The United States is this limited government, with strict limits on what it's allowed to do.

Yeah, I know. It hasn't worked out that way. But do you think other governments, starting with fewer restraints, are doing less than the US? Or more?

I could see saying that the US is doing it in higher volume, because it's got more money to spend on government excess.

That makes me think of something I saw on HN yesterday [0] where the author was saying that a private right of action to sue in the courts was an important part of offloading power away from the US government proper.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38480187

>Yeah, I know. It hasn’t worked out that way.

This is where the writers of the Constitution missed the boat a little. With all of their smarts they probably could have written something in there to hold accountable those who would have any part in enacting a rule or law the violates the Constitution. Not a simple task at all but a worthwhile addition IMHO.

Incentives are a factor too though. The us needs to hold a mostly voluntary empire together, that requires a lot more intrigue than the average country.

>voluntary empire

lmao ycomb.

I mean relative to other empires in history. Maybe the Persian one comes close, maybe. I don’t like living in a client state but I’m under no illusions things would be better under the British or Spanish

In this case, I don't believe the NSA actually broke the law. They purchased data that was on the open market. You don't need a court order to collect data when it's *that* convenient.

The buried lede here is: why is it legal to resell that data in the first place. (Hint: because it makes Intelligence Community's job 100x easier). This ultimatum for answers is simply theatre.