Absolutely - but I see this a lot happening with other news outlets as well.

They heavily try to de-personalize issues like NSA or the IRS and attribute it to systemic failures and attribute the blame towards bureaucratic functions or something like "the current administration".

At the same time they seem to fully recognizing that attacks need to be personal in order to stick - as they demonstrated back at the time with the criticism of the Bush administration.

Back then, Republicans supported the programs overwhelmingly. Now, it's Democrats. I think distancing the objections from partisan-ly charged individuals might be the better tack, in terms of actually rallying support, even if it is "unfair."

I don't think its as simple as "ending it with a phone call". Billion dollar programs don't ever get killed that easy.

It is literally that simple. If Bush ordered this surveillance started, Obama can order it stopped. The NSA works for him. If they don't do as he asks he can start firing people until they do.

Obviously Schneier understood this when he wrote his 2005 column.

Yes. The Obama fiasco has been a huge disappointment. I'm interested in ideas about what could have been done differently -- Obama talked a very good game during his candidacy about issues of this sort. The really big indicator he was being dishonest was the post-election flip-flop over unwarranted wiretaps.

Only picking candidates that have a track record of opposition to programs like this would be good, but such candidates are in very short supply. (Feingold is about the only one that comes to mind.)

>post-election

Pre-election. He flip-flopped about the wiretaps prior to his election, after winning the primaries.

I think it has gone beyond that - if Obama stood up and said "I've made that phone call, Gen. Alexander is turning off PRISM as we speak" would anyone believe it?

Its verifiability that counts.

Well, he could very easily create an independent committee with input from EFF and such organisations (they should be able to find some technically competent people with TS clearances they trust) to go in and review the systems.

You mean the same process of "putting arms beyond reach" that Western governments insist terrorist organisations use, usually before talks begin?

Could be, as long as we also look at Truth and Reconciliation committees too ...

Wow. They have really lost trust of a pretty significant section of society.

> an independent committee with input from EFF and such organisations (they should be able to find some technically competent people with TS clearances they trust)

I see no particular reason to trust these people more than Obama.

If Congress had chartered, ordered, or knowingly funded the NSA's domestic spying, it would be a lot harder. But as things are, I'm inclined to agree with you.

I think you have the gist of it. The cliche is that it's easier to great a government program than to kill it.

Further, there have been numerous prior attempts to rein in people like Poindexter and Hayden. The champions of the surveillance state have been remarkably tenacious.

>If Schneier is as unhappy with today's programs as he was with 2005's, then perhaps he should communicate a bit more clearly that today's occupant of the Oval Office could end any of them with a phone call.

I want to believe this is true.