[FourPeas]

"More data from millions of law-abiding Americans is not always better data," Cruz said.

But it is an invasion of our privacy.

[dforest]

I am a Trump fan, but I do not have a problem with Cruz on this.

[libbylu]

I listened to the speech, most excellent.
Article on breitbart now - Cruz says WSJ should change its header to the “We Support Rubio for President Newspaper”.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/10/cruz-wall-street-journal-should-change-their-name-to-the-marco-rubio-for-president-newspaper/

[House Atreides]

“Bulk data collection” has not ended. The data that the government collected is STILL being collected but is now housed solely with telecommunications companies and is QUICKLY retrievable and available to our federal agencies UPON SUBMITTAL OF A WARRANT SIGNED BY A JUDGE.

I have absolutely NO problem with this new arrangement...it supports national security interests as well as individual privacy concerns.

[gdani]

As if my tagline was not already an indicator, I would love to see government surveillance become a legitimate campaign issue.

If nothing else, it would help identify true conservatives versus flavors of the day.

[basil]

GO Senator Cruz

[Dr. Sivana]

Cruz has tried to stake out a compromise position between the muscular interventionism of Rubio and the surveillance-skeptical libertarianism of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, both GOP presidential competitors.

No, he DID stake out a compromise position. If X says A+B, and Y says neither A nor B, and Z says B but not A, Z has staked out a compromise position. Full stop.

[Seruzawa]

Still waiting for evidence that any of the increased powers via the Patriot Act actually increased safety. Apparently Jihadis can post their intentions on Facebook with impunity. Massive firings of DHS, FBI, CIA and NSA management bureaucrats would do more for us. Especially since the people who run these bureaucracies seem to think that changing warning colors increases safety. Someone intelligent might step into the breach. Might not. It’s unlikely these organizations could become less competent.

[Gandalf the Mauve]

Mass surveillance makes us less safe. The data is 99.9999% useless (except to apparatchiks looking for something to screw over an personal or political enemy) noise and makes it hard to find the actual threat signals. That's why the Feds missed (for example) the Boston Marathon bombers even though they got a specific warning identifying them as dangerous jihadists.