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.