On 3/11/15 12:03 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm interested in hearing answers to lots of MZ's questions here, but
this particular argument doesn't concern me much. Such a decision
probably wouldn't end surveillance immediately, but it would inform the
implementers that they are criminals. That matters, if only to provide
encouragement and comfort to future whistle-blowers.
But more to the point: even if by some miracle, this case were resolved in
2015 with a very explicit federal court order instructing the National
Security Agency to cease mass surveillance, is there anyone who believes
that this will end mass surveillance?
Any political battle like this will be a long, pitched struggle that
most likely lasts decades. The fact that there's no simple immediate
victory condition isn't a great argument against fighting.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: