NSA undermines Fourth Amendment

To the editor:

Over the past few days, the Obama administration has acknowledged that, yes, the National Security Agency does download to its secure database selected information regarding billions of phone calls every day (“NSA secrets leaker revealed,” Monday Review-Journal). At the same time, the government assures us that this database will only be queried in the event that a given phone number has been linked to a known or suspected terrorist. Further, in order to initiate such a query, the NSA requires authorization from a court, presumably on the basis of a probable cause pleading.

While such assurances are encouraging, they raise more questions than they answer. Suppose a terrorist in Waziristan calls his cousin in Detroit. They discuss plans for an attack on U.S. infrastructure. Then this U.S.-born cousin calls his neighbor and says he’s no longer interested in purchasing her car for $1,200. As a secondary contact, will this innocent bystander become the subject of an NSA investigation and be permanently under surveillance?

Or consider the disturbing case of Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was targeted by the Department of Justice because he reported information about North Korea that he had received legally from a government source. The source was not authorized to divulge this information to a reporter, however. The information proved embarrassing to the administration, so Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a knowingly false affidavit, shopped the affidavit to three judges and finally found one who authorized searching Mr. Rosen’s electronic communications and those of his contacts to identify the leaker.

Was Mr. Rosen’s list of contacts, and their contacts, then queried, using the very same NSA database that the administration has just assured us will only be used if terrorism is suspected? If not, which database did the DOJ access?

With each new disclosure, I become less certain that our government isn’t spying on each and every one of us in a way that undermines the Fourth Amendment. Come 2014, how secure can we expect our health care information to be if our government decides to embarrass or destroy one of us?

HENRY SOLOWAY

LAS VEGAS

Hearings, Harry?

To the editor:

It’s fascinating, as well as alarming, to see the scandals pouring out of Washington. It seems our bureaucrats are running wild. The thought of the IRS, in the course of managing ObamaCare, having unprecedented access to our health records, as well as our financial records, is chilling.

I’m very thankful that the House oversight committees are bringing all this to light, seeking accountability, remembering who they work for and their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I’m looking forward to Sen. Harry Reid calling Senate Oversight Committee hearings as well, to see if anything new will be uncovered. There will be Senate committee hearings, right Sen. Reid?

ROBERT R. KESSLER

LAS VEGAS

Insurance premiums

To the editor:

In response to the June 3 column, “Insurers refuse, patients lose,” Paul Harasim’s rant against insurers is devoid of facts.

Mr. Harasim unfairly places the cost of health care directly in the hands of the insurers.

In reality, one of the biggest drivers of insurance premiums is a verdict such as the outrageous $500 million ruling against Health Plan of Nevada, for its role in the 2008 hepatitis C oubreak tied to Dr. Dipak Desai’s clinic. Patients across Nevada will see an increase in their monthly bills if this verdict stands. If that happens, then patients really will “lose,” and that’s a fact.

The only way that HPN, or any insurer for that matter, would know what Dr. Desai was doing would be to have an insurance representative in the room for every colonoscopy to make sure that proper procedures were being followed. Is that what Mr. Harasim is calling for? Insurance agents in every room while patients receive their examination?

LARRY HARRISON

LAS VEGAS

Get a real degree

To the editor:

Student loans aren’t the function of the federal government.

However admirable it might be to have an educated youth, if you need to borrow money, get it from a bank, not from my taxes (“Taking politics out of student loans,” June 5 Review-Journal).

When I got out of high school, I couldn’t afford college, so I got a daytime job to pay for it and took college courses at night. It took me twice as long to get my degree, but halfway through, having already acquired enough accounting skills, I got a job as a general ledger accountant. When I finally graduated, with high honors, I had zero student loans to pay and a job in my chosen field.

And for those who got money from the feds, how many went after junk degrees? You know, the ones with no marketable value? When I applied for my accounting job during college, I was competing against people who already had liberal arts degrees, among others. They couldn’t understand why I, not yet with a degree, was hired over them, with their diploma in hand. You think maybe it was because a liberal arts degree is useless to an accounting job? Or for that matter, pretty much any well-paying, high-skilled job?

RICHARD PULSIFER

HENDERSON