I trust the NSA to do just that.
> the control of the purse the Congress has
They increased the NSA's budget by $4 billion last year.
You're more than welcome to trust an agency with little to no oversight. I'll keep my faith in human nature. It's served me well all these years.
Which you aren't as of yet denying, since you're only replying to asides on details you didn't address that are either relevant today (enabling legislation that's been passed since then) or relevant for all this period (power of the purse, and of course what the Congress did last year is hardly relevant to what they'll do this year after all these revelations, or in 2015 after the next round of elections, etc.).
Which I think is a very important point: if they are subject to the rule of law, we have a variety of legal means to deal with them, some of which I've outlined.
If they are truly lawless, our options shrink down to the unpalatable choices of avoiding getting stomped on (which neither of us chose, given our participation in this discussion) or by definition extra-legal action. I'm not going to suggest that's what you're saying, but if you truly do believe they're lawless, do you have any ideas for action vs. "worry" and other forms of inaction?
I don't need to. Their actions define them. They're not acting lawfully so therefore they must be lawless.
I have my own methods for keeping a low profile on the net. I wish I felt comfortable sharing them in a public forum, but I don't.
The Five Rules of surviving today's total surveillance information personal property cleptocracy:
1) Don't think.
2) If you think, don't speak.
3) If you think, and speak, don't write.
4) If you think, speak, and write, don't sign.
5) If you think, speak, write and sign, be prepared to escape to Hong Kong.
The problem isn't a rogue agency that doesn't have oversight. The problem is the law that allows the NSA to do just that. Take section 215 of the patriot act for example(it allows the government to obtain business records aka the verizon phone provision ); it is written in a way that makes it laughably easy to use for almost any use at all. The FBI doesn't even have to go to the FISA court but can choose any magistrate judge they want. The only restriction is "that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Wonderful......
In terms of realpolitik, that only makes sense. Politicians will defend anyone that they think might have the dirt on them. Intelligence apparatuses in all ages exist to control the political class.
Hoover's reign at the FBI is a history of political control via intel.
I might be missing something but just because X applies to Y doesn't mean X doesn't apply to Z.