FCC DA

Currently FCC is on the same level of the NSA in that it is

controlled by congress.
The Federal Communications Commission, No date
[What We Do, https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do, 7/9/15, KLM]
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications
by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S.
territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the
commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation
and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges
associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on
its competencies in:

Putting the FCC in charge of the NSA is ineffective, while creating a

new rogue agency
SCHNEIER, contributing writer for The Atlantic and the chief technology
officer of the computer-security firm Co3 Systems, 13
[Bruce, 9/11/13, The Atlantic, The NSA-Reform Paradox: Stop Domestic Spying, Get More
Security, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-nsa-reform-paradox-stopdomestic-spying-get-more-security/279537/, 7/9/15, KLM]
Regardless of how we got here, the NSA cant reform itself. Change cannot come from within; it
has to come from above. Its the job of government: of Congress, of the courts, and of
the president. These are the people who have the ability to investigate how things

became so bad, rein in the rogue agency, and establish new systems of
transparency, oversight, and accountability. Any solution we devise will make the NSA
less efficient at its eavesdropping job. That's a trade-off we should be willing to make, just as we
accept reduced police efficiency caused by requiring warrants for searches and warning suspects
that they have the right to an attorney before answering police questions. We do this because we
realize that a too-powerful police force is itself a danger , and we need to balance our
need for public safety with our aversion of a police state. The same reasoning needs to
apply to the NSA. We want it to eavesdrop on our enemies, but it needs to do so in a way
that doesnt trample on the constitutional rights of Americans , or fundamentally
jeopardize their privacy or security. This means that sometimes the NSA wont get to eavesdrop,
just as the protections we put in place to restrain police sometimes result in a criminal getting
away. This is a trade-off we need to make willingly and openly, because overall we are safer that
way. Once we do this, there needs to be a cultural change within the NSA. Like at the FBI and CIA
after past abuses, the NSA needs new leadership committed to changing its culture. And giving
up power. Our society can handle the occasional terrorist act; were resilient, and -- if we decided
to act that way -- indomitable. But a government agency that is above the law ... its

hard to see how America and its freedoms can survive that .

Failure to promote democracy and freedom results in

Extinction
Diamond 95 (Larry- Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s, 1995)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the
former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal
drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with
authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones .

Nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source
of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered .
Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern
themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another.
They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less
likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not
build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries
form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable
climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own
citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international
treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach

because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil

liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new
agreements in secret. Precisely

world order of international security and prosperity can be built.