently intended for modification, NSA is free to monitor the world's radio communication and undersea cable communication. (I am simplifying this; that is not the whole story.) Much of the world wide communication that previously used radio (satellite) is now on fiber, and NSA claims that it needs to access the telecom hubs through which this passes. There are obvious issues here regarding how you protect US domestic communication, or even determine what is what.

The majority still isn't paying attention, but more are than we think. The main thing is not to give up.

And that means a plan for the future. If the current effort fails, what are the options?

The plan is many plans makes a good plan. I am concerned that there is little time to waste. It is normal in many societies for the actual power structure to be hidden. But really good communication interception coupled with powerful analysis makes it much easier to deceive.

OK, in some cases no effort is necessary to deceive. Shooter, are you not aware as computer power increases (maybe 30,000 times in 3 decades) the machine can do much of the analysis and deliver its results to whomever located wherever?