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. A n 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 agencySCHNEIER, 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-stop-domestic-spying-get-more-security/279537/, 7/9/15, KLM]

Regardless of how we got here, the NSA can’t reform itself. Change cannot come from within; it has to come from above. I t’s 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 doesn’t trample on the constitutional rights of Americans, or fundamentally jeopardize their privacy or security. This means that sometimes the NSA won’t 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; we’re resilient, and -- if we decided to act that way -- indomitable. But a government agency that is above the law ... it’s hard to see how America and its freedoms can survive that .¶

Failure to promote democracy and freedom results in ExtinctionDiamond 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 agreements in

secret. Precisely 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 world order of international security and prosperity can be built.