Assuming the NSA wasn't actively threatening/blackmailing politicians into compliance with their long-term goals? Probably most of the third-party candidates, especially those with a libertarian bent. This shit didn't "just happen", there have been deeply entrenched vested interests on both sides of the aisle angling for this for a long time. Hell, I usually ignore elections as ineffective, but if real progress hasn't been made (not just promises) on reigning in the NSA by election day this year I'm standing in line to vote all third-party, and recruiting all my friends to do the same. It may already be too late at this point, but if we don't at least try we've got nobody but ourselves to blame. And a congress packed full of deadlocked ideological nutters that at least kind of want to serve their constituency can only be an improvement over the current situation.

Hell, maybe we could make an event out of it - live music, BBQ, the works. Draw a big crowd to the minimum legal distance from the polling place, and encourage them to vote for anyone without a D or R beside their name. A zero-day "Vote out the Sock Puppets" campaign. Give the apathetic a reason to show up that has nothing to do with politics, and let peer pressure and their own distaste for entrenched politicians do the rest. After all you can listen to music, eat your burger, and generally shoot the shit just as easily while standing in line.

Elections have consequences folks.

That's a nice idea. But can you point to a collection of Representatives, Senators, and a President we could have elected over the past 12 years that would have prevented this?

now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.

...just keep chipping away at the rights, little by little.

We're getting close to the point of not needing a warrant or consent at all.

Anyone want to lay bets on when that will finally happen? I'm sadly not optimistic that it may not happen in my lifetime.

:(

As much as I loathe Internet Explorer, this sort of response is unproductive. A lot of people are forced to use Internet Explorer who are neither idiots nor prey on them. Public access computers in libraries, computers in businesses and non-profits that have limited IT resources, and schools in lower income areas are also large users of Internet Explorer.

Such blind, fanboyish hatred doesn't serve those users at all.

Do you really hope we mere mortals would have hard information about this ?
But really, if the NSA is doing industrial espionage on Petrobras, do you think the little American Oil companies would get that data ?
The affirmation that only the large corporations that are in bed with govt would get some of that data is essentially a given, no proof needed. It's too obvious. But more focus with being in bed with govt than being big.

Your whoosh implies that Akratist was joking. I don't think that was the case. I am sure they 100% believe in the corruption of our elected officials.

Surveillance Watchdog Concludes Metadata Program Is Illegal, "Should End"

  Any rational person with half a brain would come to the same conclusion.

Maybe they wouldn't directly put the public good ahead of profits, but they might put limiting their liability ahead of their profits.

Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

While companies exist to make money the idea that only the government really cares about the people is a little too simplistic. Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people.

There! I feel the hot breath of reform already. Big brother is a subcontract.

Now the secret courts will have to examine secret accusations with extra secrecy. The NSA building data centers will be reversed, so that the commercial sector can occupy this function. And send the bill for "services".

It's the distance.

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc). They also resent military spending as a rule. The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, lower/flatter tax regimes, market solutions to issues like healthcare and wages, and a regulatory regime which is not simply less stringent, but also more streamlined where it is in fact present (and they do not resent military spending, at least not as a rule).

Things are different outside the economic arena, true, but 2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy. So.

They have the right. They have exercised that right. The government has responded through the appropriate democratic process, as expressed by the representatives who (after much political debate) voted to pass the act.

Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA. NSA is not the threat, it's the maniacs that for example leave bombs at public sport events or goes shooting at a school.