With the US government’s surveillance programmes now under fire, the fate of these security systems is in the balance.
But there are still two major questions about their security: how much should they be protected and how much is too much?
The answer to the former is no.
For the latter, the answer is yes.
And the answer to both is no more than a yes.
The answers to both are yes, but only one is a yes in the grand scheme of things.
The second is a no.
The answer is a complete no.
The question of the extent of the damage The NSA revelations have been a huge shock to the US intelligence community.
It is not the first time the agency has been caught in a scandal.
In 2014, Edward Snowden leaked classified documents showing the extent to which the US National Security Agency (NSA) spied on millions of ordinary Americans.
The documents exposed a US program called PRISM, which was designed to collect vast amounts of data on international telecommunications and internet traffic.
It is unclear whether the NSA was involved in PRISM.
But the leaks led to revelations that the NSA had been monitoring the communications of the leaders of other governments.
And in 2017, the US Congress passed legislation that would give the NSA broad new powers to target foreign nationals and their associates in the US.
That was followed by an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allowed the agency to spy on US citizens and their organisations.
This has made US intelligence agencies vulnerable to criticism and, for the most part, has led to an atmosphere of fear.
It has also led to some of the most draconian measures in recent US history.
Some have argued that the reforms introduced in the last year are more important than the Snowden leaks.
The NSA has been forced to tighten its surveillance procedures, which, as the New York Times recently reported, had been tightened in the months following the Snowden revelations.
But it has also been able to reform its surveillance programmes to make them more effective.
A lot of people, including a lot of Republicans, have said that these changes are not worth the risk to the privacy of US citizens.
But there is also some debate about whether or not these changes have made the NSA safer.
The New York times argued that there are many safeguards in place to prevent the NSA from compromising Americans’ communications.
The Guardian argued that while some reforms have helped, they are not enough.
These arguments are worth considering in light of the revelations of PRISM and the new FISA legislation.
They are important because they demonstrate that the US has been able, in the short term, to prevent harm to the NSA’s communications from going undetected.
The reforms, however, have been inadequate to stop harm from happening in the long term.
But we should not be complacent.
This is the second of a three-part series on surveillance.
Part one discussed the NSA and its surveillance practices.
Part two explored the implications of the PRISM revelations for civil liberties and privacy in the United States.
Part three examined the impact of the new US surveillance laws on US and international relations.